Talk:Poly(methyl methacrylate)

message: Some people have health concerns about various acrylics79.68.139.131 (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. If this stuff is being used to repair people's eyes and stuff there have got to be some safety-data available somewhere. Let's see what we can find, people. Koyae (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Health concerns?

message: The coefficient of thermal exapnsion is listed incorrectly. It is in units of Kelvin, where the referenced source has the same value listed in °C  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.199.112 (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected the melting point and replaced the processing temperature with the glass transition temperature range. As for the boiling point, I just added a  tag. Wizard191 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect data?

message: This image was added and then removed. (Provided a description is added) is it useful for the article? Materialscientist (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should have something along those lines -- simple sheets, to illustrate the basic material.  That image in particular isn't ideal for what I'm thinking of, though.  It's got a specific brand name, and I'd prefer something that shows opacity better.  Something like this or this or this (but Free Content, of course).  Until something is contributed... that's better than nothing, I suppose.  We could easily trim out the logos, except that file doesn't have license/permission information.  I've added a request for info on that to the uploader's talk page. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Colored PMMA image

message: A poster to this thread claims that roughed-up PMMA is will scintillate with ionizing radiation:
:As for scintillation plastics, just frost the surface of plexiglass with some sandpaper, it works great!
True or false? I'm rather doubtful, but if true, it should be included in the article. JKeck (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Properties

message: The sentance "Smooth PMMA surface can be easily nanostructured by treatment in oxygen radio-frequency plasma[34] and nanostructured PMMA surface can be easily smoothed by vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) irradiation.[34]" can be deleted in my opinion. It is common to use it in e-beam lithography and that is an important fact, but the nanostructuration by oxygen-plasma is just a side effect, wich is not common use, or to be more precise: It is common use to clean samples from PMMA by burning the PMMA away with this plasma, if the PMMA is to much crosslinked to be dissolved in Aceton. See: http://iopscience.iop.org/0268-1242/11/8/021 I think that use of PMMA could be much more intersting to be mentioned in the article.--Do ut des (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Other uses

message: In section "History" the english article says "The German chemists Wilhelm Rudolph Fittig and _____ Paul discovered in 1877 the polymerization process that turns methyl methacrylate into polymethyl methacrylate." :de:Rudolph Fittig#Wissenschaftliches_Werk says that Fittig discovered Methacrylic acid (and gives a source of 1880) and that G. Kahlbaum made PMMA (Plexiglas) from it. Are there any source about who discovered the polymerisation into PMMA? --Wilhelm-Conrad (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History: polymerization process that turns methyl methacrylate into polymethyl methacrylate

message: A major consideration when using PMMA cement is the effect of stress shielding. Since PMMA has a Young's modulus between 1.8 and 3.1 GPa,[31] which is greater than that of natural bone (around 14 GPa for human cortical bone),[32] the stresses are loaded into the cement and so the bone no longer receives the mechanical signals to continue bone remodeling and so resorption will occur
The moduli given do not support stress shielding. 3.1GPa is less stiff than 14GPa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.152.2 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Uses

message: I can find no evidence for the real first name for the "Paul" fellow who is being cited here as one of the co-discoverers of the 1877 process for making PMMA.  And it's kinda weird: Fittig is mentioned repeatedly in searches, and sometimes exclusively, but "Paul" is mentioned only occasionally and never with any kind of first name (this includes searches in paper-printed and published books, the kind of place where you'd expect someone to have done their homework).  It almost stinks of a conspiracy of some sort, or of a bad, bad case of parroting of misinformation that goes back to at least 1956 with William John Roff's book "Fibres, plastics, and rubbers: a handbook of common polymers".  Since then the mysterious "Paul" has been mentioned-- by last name only-- by Joe Schwartz, Kyung-Sun Lim, Charlotte and Peter Fiell, and Elizabeth Bogle, among others-- these are all big names on the field of plastics and acrylics (though not, apparently, of history or of fact-checking the details).  I propose that unless someone can come up with a first name for him, that ______ Paul be removed from this article.  KDS4444Talk 04:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I also searched on the internet for this mysterious Paul person and I too can not find anything. I suppose that until a credible source can be cited we should probably remove the mention of him on the article. Qasaur (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is "_______Paul"??

message: "The full correct name is poly(methyl 2-methylpropenoate). (It is a common mistake to use "an" instead of "en".)"  This looks as if it belongs in another article.  Going on about the common mistake without explaining how this is preferable to "poly(methyl methacrylate)" is not helpful at all.  Not sure what the best solution is, though. Darker than blue (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe change "correct" to "systematic" or "IUPAC" 174.77.33.120 (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Last paragraph in lead section

message: PMMA has a number of uses, of which its use in glass-type applications is only one, albeit a large one.  For instance, here's a use in fibres:
http://www.swicofil.com/products/278polymethylmethacrylate.html and there are also considerable uses of PMMA in inks and coatings.  The undue emphasis on sheet PMMA is incomplete and misleading.  The disambiguation page admittedly allows for other uses under 'acrylic', but as the sheet material can also be called acrylic, and the polymers used in inks can be called PMMA then we're left with a markedly incomplete article.
Gravuritas (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor name and/or incomplete article

message: "Although not a type of familiar silica-based glass, the substance, like many thermoplastics, is often technically classified as a type of glass (in that it is a non-crystalline vitreous substance) hence its occasional historic designation as acrylic "glass". "
This sentence seems to be to be muddled and misconceived.  Who considers it to be a vitreous substance ?   It has sometimes been called "acrylic glass",  because you can make a window pane out of it.  Simple. Lathamibird (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Vitreous means glass-like. It is standard usage to refer to non-crystalline amorphous solids as "non-crystalline vitreous substance" because the common word "glass" is actually narrower than the scientific use of the term. That is the reason that "acrylic glass" is not used; in literary English it appears to be a contradiction, or perhaps both substances sandwiched together. The goal is to use a technical term that is distinguishable from the common term, instead of using the shorter ambiguous term. Especially in a reference, where it might not be otherwise be easy to clarify which usage of the word "glass" is intended; literary or scientific? Nobody will mistake non-crystalline vitreous substance for a literary term. And yet, vitreous is more descriptive of the type of material it is than "amorphous solid."76.105.216.34 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Muddle-headed sentence

message: I noticed a few mistakes with the names, including sources going back 10-30 years (industry changes quickly).
# Altuglas is a registered trademark of Arkema. You can go to www.altuglas.com and will see it there, as an Arkema company.
# Oroglas is also a registered trademark of Arkema. 
# Cyrolite is Evonik. 
# Perspex is Lucite International. 
# Lucite is Lucite International.
::Who currently owns which trademark is detailed information that is unnecessary (and potentially overly promotional) for and encyclopedia article, so I have trimmed it.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Names list incorrect companies for trademark

message: I noticed that the captions under the example images throughout the article use different names of PMMA every time, in order: acrylic polymer, acrylic plastic, Perspex, PMMA, Plexiglas, acrylic, Perspex, Plexiglas, acrylic, Lucite, poly(methyl methacrylate).
Either every example in the images is made by a certain (different) brand or manufacturer of PMMA, or this is inconsistency, which would be best resolved by changing every case to (the abbreviation of) the article's title: PMMA.
Casperdewith (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency in image captions

message: Transparent glass substitute: Shouldn't it be bomber's transparent nose compartments, not bombardiers, suggests that these nose compartments were produced by Bombardier Aircraft Company  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legotom 14 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Transparent glass substitute: bombardier's transparent nose compartment

message: I've observed that laser-cut acrylic parts are extremely brittle, especially when they need to flex slightly to interlock, which can make them snap easily.
What's the solution to this? Is acrylic normally tougher than this? Is there a better way to laser-cut, or a better material?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.243.31 (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Brittle laser-cut parts

message: Poly(methyl methacrylate) is a polymer of an ester (methyl methacrylate), but it is not a polyester (because the ester part is off to the side, not in the long chain).
The polymer is in some sense an ester; actually many times an ester (once for each -O-CH3 (one on every unit in the chain)), but it is not a polyester. -A876 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: I have just suppressed the melting temperature (160°C) which has no signification for an amorphous polymer. Glass transition is 46-159°C cf the french page, which is coherent with a process temperature at minimum 160°C, the previous "melting" temperature. However, I do not find how to add a glass transition in this template. Maybe another infobox should be used. -CVS93 (talk) 14:15, 03 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Temperatures