Talk:Conductive polymer

message: In the intro, it is stated that "until recently" it was thought that plastics are pure conductors.  This is not exactly true.   It was known in 1950 or earlier that some plastics can conduct well.  See for proof the article in Life magazine, http://books.google.com/books?id=T0EEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.140.144 (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that sentence was not neutral (Ugh, recently ..) and I went bold and removed it. However, it is certainly true that most pure organic materials are insulating. Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in introduction

message: "Materialscientist", can you explain why you removed the recent changes, and you only shortly commented "self promotion"? what kind of self-promotion was there? anything unreliable? pls explain  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.112.252.14 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Promotion (self or not) refers to a few attempts to add a primary source (by Bernhard Wessling from Enthone, Inc.), presenting that source as a review of properties and applications of conducting polymers. As I mentioned to you before, we need reliable, secondary sources (for example, books which you also added to this article). The article you mentioned is published recently, in a minor journal, and claims to present a "new structure model for the organic metal polyaniline" - a well-studied material. In short, we need results which are widely accepted by the scientific community. Wikipedia is not a venue to promote new theories. Materialscientist (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

text: regarding conductive polymer structure / morphology with conductivty relationship, there is no widely accepted conclusion, and the article I am citing is a primary source reviewed by neutral referees as any other primary source Wikipedia is citing in this article. The "conductive polymer" article almost exclusively cites primary sources, except for ref 7, 14, 15. Your statement is not balanced in view of the remaining article and references. If you would take out any other primary source, I would not disagree. But then, what would remain? Therefore I suggest you to restore what I had added before, or you give more objective reasons.183.37.174.143 (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I do not agree with your statement, because the article cited is referenced neutrally and objectively. But I do not want to start a edit / undo battle, it is not worth the effort. If Wikipedia prefers to have only a certain selection of primary sources (where secondary sources are not availeble), then be it. Wikipedia can choose to be biased.183.37.174.143 (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I would like to comment to one additional of your comment: "Wikipedia is not a venue to promote new theories" - please be aware that the whole area of conductive polymers is new, and there is no reliable accepted theory at all yet. Everything is still disputed, especially whether condutivity is a 1D phenomenon or in fact more a 3D one, very basic questions. If, then Wikipedia should show this. But right now, it shows just one single aspect of it and pretends this were the truth. That is what I call "biased". So be it. 183.37.174.143 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: recent changes re "structure and morphology"

message: "materialscientist", you removed the addition of "it is assumed" which I had added to this text: "Generally, conductivity should be higher for the higher degree of crystallinity and better alignment of the chains;"
Please show me one clear and undoubtful experimental evidence for the statement as you prefer to write.183.37.144.55 (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (i) It is a common weasel phrase in English; (ii) it is not assumed, but well known for many systems. On the contrary, it is very, very uncommon to see a decrease in conductivity with increasing disorder. Materialscientist (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Speaking in general, there is more than enough evidence that higher degree of crystallinity (in organic polymers specifically, see, e.g. , ) increases the conductivity. Although I'm skeptical it was not shown in PANI and PEDOT, I can't give you a reference on the fly, which is why I left this statement in the article. Please re-read it and find that it does not contradict what you're saying. Materialscientist (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Quick note: no, those are not primary, but secondary sources - they are reviews summarizing work by other authors rather than presenting their own original research (as the ref you add). They are not ideal, just what I had under my hand right away. They do speak of polymers too. They are conductive, but not as much as those described in the article. Physically, carrier mobility must decrease with decreasing crystallinity. Alignment is less crucial. Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: How comes? The behavior of conductivity is actually more complex in semiconducting polymers because both concentration and mobility change. In conductors, the concentration is already high and it is the mobility which determines the conductivity, and this is what those papers are talking about. Please try checking Google books - the answer is there, for your polymers as well. I will too, but not right now. Materialscientist (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I do understand the difference between transport in semiconductors and metals. Note that grain boundary scattering works in both as a mechanism reducing mobility in nano/polycrystals - which is a major reason of conductivity increase with crystalline quality. Carrier excitation is a separate matter. Materialscientist (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: effect of crystallinity on conductivity

message: We are having an interesting discussion over on talk:polyacetylene, if anyone is interested.  Nucleophilic (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is more relevant discussion evolving on Talk:Nobel Prize. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on talk:polyacetylene 

message: I'm not a huge fan of that phrase, since it seems like what is and isn't 'well-studied' is both debatable and time-sensitive. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I would argue that poly(fluorene) seems quite well-studied. I can't think of an alternative phrasing that I like better, so my inclination is just to do away with the bold and italic altogether, and to not make a distinction between 'well-studied' and 'less well-studied.' Thoughts? Anneagain (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Well-studied classes"

message: I've archived the discussions from before 2010.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Hello - newbie here. :)
This article appears to contradict itself on the subject of the processability of conductive polymers. The introduction states:
 The biggest advantage of conductive polymers is their processability, mainly by dispersion.
(Incidentally: advantage over what?)
The section "Properties and applications" begins:
 Conductive polymers enjoy few large-scale applications due to their poor processability.
I am not a subject-matter expert, but it seems to me that these assertions are at odds. (Reading the rest of the article, I am more inclined to believe the latter account.)
Benjjuk (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Processability - article is contradictory 

message: There must be more reviews that discuss the history and development of conducting polymers than the two currently cited:
* 
* 
I performed a quick Web of Knowledge search for reviews on the topic "conducting polymer" and found the following highly-cited articles:
* 2186 citations: 
* 1808 citations: 
** "The modern era of CPs began at the end of the 1970s when Heeger and MacDiarmid discovered that polyacetylene, ((CH)x), synthesized by Shirakawa's method, could undergo a 12 order of magnitude increase of conductivity upon charge-transfer oxidative doping."
There are probably more good ones out there. I will keep looking. --Ben (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to the history section 

message: I think WIkipedia may need an article on "field-induced polymer electroluminescence" lighting technology, somehow distinct from OLEDs:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20553143
And some people lurking around this article seem to be the sorts who could figure it what it should say.
There are almost no Google results for "field-induced polymer electroluminescence", more for "polymer electroluminescence".
What I'm wondering in particular is whether it produces a continuous spectrum (like the Sun, fire, incandescents) or specific R-G-B wavelengths to form a simulated composite white.
All yours -- I'm a "creative type".
Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.8.142 (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New (?) Field-Induced Polymer Electroluminescence Lighting Technology 

message: There is a relevant discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize controversies Nucleophilic (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have commented and suggest others look at it too. Clipjoint (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[Talk:Nobel Prize controversies]] 

message: Link to chemical sensor array added to reflect more complete applications of conductive polymers Nanomaterials21 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Link