Talk:Carbon fibers

message: The title says it all. This section is needed especial because of the reference to asbestos.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.237.7 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disposal / Safety section needed 

message: If it was soaked in water, would bacteria be able to eat the carbon fiber? Puddytang (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They possibly would, given very favourable circumstances. The answer is probably no until someone sees the need to develop/breed/GE bacteria that does this. --194.251.142.28 (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biodegradable? 

message: The article states that the mould for CRPs is first evacuated, then the epoxy is filled in. Is this correct ? I remember a process where first epoxy is filled in, then plastic sheets laid over the composite, then air drained below the plastic sheets , to remove superfluous epoxy and to increase the amount of fibre percentage in the composite.--Iediteverything 07:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are talking about vacuum bagging, while the process mentioned on the page is resin infusion   or vacuum infusion.  Vaccum bagging is a method to place pressure on the CFRP while the epoxy cures.  With resin infusion, a refinement on vacuum bagging, the CF and form are layed out dry, which makes is it useful for large or complicated forms.  The vacuum is created and used to suck resin into the bag, which serves the same purpose as in vacuum bagging (good fiber/resin ratio, etc.).  So really the two methods are very similar and work the same way; the main difference is how and when the resin is applied.  Resin infusion is a bit newer and vacuum bagging seems more common, so I guess both methods should be mentioned.  That paragraph needs to be worked over anyway. PlatinumX 09:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturing process 

message: What's with these lks? Why shouldn't they just be dumped?  If there's a reason, why can't they become inline links instead of non sequiturs? 
 == See also ==
*Graphite
*Kevlar
*Fibreglass
:They are analogous materials, basically included as a navigational aid.  Someone might be interested in composite materials in general, and not have a tabbed browser.  This allows them to move on to the next one when they finish reading this article.  Perhaps we can do without the graphite link, though...I'll go ahead and remove it, but I won't object if someone puts it back.--Joel 17:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it as serving the same purpose as the failure modes sidebar in buckling, corrosion, thermal shock etc.  In fact, I think we should have a  template (including wood!) for this kind of thing, but if "see also"s are not a good way to accomplish this, so be it.  It's a higher priority for me to relink all those "carbon fiber" links to graphite reinforced plastic where appropriate, but perhaps some time I'll put in the effort to make a good template.--Joel 22:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "See also"s 

message: obvious question: what is the difference between the two? is it simply that fibres are a graphite-like sheet and tubes are a graphite-like tube? does that difference really affect the properties so much? mastodon 20:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In solid state chemistry structure is king. Yes, it does make such a difference. There is a series of excellent MIT lectures (SS-Chem 309.1) on YouTube if you want to know all the details and have a few days to spare.--194.251.142.28 (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  carbon fibre vs [[nanotube]]s 

message: ive heard of this but its not mentioned on this page how its strength and weight compare to steel and aluminum. anyone know?
Sahuagin 04:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page on tensile strength has details on the subject. Different alloys of aluminium and steel can approach CF in strength, but not even maraging steel exceeds it. You can put so much epoxy in CF that it becomes heavier than steel of comparable strength or leave it out completely, but aside from these extremes CF always beats the metals. --194.251.142.28 (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lighter than aluminum, stronger than steel? 

message: Should be Glass-Epoxy boards. Epoxy, Polyester and Vinylester resins can be used in carbon fibre laminates. The author refers to the use of carbon versus glass as the fibre component of the composite materials.
Feuser 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Epoxy Boards

message: Do instruments made of carbon fiber instead of wood make different sounds? Does a carbon fiber bow, used with a normal wooden instrument, produce different sounds? LordAmeth 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: Can anyone give enlightenment on this topic? 203.128.81.210 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire rating of Carbon Fiber aircraft components v's aluminium components. 

message: "It has high electrical and low thermal conductivity."
It has high electrical conductivity.
This can not be right? Carbon Fibre is used as an insulator so how can it have high electrical conductivity?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.231.230 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure and properties 

message: I think the article would flow much better if the entire thing was fiber or fibre as opposed to switching back and forth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.212.24 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as it pained me, being a true Brit, I've changed all instances (I hope!) to fiber. the wub "?!" 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: "The properties of carbon fiber such as high tensile strength, low weight, and low thermal expansion make it very popular in aerospace, military, and motorsports, along with other competition sports."
Isn't the word "competition" tautological here? Or is there some specific meaning of the phrase "competition sports" intended?
A more specific phrase might be preferable. eg Mind Sports would seem to come under the general heading of "competition sports", yet this whole category has little use for carbon fibre.
81.86.230.24 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Competition" sport? 

message: The section on Manufacturers, which was those who made carbon fibers, had this added:
Carbon Fiber Plant Design and Equipment Manufacturer:
Harper International Corporation
*Harper International Corporation
I've removed it as being outside the scope of that section.  Are there any other articles that it should be in instead? ChemGardener (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturers vs equipment for manufacturing Carbon fiber 

message: :The atomic structure of carbon fiber is similar to that of graphite, consisting of sheets of carbon atoms (graphene sheets) arranged in a regular hexagonal pattern. The difference lies in the way these sheets interlock. Graphite is a crystalline material in which the sheets are stacked parallel to one another in regular fashion. The chemical bonds between the sheets are relatively weak Van der Waals forces, giving graphite its soft and brittle characteristics. Depending upon the precursor to make the fiber, carbon fiber may be turbostratic or graphitic, or have a hybrid structure with both graphitic and turbostratic parts present. In turbostratic carbon fiber the sheets of carbon atoms are haphazardly folded, or crumpled, together.
The difference between graphite and turbostratic carbon fibre is clear. However, the difference between graphite and graphitic carbon fibre is not. The article does not explain how the carbon sheets are arranged in graphitic carbon fibre, so, based on the word "graphitic", one can only assume that they are arranged in the same way as in graphite. But in that case, graphitic carbon fibre would appear to be identical to graphite. Is that true? If not, what's the difference?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.241.197 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed: graphitic/turbostratic  

message: The current article states that "Several thousand carbon fibers are twisted together to form a yarn, which may be used by itself or woven into a fabric." Would someone like to explain this sentence? I have never seen or heard of a twisted yarn. The yarns I am familiar with are strategically placed as straight as they can be. Any amount of twist would be a defect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.148.209.132 (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Twisted together to form a yarn?

message: I read a journal   mentioning "... type I and II carbon fibres." So far, no mention about the types here, yet. Could anyone elaborate on that? Thanks. Kerina yin (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some references to the two types (Type I and Type II) in this 1970 Flight International article here:  - one is high stiffness, the other is high tensile strength.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... type I and II carbon fibres." 

message: It seems clear to me that the word "fiber" in the name "carbon/graphite fiber" is just the generic word, and hence has the alternative spelling "fibre" - is it really necessary to clutter up the intro with this? Brian Jason Drake 12:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiber 

message: if accuracy, completeness are desired, rather than simple casual explanations, then 2 points MUST be made:
1) industrially produced carbon fibers, when analyzed under a TEM, are composed of a variety of carbon structures.  you will find graphene sheets of irregular size and shape, partially formed buckyballs, partially formed or uncapped nanotubes, nitrogen and oxygen defects, and even small amounts of tetrahedral 4 coordinate carbons (diamond carbons)....  all of these structures will be found in varying concentration and in varying size.  some will be formed in very small concentrations (like diamond carbons), others will be formed in high concentrations.  there are no incredibly long/wide graphene sheets that traverse the entire length of a carbon fiber (which can be milimeters or centimeters in unbroken length)
2) van der waals bonds are extremely important in carbon materials like carbon fiber.  as I pointed out, the overall structure is NOT continuously covalently bonded.  there is no single chain of covalent bonds from one end of a carbon fiber to the other... but rather overlapping structures of various shape and size.  thus the bonding between these discrete structures are incredibly important for describing their mechanical properties
what you must understand is that basic van der waals forces are not the only thing going on here.  because essentially 100% of the carbon structures of interest in these materials are composed of AROMATIC SYSTEMS, there are also significant forces due to so called "pi stacking" interactions.  these interactions signficantly increase the intramolecular (and even intermolecular) forces inside the matierial  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.52.200 (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis Section 

message: Fixed big assumption in synthesis: the section was missing the step that the precursor, at least rayon or PAN, is first spun into fibers. Somehow it seemed that all you had to do was heat up a lump of rayon or PAN and carbon fibers popped out. Oh well. Referenced to manufacturing process on zoltekcom's site, but would like to find a better reference. Woodega (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed missing step in synthesis: spinning of precursor polymer 

message: The history section keeps talking about British attempts to stay ahead of foreign manufacturers, but never goes into any detail on those foreign manufactures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.176.149 (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section lacking 

message: In "In 1958, Dr. Roger Bacon created high-performance..." the link to Roger Bacon links to the historical person, not the scientist. Is there a wiki on the scientist at all?
130.225.198.198 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Delinked. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section - wrong linking 

message: http://ap.stripes.com/dynamic/stories/U/US_CARBON_FIBER_ARREST?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Worth a mention here? Hcobb (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restrictions on export 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Strong oppose This is not the primary topic of "carbon fiber", the composite is the primary topic of "carbon fiber". We discussed this the last time. It is not slang to call the composite "carbon fiber", it is common parlance used by the public at large and industry. Rather, the technical material covered by this article is not what the public knows as carbon fiber, nor what most carbon fiber products are primarily referring to. The composite is. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the consensus: carbon fiber should be a DAB page. I also disagree with the proposed move: if there is a primary topic, it is carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, instead of DAB I recommend merging carbon (fiber) and carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. There is significant overlap between these two articles and a well-constructed merged article could easily support the polymer chemistry as well as the properties and applications of carbon fiber filaments and things made from those filaments. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

text: "Carbon fiber (material)" to me sounds like it's referring to the composite, the material from which we make "carbon fiber" stuff; in fact, it's usually referred to as a "composite material" ("composite" by itself is a shorthand).  The fibers themselves seem to me to be more of a "substance" or something like that, than a "material", except perhaps in the strict technical sense used in materials science. But that brings us full circle to the original problem - a term with conflicting (but not unrelated) vernacular and technical meanings - so using "(material)" to disambiguate won't actually disambiguate but just introduce a new ambiguity. The least ambiguous result is to have the actual fiber be, naturally, at "Carbon fiber" and the composite made with these fibers be at "Carbon fiber (composite)".  When it comes to this sort of thing, we have to ask ourselves what best serves our readers, and work from there, eschewing technical procedural nitpicks sometimes when necessary, per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR. Clearly, the least ambiguous pair of names that are recognizable is that solution. No clear case for the composite material being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has actually been presented. Rather, good cases have been presented for "carbon fiber" being the WP:COMMONNAME of  topics, and a flawed case was presented in earlier discussion (which reached no consensus, remember) for the composite being primary, based on popularity, at the expense of all other considerations, including quality of sources, the relationship between the topics, the incorrectness of the term as applied to the composite, the availability of a more correct name for the composite (which is and appears to be slated to remain the actual title of that article), and the problems in trying awkwardly to disambiguate not the composite article but the fiber article, with clumsy constructions like "carbon (fiber)", which has at least 3 interpretations, and "carbon fiber (fiber)" which is pointlessly redundant. Going with this article as Carbon fiber and the other as Carbon fiber (composite) (or leaving that one at Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer) would not be some reversal of a recent, previous consensus, but rather actually coming to one, finally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The best argument for carbon fiber redirecting to carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer is that all but a few of incoming links are aimed at the composite. --Kkmurray (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A look at some of those links is illuminating. From archery: "Shafts of arrows are typically composed of solid wood, bamboo fiberglass, aluminium alloy, carbon fiber, or composite materials." The distinction between fiberglass and "carbon fiber" on the one hand and "composite materials" illustrates a confusion this page move would clarify. Badminton uses "carbon fiber composite" (linked) before it uses (unnecessarily) "carbon fiber". The link at Carbon should link here ("Plastics are made from fossil hydrocarbons, and carbon fiber, made by pyrolysis of synthetic polyester fibers is used to reinforce plastics..."). Carbon nanotube has a hatnote to carbon fiber, but it should be to this page, since a nanotube is more likely to be confused with a fiber than with a composite material. Srnec (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: So, how about it?  The MR closed with a suggestion to pursue that angle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-RM proposals for a [[WP:CONCEPTDAB]] page

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Carbon fibers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150427133615/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_06_2013_p42-574844.xml&p=2 to http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_06_2013_p42-574844.xml&p=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The risk of galvanic corrosion would be good to describe in this article. As a reference, see 2021 article from Corrosion Communications: "Galvanic activity of carbon fiber reinforced polymers and electrochemical behavior of carbon fiber":
"When an engineering metal is joined to a CFRP in the marine environment, a perfect galvanic corrosion cell will be formed, and the metal will be subjected to galvanic corrosion attack."
I'll kick off the addition by including the above claim and citing the Corrosion Communications article. The article looks like a useful source; it contains an extensive bibliography, and claims it "comprehensively summarizes the existing studies on the galvanic effect of CFRPs on engineering metals." 73.60.233.220 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You left the article in a state that said carbon fibre is displacing aluminium because of galvanic issues (implying CFRP is good) but that CFRP had galvanic issues (implying CFRP is bad). This is contradictory. I add a clause that said a sealant between the metal and CFRP is required but perhaps it could be worded better.  Stepho  talk  22:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  galvanic corrosion 

message: I noticed that  has added some details about lithium batteries but has been reverted each time. I understand that his stated aim of doing this as school homework is not valid - however, as long as it has valid supporting references then his motive for adding is unimportant.. I also note that a small portion of his edits did not have supporting references - those are okay to remove. However, I also see that the bulk of his addition has 7 references to what seem to be valid scientific studies. Is there a reason why this reference addition is being reverted?  Stepho  talk  00:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked a couple of them, and the citations don't actually support the statements they're attached to. They're all about using carbon fibers in batteries, that much is true. But they don't make the specific claims they're being attached to. MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which claims did you find that were not supported by the sources? Socialcomplex (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lithium batteries