Talk:Q-carbon

DOI broken

The DOI in the second reference is broken. Q-carbon did not happen! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.215.244 (talk • contribs)

A bad link does not prove that the research finding covered by many science news sources did not happen. If it was published in a peer-reviewed physics journal then getting the doi link fixed should not be that hard. If this is like "cold fusion," then other researchers will be only too happy to debunk it. Edison (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sadly it's pretty normal that the DOI link only works a few days after publication. That said, I can't find the article at Journal of Applied Physics either (yet???). Akhuettel (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: It was just released! Melchoir (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Response: The DOI is fixed. All the Q-carbon news release and articles references (1-37) can be accessed online on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-carbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.13 (talk) 11:00, 2018 September 4 (UTC)

Glows when exposed to energy?

What kind of energy? This is such a bad statement, it discredits the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.198.105.19 (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Numerous scientific issues with data interpretation in original source but apparently passed peer review. 11/12/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.107.169 (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Response: Q-carbon has negative electron potential as experimentally observed from the KPFM. It has excellent electron field emission properties. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diamond.2018.04.008) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.13 (talk) 11:00, 2018 September 4 (UTC)

Third solid phase?

Carbon has many allotropes. I'd consider Glassy carbon to be a solid candidate for third solid phase, with many others contesting for fourth. Notably, unlike graphite / graphene and diamond, it is 100% sp²-hybridized.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.35.86 (talk • contribs)

Response: Q-carbon is a new phase of carbon as it has a diffeent atomic structure (entropy) with local minima in the Free energy diagram. It is formed after laser melting and subsequent quenching of a highly undercooled state of carbon. The conversion is a first order phase transformation. The graphene, nanotubes and buckyballs are not new allotropes, as they all have the same atomic structure (no unique entropy). Such structures cannot be replicated due to lack of distinct or sharp free energy minima. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.13 (talk) 11:00, 2018 September 4 (UTC)

You'll need a cited ref to support those underlying premises and the logical conclusion of them (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). But instead, pretty much every ref I checked says that buckyballs are an allotrope and I could not find any reliable source to dispute it. See for example [1]. DMacks (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If this is not marketing nonsense, then please provide information indicating how it is not

This so-called "Q-carbon" must be shown to be fundamentally different from the various well-known structures of diamond-like carbon, or its well-known distinct phases (including vitreous). If this can't be shown, then the word-play on this alleged new phase is pure snake-oil. Wikibearwithme (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Response: Q-carbon is distinctly different from the other phases of carbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.13 (talk) 11:00, 2018 September 4 (UTC)

Redundant references

I'm concerned that the article has collected redundant references. One sentence has 8 citations after it! The problem is that the majority of media sources are just rewording the NC State press release. I think we should:

1. Be more careful to cite sources for individual claims, not whole sections
2. Choose the most authoritative source for each claim
3. After the above steps are complete, remove sources that are no longer used

Melchoir (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Response: Carbon is the sixth most abundant element in the Earth’s crust and we can find numerous experimental and theoretical works. Only some of them are referred. Thanks for the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.13 (talk) 11:00, 2018 September 4 (UTC)

Replaced diamond as the "world's hardest substance"

Hasn't diamond already been superseded? Googling "world's hardest substance" finds a lot of older alternatives. Equinox (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This article claims another substance supposedly harder than diamond

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16610-diamond-no-longer-natures-hardest-material/

Didn't really read in to it but I suspect it has to do with the definition of "hardest material"

I'll let the rest of the readers decide what to do with this :P MysticWizard1981 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a simulation. 6 years old, though... Lfstevens (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Optical? Does that mean optically active? That word, optical, by itself, doesn't seem to be meaningful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.44.91 (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Response: Hardness measurements have proven Q-carbon to be 40-60% harder than diamond. Detailed optical measurements are currently being performed in this interesting material. Hardness and superconductivity are closely related, and B-doped Q-carbon exhibits record high-temperature BCS superconductivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.13 (talk) 11:00, 2018 September 4 (UTC)

Magnetism

It is not the first ferromagnetic form of carbon; ferromagnetic nano diamonds have been reported before: S. Talapatra et al.: Irradiation-Induced Magnetism in Carbon Nanostructures. In: Physical Review Letters. 95, 2005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.097201. Still a strange property for pure (?) carbon. --Don Minestrone (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Response: Magnetism in Q-carbon is intrinsic due to unpaired spins (within sp3 bonded regions), and the presence of a high density of electronic states near the Fermi energy level. This is due to the ultrafast melting and quenching process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.13 (talk) 11:00, 2018 September 4 (UTC)

Poor writing

First, the article still reads much like a press release. Second, it lacks adequate explanation; for instance, I could not help wondering what are the three kinds of "BN"s referred to with no explanation, not even a link. For another instance, an "allotrope" is mentioned in the first sentence without explanation or cross-reference. Etc. Someone with sufficient knowledge should take a scalpel to this, cut out the puffery, and suture in some valid and valuable enlightenment. Zaslav (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

onics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.13 (talk) 11:00, 2018 September 4 (UTC)

> Hi all, I'm not a regular editor at wikipedia and therefore don't really want to touch this article with 200 foot pole. I am an expert in nanomaterial synthesis and charachterization, however, and while the primary source is in a peer reviewed journal, the quality of the work is low and the claims are high. I would be willing to go so far as to suggest the original article is junk and the interpretations are significantly overstated. Unfortunately, I did not peer review this article before its publication, and have much better things to do than to produce independent research to refute it or to write articles serving as sources for the refutation of "q-carbon" as being anything other than weird measurements after a grad student shot a laser at something, then rushed to publication. 11/12/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.107.169 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Response: Q-carbon is the new phase of carbon formed after melting and subsequent quenching of a highly super undercooled state of carbon. Q-carbon has seeds of diamond and is a precursor material for diamond growth at ambient conditions. Q-carbon has interesting properties ranging from room-temperature ferromagnetism to high-temperature superconductivity (in B-doped Q-carbon). Similar undercooled state of Si (and nucleation of nanostructures of Si from the undercooled melt) was also observed previously after pulsed laser annealing of amorphous Si. Pulsed laser annealing is now been used to fabricate high-speed electronics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.13 (talk) 11:00, 2018 September 4 (UTC)

patent citations

The article refers to three "patents." Each of the three numbers refer to US provisional patent applications, rather than to issued patents. Additionally, the first cited application, 62/245,108, appears to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhnra (talk • contribs) 23:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Response: All the Q-carbon patents can be accessed online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.13 (talk) 11:00, 2018 September 4 (UTC)

Q?

So, what does the "Q" stand for in Q-carbon? I followed the link from Q-boron nitride to the boron nitride article but that had nothing about Q-boron nitride so no help there.--205.175.128.5 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Quench. Carbon is vaporized into a plasma and quenched rapidly to form q-carbon. ScienceApe (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Response: Q-carbon or quenched-carbon is formed after ultrafast (nanosecond laser-assisted) melting and quenching of a highly undercooled state of molten carbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.13 (talk) 11:00, 2018 September 4 (UTC)

Considerations of possible promotional and/or paid editing

I have removed the {{UDP}} tag on the article page, and the {{Connected contributor (paid)}} warning on this talk page. Both of these charges of paid editing were placed [2][3] by KDS4444, who was himself banned shortly thereafter for abusive paid editing and sockpuppetry. I see no convincing or specific evidence of paid editing.

That said, I agree that both the article page and this talk page give a distinct impression of promotional editing. Therefore:

• I have myself placed an {{Advert}} tag on the article page.
• The removal of the paid-editing tags added by banned user KDS4444 is without prejudice to replacement of these tags by a disinterested editor who is prepared to offer specific evidence of paid editing.
• The point-by-point Response edits on this talk page, by IP editor 152.7.224.13, give a particularly strong impression of promotional activity (and form a substantial fraction of the total contributions from that IP). This may warrant further investigation if anyone is so inclined.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Syrenka V: Multiple editors in the history of this article have usernames suggesting they are some of the people involved in this research. And someone named "Mse-webmaster" surely has as part of their job description to edit and polish the research-institute's internet presence even if the editor who observed it was later banned--I am reviving the tag on the talkpage. The IP you note also belongs to the research organization. The bulk of their article-addition seems to be WP:REFSPAM/WP:REFBOMBing for this same research group and adding non-neutral and/or disputed/bogus content. DMacks (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@DMacks: These are good points; I have accordingly added back the {{UDP}} tag to the article (Mse-webmaster's edits were to the article rather than the talk page). Better these tags should come from you and me rather than KDS4444; also better that these points should be made explicitly. I had not been aware that 152.7.224.13 was MSE itself.

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Serious sourcing issues here: propose merge

I've tried to improve the tone here, but I think the topic has a deeper lack of independent sourcing of some rather strong claims (WP:NFRINGE). Certainly there's a bunch of articles in the popular press, but it's mostly just re-quoting the discoverers' exciting claims (WP:SENSATIONAL). I propose we merge to Amorphous carbon. There may be enough coverage that the topic should be addressed in as part of the wider topic of carbon forms, but I haven't seen a single journal article about this where the discoverers weren't directly involved. Publishing a result in a scientific journal is not a sufficient condition for verifiablity, we need WP:THIRDPARTY. Forbes72 (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Support merge. If and when this gets covered in secondary scientific sources (reproduced by other labs, review articles, etc.) it would be easy enough to split it back into its own article. But for now, I don't think it's notable enough on its own. DMacks (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged. Thanks. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 00:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)