Talk:Polyacetylene

structural drawing

Is there a template to request a drawing of a molecule?

How easy to polymerize

How easy is it to get acetylene to polymerize?

- Now a days poly(acetylene) is generally not made by polymerizing acetylene, which is a highly flammable gas that spontaneously oligomerizes upon concentration. The most common synthesis now is using special metathesis catalysts deveopled by Professor Grubs at Cal Tech (which are known as Grub's catalysts) on molecules like cyclooctatetraene. Acetylene itself polymerizes in a similar fashion to ethylene; anionic, cationic, and radical polymerizations will all work. I'm not sure what you mean by "how easy" it is to polymerize it... Either it polymerizes or it doesn't; there is really no difficulty associated with it. Fearofcarpet 20:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cis

I think a structural formula for the cis configuration would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.138.155 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

'Acetylene black' as a synonym for 'polyacetylene'

I am suspicious of the use of 'acetylene black' as a synonym for 'polyacetylene'. I've been looking into carbon black for battery manufacture. Acetylene black is a form of carbon black as discussed in the quote below:

Carbon black is a powdered form of elemental carbon manufactured by the vapour-phase pyrolysis of hydrocarbon mixtures, such as heavy petroleum distillates and residual oils, coal-tar products, natural gas and acetylene. ... Carbon blacks are categorized as acetylene black, channel black, furnace black, lampblack or thermal black, according to the process by which they are manufactured.

Elsewhere (no reference) it was noted that the conductivity of various manufactures of carbon black depend on the residual hydrogen content, etc. I suspect that polyacetylene can be an impurity in acetylene black due to incomplete pyrolysis. Especially since this claim was unreferenced, I thought it prudent to remove it. Perhaps someone can substantiate it and reinsert the statement.

Tendermecies (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

New cites on early conductive polyacetylenes

Conductive polyacetylene derivatives were discovered in the early 1960's. The secondary literature cited, including the 1964 monograph entitled "Organic semiconductors", is quite definite on this issue. E.g., concerning one such report, page 128 of the 1964 monograph notes-- "The conductivity measurements of the colored polyacetylenes produced showed typical semiconductor behavior (10-4 ohm-cm at 25C degrees )".

Almost metallic-- In fact, my impression is that this is about as good any anybody can do these days. Be happy to post a copy of this page and others, if necessary. But it should not be. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would only appreciate if you properly updated the article. However, this revert of mine had nothing to do with this - it countered addition of polypyrolle articles (which did look like WP:UNDUE promotion of them - for good reasons polypyrolle has its own article) with a claim that polypyrolle is a derivative of polyacetylene. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what are you talking about. See the direct quote above from the 1964 monograph and the emphasized word polyacetylenes. The point is that highly-conductive linear-chain polymers were discovered in the early 1960's, not a decade later. This includes BOTH polypyrroles and their parent polyacetylenes. How can you note early studies in one without noting almost simultaneous reports on the other for WP:NPOV and perspective ?

And, like it or not, polypyrrole is a polyacetylene derivative. I can provide good, relable secondary sources to this fact all day long, though the thing speaks for itself. Just can't go substituting your own personal opinion for WP:RS, even if you do not agree. I can quote chapter and verse from the rules about how this is not allowed.

Also note that this is a strong secondary source-- an academic textbook with a title, "Organic Semiconductors". About as high up on the WP:RS scale as it is possible to get. True, many may find it incredible that a textbook from this time with this particular title should even exist. I assure you it does. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In short, wikipedia works by keeping certain information in one (or a few) dedicated articles and wikilinking them. All your comments are on polyacetylene. This article is on polypyrrole and all that information on low conductivity is already copied more than once over wikipedia. I believe nearly any polymer can be called a derivative of polyacetylene, but most chemists don't. If your point is that polypyrrole is a polyacetylene derivative then please post it at the talk page of WP:CHEM and let the project judge its conventions on this matter. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Materialscientist, the statement that "polypyrrole is a polyacetylene derivative" is unproductive. The materials are related in an obscure way. Some editors, still upset over the Nobel for polyacetylene, have long exploited Wikipedia to rewrite history in order to detract from that recognition. Many other articles have been infected by the embitterment virus, e.g. Melanin, Organic electronics, etc the tell-tale sign of this POV pushing is the image File:Gadget128.jpg. The problem of marginalizing the achievements of laureate Alan Heeger et al. has persisted for years in Wikipedia because few editors are willing to deal with User:Pproctor and his associates, User:Drjem3 and apparently now User:Nucleophilic. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to minimalize Heeger et al. It is just that they clearly did not "discover" conductive polymers. Over a decade late and a dozen or two papers and 15 years (at least) away, in fact. The scientific literature is what the literature is. I just cite it. Lots of good secondary sources, up to and including present-day text-books with titles like "Conductive Polymers" that flatly say the same thing. About as far up the "reliable sources" heirachy as you can get.

See WP:RS --- read it , memorize it. While you are at it, read WP:NOR. You may not like such sources and they may not suit your personal feelings on how things ought to be. But your present obligation under the Wikirules is to present something, anything, to refute these cites. Even then, both sides must be presented in the interest of WP:NPOV. As for pproctor et al --- this earlier work puts their priority claims even further away too. Ya can't have it both ways.

Without reliable sources, you are just expressing plain old original research and violating WP:Assume Good faith. Not allowed. I'll wait here patiently while you get your WP:RS. In fact, I welcome being educated. This is getting very interesting. Nucleophilic (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the issue here is WP:UNDUE, as pointed out above. Its about communicating basic science vs settling a score by citations to obscure articles. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk about WP:Undue. How is (e.g.) the major contemporary textbook in the field plus a review of that textbook an "obscure article". And then I throw in another textbook from 1964 that says same thing. In fact, WP:RS indicates that there is nothing better than such sources, as a practical matter. Same with papers in such major journals as "science". BTW, "assume good faith". I don't have any score to settle-- Just an interest in the history of science and in trying to make sure Wikipedia is run according to the rules and without WP:OR. Again, lets see some documentation. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)