![]() | This article is written in American English with IUPAC spelling (color, defense, traveled; aluminium, sulfur and caesium) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide and chemistry naming conventions, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Carbon fibers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
when carbon fibers are laquered a ed effect and a depth effect are there! it looks so amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saludacymbals ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 2018 January 28 (UTC)
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)
... Search for disposal. It seems to be a safe enough material until broken or disposed. In manufacturing processes there should be appropriate air filtering both for employees and outgoing air to prevent possibility of asbestos like scenario. There appears to be some applications where safe disposal is, purely by my own common sense, impossible or too expensive to implement. Example: carbon fiber reinforced concrete. Seemingly fine application until you want to get rid of the building and the only way I can imagine of safe disposal is laser cutting the concrete or moving the whole concrete building to air tight disposal facility! Other disposal processes inevitably leak some fibers into air where they can cause electrical interference (src: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/environmental/TechNotes/TechNotes2003-11.pdf ) or just generally end up in the environment. From what I can tell they are not biodegradable, potentially hazardous to breath and light enough to not really fall in the ground, there really should be some oversight of what applications they are used for, so that recycled high end fiber product won't end up in eg. some building cement and pose a great problem in future when said building need to go down cheaply it either cannot or will do so at the cost of releasing the fibers to the air.
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/carbon-fiber-life-beyond-the-landfill.aspx
Suggests that the properties of recycled fibers are no longer good enough compared to using some cheaper materials. Until efficient recycling is possible the best approach is for manufacturers to try and come up with some standard parts for common products that could be reused after some soap+water processing rather than having to break the existing product into pieces affecting the strength or risking the release of fibers if not properly (expensively) done.
Also it says:
"In 2004, most European Union (EU) member states passed laws forbidding landfill disposal of composites. Further, incineration of plastics is suspect because of the potential release of toxic byproducts."
This makes it sound that if you have some consumer CFRP products they'd need to be specially disposed. How many know to do that and are there even proper processes in place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 ( talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722620.stm
This news is on report from Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and says: "carbon nanofibres, whose constituent nanotubes have in preliminary laboratory experiments shown similar dangers to those of asbestos. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 ( talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7408705.stm
"A recent study showed that when mice inhaled nanotubes they developed inflammation that peaked within seven days of exposure, and returned to normal within one or two months"
This article also says the "short tubes" didn't cause problem and this is because there are cells that can engulf them. However imagine if everything was done from nanotubes (if some cheap manufacturing process came available or the recycled stuff would replace accepted materials) ... the current approach seems to be "lets wait until it's all over the place and see if there were bad effects". If you create near-indestructible things that can spread in the air and causes health problems, I'm not sure people would vote to wait wait and see until it's too expensive/difficult/inconvenient to get a handle on the problem? There should be extensive trial runs in artificial environments before we have everything made from recycled carbon fiber. The point here is, even if the small tubes are safe(r), if it's not biodegradable it will accumulate over time and given that stuff will end up in China etc for cheap improper disposal I think it's best to keep the use of this tech at bay until proper tests (10+ years high dose release to artificial environment) is made. Climate change is normal, Carbon fiber-based climate isn't. And one is something that can be easily regulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 ( talk) 23:22, 2008 November 14 (UTC)
If it was soaked in water, would bacteria be able to eat the carbon fiber? Puddytang ( talk) 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
"Carbon fiber" is not the name of the composite! See composite materials and GRP vz. fiberglass.
Egil 00:55 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
I agree. the whole carbon-fiber / crp / cfrp mess needs some also laminate and lamination. -- Iediteverything 16:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd be interested in seeing some information about the history of carbon fiber, but had a hard time finding anything on the web. According to this page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3131165.stm
It was invented in by the RAE in Farnborough, Hampshire. It seems like it was developed in the 1960's and became commonly available in the 1990's, but I haven't found an authoritative source for that.
If wikipedia intends to spell everything in the English language, the american way then why isn't there two seperate languages on the toolbar on the left. To spell carbon fibre as "carbon fiber" in the English translation of this article frankly disgusts me. Sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.43.39 ( talk) 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Totally agree, i makes the whole thing very difficult to read. As its a British Invertion should it not use Fibre?( 94.4.74.53 ( talk) 07:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC))
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)
There's no mention of pre-impregnated (pre-preg) material, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyparadigm ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 2005 February 1 (UTC)
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 ==
I don't have a tabbed browser: i have a Back tool built in to my browser, and when i want to backtrack and branch, that's what i do rather than plan on some editor guessing at where i want to go next.
Readers come to this article not primarily from any one place such as
Graphite-reinforced plastic or whatever page you're thinking of, but from about
100 different pages. I came to it from
Yo-Yo Ma, so for me the related material is
Wood. I'm not about add
Wood to the see alsos, but IMO the 3 existing ones are as bad an idea as the explicitly deprecated scheme of trying to outthink the reader by deciding
Argentina/Transportation is a good title because people who read it want to know other things about Argentina (and not about transportation), and the cure is to ditch the entire section.
--
Jerzy·
t 19:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
answer
while the fibers are alternate layers of graphite, not necessarily rolled up, the nanotubes are little compose pipes from sheets of closed graphite on if same and all forms an only separate molecule.
they're more resistant and some are supercondutors.
translated frame from the Italian
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)
I don't understand why people don't run a spell check or other basic grammar service before they post.
Stackleschwien
20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why people would go around policing the internet for grammar and spelling, completely ignoring the perfectly understandable question that the guy asked. Try not being such an asshat if your have the maturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papajohnin ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Can anyone give enlightenment on this topic? 203.128.81.210 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"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)
Yes, carbon has always been a conductor (some say a semiconductor) used in the manufacturer of resistors and other electronic components (at least since the 1920s).
The thickness of pure carbon and its level of impurities changes its resistance. When you cover it with epoxy or other resins, only then can it be used as an insulator.
I have seen carbon fiber reinforced insulators where fiberglass was not strong enough for the job, but alone, it will conduct. -- X42 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Non-polymer materials can also be used as the matrix for carbon fibers. Due to the formation of metal carbides (i.e., water-soluble AlC), bad wetting by some metals, and corrosion considerations, carbon has seen limited success in metal matrix composite applications; however, this can be improved by proper surface treatment, e.g., for carbon-aluminium MMCs a vapor deposition of titanium boride on the fibers is often employed. Reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) consists of carbon fiber-reinforced graphite, and is used structurally in high-temperature applications, such as the nose cone and leading edges of the space shuttle.
The fiber also finds use in filtration of high-temperature gases, as an electrode with high surface area and impeccable corrosion resistance, and as an anti- static component in high-performance clothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.118.90 ( talk) 13:27, 2007 November 7 (UTC)
Working in a communications field, we've always used the term "Micron" when referring to billionths of a meter. I've come to understand that in general practice this has become an archaic term now. I changed "5-8 micrometers" under "Structure and properties" to "5-8 microns" partially because the "micrometer" portion linked to the tool and not the unit of measurement. Aside from the link being incorrect, I understand that I may be in the wrong on this change and would like some feedback. Crmadsen ( talk) 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
All chemistry, physics, and engineering researchers I have had contact with use the term micron. most of these people got their phds in the 1990s or earlier. most of these people use the term because they learned it back in the 1960s,70s and 80s or learned it from their old advisers and colleagues. 13.43, 30th June 2011 (UTC)
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)
What is the wiki regulation on US vs British spelling? If you are a Brit, why didn't you change them all to 'fibre' so as not to pain yourself?
124.176.224.97 (
talk)
00:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
"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)
I think its referring more to top level sport as at recreation level carbon fiber equipment may not by financially viable ( Crictv69 ( talk) 10:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC))
The section on Manufacturers, which was those who made carbon fibers, had this added:
Carbon Fiber Plant Design and Equipment Manufacturer:
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)
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)
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) Brap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.233.25 ( talk) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I honestly have practically no experience with carbon fiber yarn. However, I do know how to Google, and so I found these references to a search for carbon fiber yarn:
So, 2 of these 3 specifically mention "twisted" and "yarn". The third mentions a "tow", leaves me wondering -- is a yarn is made out of a bunch of "tow", or is a "tow" and a "yarn" are the same thing, or is perhaps a "yarn" is twisted but a "tow" is not twisted? -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 04:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I read a journal [1] 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)
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)
Isn't it called Fibre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregas485 ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Worth a mention here? Hcobb ( talk) 02:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. While there is general recognition that the current title is not ideal, there is not consensus to move the page over a redirect that points elsewhere. If a move is still desired, I suggest a more focused discussion on the proper target of the redirect first, perhaps at WP:RfD; note that although "RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes," "for more difficult cases" it also "can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point." A subsequent request would have more chance of achieving consensus if the target were pointing here. Dekimasu よ! 18:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Carbon (fiber) → Carbon fiber – The article uses "carbon fiber" throughout. Because this isn't about a fiber called carbon, but about a fibre made of carbon. – Srnec ( talk) 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 17 April 2015. The result of the move review was no consensus in the MRV to overturn the NC closure of the initial RM. |
The result of the move request was: No clear consensus to make this move as requested, however there does appear to be good rationale in this discussion to adjust the titles of this and related articles, redirects, dabs etc. to provide more clarity for readers on this complex subject. I would encourage someone to take the initiative to start a new RM laying out a solution that reflects the most cogent arguments and alternatives discussed in this RM. Don’t rehash old ground but instead give editors a good enough solution to discuss and resolve, giving the closer a clear solution if indeed there is consensus to make a move. Mike Cline ( talk) 15:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Carbon (fiber) →
Carbon fiber – The current title is misleading. This isn't about a fiber called carbon, but about a fibre made of carbon. The proposed new title currently redirects to
carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), which is a composite material made of carbon fibers. Although the latter is sometimes called "carbon fiber", this is a case of slang or jargon and results in the suboptimal title we have for this article. An analogous case is that
glass fiber, which is about fibers of glass, and
fiberglass, which is about the composite material composed of glass fibers.
As an encyclopedia we should should answer the question "What is carbon fiber?" straightforwardly. How do other reference works do that? The Oxford Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering defines carbon fibre as "a filament reinforcement used in composites". The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea starts its entry by saying "carbon fibre is mainly produced by separating a chain of carbon atoms from polyacrynitrile through heating and oxidation". There are many book-length treatments of carbon fiber and CFRP. All of the following treat "carbon fiber" as referring to fibers of carbon and not to their composites: G. M. Jenkins and K. Kawamura, Polymeric Carbons: Carbon Fibre, Glass and Char; G. Savage, Carbon–Carbon Composites; D. D. L. Chung, Carbon Fiber Compositse; P. Morgan, Carbon Fibers and their Composites; or J.-B. Donnet, S. Rebouillat, T. K. Wang and J. C. M. Peng (eds.), Carbon Fibers, 3rd ed. But it isn't only specialist sources that take "carbon fiber" to mean the fiber.
Here is an article from Car and Driver.
Here is how a Formula 1 resource explains it.
Here is about.com.
Here is How Stuff Works.
Here is Zoltek. They all start with the basic sense of "carbon fiber": fibers made of carbon.
Both this article and the one on the composite were viewed about 60,000 times in the last 90 days. See
here and
here. The redirect was viewed about
14,000 times. Switching the hatnote from one article to another will not greatly inconvenience users.relisted --
Mike Cline (
talk) 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Srnec (
talk)
20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''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.{{
About|the fiber|the composite material made with the fiber|Carbon fiber (composite)}}
at the top. This is also an acceptable result to me, in addition to the two options I already !voted for. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
About|loose or woven carbon filament|the rigid composite material made from carbon fiber used in aerospace and other applications|Carbon fiber reinforced polymer}}
I personally think that this may be sufficient. I am also unsure whether or not there are other forms of
"Carbon-fiber-composite materials". I think that "
Carbon fibre (fibre)" sounds and looks ridiculous. If a
WP:CONCEPTDAB has to be used I'd suggest
Carbon fibre (constituent of composites) which, as far as I know, fits
WP:PRECISE. I have not heard of any uses for single carbon fibres. The other title can stay as it is otherwise
Carbon fibre (composites) or
Carbon fibre (composite materials) might present the range of topics covered.
Greg
Kaye
12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
PS: Material science is working at the nanotechnological level these days, so there very probably are uses for single carbon fibers; I'm not sure what that really had to do with anything, though. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of conceptdab pages, but in this case, as an alternative to the above, I would support it, per SMcCandlish. -- В²C ☎ 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
So, how about it? The MR closed with a suggestion to pursue that angle. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Carbon (fiber) →
Carbon fibers – Excuse me, but the current parenthetical disambiguation is ridiculous. This material is never simply called "
carbon", that is the chemical element from which it's made. Silent (unspoken) disambiguation is insufficient, because the distinction is too subtle to be understood in context. If we do call it just "carbon", we've much more likely to mean
carbon fiber, which redirects to
carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. For example,
carbon bicycle is shorthand for
carbon fiber bicycle. This is one of those rare cases where disambiguation by using the plural form is possible. I believe that "carbon fibers bicycle" would be grammatically incorrect. This is the common name. As evidence of that, the string "carbon fibers" occurs 18 times on this page—not counting this requested move, and 22 times in the article itself. That title is linked from other articles, too: e.g.
Arman Sedghi, "known for his scientific achievement in production of low cost
carbon fibers." I can't believe this has been through two move requests and a move review, without anyone getting this, though it did take me some time pondering this to get the
(
carbon filament) to turn on. –
Wbm1058 (
talk)
01:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
— Wbm1058 ( talk) 01:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Carbon fiber does not exist only as a plural." Yes it does. Because in singular form, it's not carbon fiber. It's carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. Wbm1058 ( talk) 03:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Carbon fibers. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Re [7]
Should the Hickey-Moody paper [8] be included? This is an unusual sociological paper whose thesis is that CF is misogynistic, either inherently or as a social construct.
I'm inclined to include this. I don't especially like this paper: it assumes, without basis, that homosociality is inherently misogynistic and relies on this assumption heavily to draw its conclusions; it also conflates disability with handicap as both being social constructs, against the conventionally accepted social model of disability. However I am interested to see this correlation between cf and misogyny drawn out in a RS source (Hickey-Moody is an academic at Goldsmiths, publishing in a WP:N journal). It is not rocket science to regard CF as a signifier of "boys toys". There is a vast marketing culture devoted to this, to non-functional and skeumorphic levels. Hickey-Moody is merely taking that to a further level. One does not have to agree with the conclusions of this paper to see it as a valid opinion. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
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" [9]:
"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)
I noticed that Socialcomplex ( talk · contribs) 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)
![]() | This article is written in American English with IUPAC spelling (color, defense, traveled; aluminium, sulfur and caesium) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide and chemistry naming conventions, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Carbon fibers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
when carbon fibers are laquered a ed effect and a depth effect are there! it looks so amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saludacymbals ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 2018 January 28 (UTC)
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)
... Search for disposal. It seems to be a safe enough material until broken or disposed. In manufacturing processes there should be appropriate air filtering both for employees and outgoing air to prevent possibility of asbestos like scenario. There appears to be some applications where safe disposal is, purely by my own common sense, impossible or too expensive to implement. Example: carbon fiber reinforced concrete. Seemingly fine application until you want to get rid of the building and the only way I can imagine of safe disposal is laser cutting the concrete or moving the whole concrete building to air tight disposal facility! Other disposal processes inevitably leak some fibers into air where they can cause electrical interference (src: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/environmental/TechNotes/TechNotes2003-11.pdf ) or just generally end up in the environment. From what I can tell they are not biodegradable, potentially hazardous to breath and light enough to not really fall in the ground, there really should be some oversight of what applications they are used for, so that recycled high end fiber product won't end up in eg. some building cement and pose a great problem in future when said building need to go down cheaply it either cannot or will do so at the cost of releasing the fibers to the air.
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/carbon-fiber-life-beyond-the-landfill.aspx
Suggests that the properties of recycled fibers are no longer good enough compared to using some cheaper materials. Until efficient recycling is possible the best approach is for manufacturers to try and come up with some standard parts for common products that could be reused after some soap+water processing rather than having to break the existing product into pieces affecting the strength or risking the release of fibers if not properly (expensively) done.
Also it says:
"In 2004, most European Union (EU) member states passed laws forbidding landfill disposal of composites. Further, incineration of plastics is suspect because of the potential release of toxic byproducts."
This makes it sound that if you have some consumer CFRP products they'd need to be specially disposed. How many know to do that and are there even proper processes in place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 ( talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722620.stm
This news is on report from Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and says: "carbon nanofibres, whose constituent nanotubes have in preliminary laboratory experiments shown similar dangers to those of asbestos. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 ( talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7408705.stm
"A recent study showed that when mice inhaled nanotubes they developed inflammation that peaked within seven days of exposure, and returned to normal within one or two months"
This article also says the "short tubes" didn't cause problem and this is because there are cells that can engulf them. However imagine if everything was done from nanotubes (if some cheap manufacturing process came available or the recycled stuff would replace accepted materials) ... the current approach seems to be "lets wait until it's all over the place and see if there were bad effects". If you create near-indestructible things that can spread in the air and causes health problems, I'm not sure people would vote to wait wait and see until it's too expensive/difficult/inconvenient to get a handle on the problem? There should be extensive trial runs in artificial environments before we have everything made from recycled carbon fiber. The point here is, even if the small tubes are safe(r), if it's not biodegradable it will accumulate over time and given that stuff will end up in China etc for cheap improper disposal I think it's best to keep the use of this tech at bay until proper tests (10+ years high dose release to artificial environment) is made. Climate change is normal, Carbon fiber-based climate isn't. And one is something that can be easily regulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 ( talk) 23:22, 2008 November 14 (UTC)
If it was soaked in water, would bacteria be able to eat the carbon fiber? Puddytang ( talk) 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
"Carbon fiber" is not the name of the composite! See composite materials and GRP vz. fiberglass.
Egil 00:55 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
I agree. the whole carbon-fiber / crp / cfrp mess needs some also laminate and lamination. -- Iediteverything 16:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd be interested in seeing some information about the history of carbon fiber, but had a hard time finding anything on the web. According to this page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3131165.stm
It was invented in by the RAE in Farnborough, Hampshire. It seems like it was developed in the 1960's and became commonly available in the 1990's, but I haven't found an authoritative source for that.
If wikipedia intends to spell everything in the English language, the american way then why isn't there two seperate languages on the toolbar on the left. To spell carbon fibre as "carbon fiber" in the English translation of this article frankly disgusts me. Sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.43.39 ( talk) 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Totally agree, i makes the whole thing very difficult to read. As its a British Invertion should it not use Fibre?( 94.4.74.53 ( talk) 07:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC))
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)
There's no mention of pre-impregnated (pre-preg) material, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyparadigm ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 2005 February 1 (UTC)
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 ==
I don't have a tabbed browser: i have a Back tool built in to my browser, and when i want to backtrack and branch, that's what i do rather than plan on some editor guessing at where i want to go next.
Readers come to this article not primarily from any one place such as
Graphite-reinforced plastic or whatever page you're thinking of, but from about
100 different pages. I came to it from
Yo-Yo Ma, so for me the related material is
Wood. I'm not about add
Wood to the see alsos, but IMO the 3 existing ones are as bad an idea as the explicitly deprecated scheme of trying to outthink the reader by deciding
Argentina/Transportation is a good title because people who read it want to know other things about Argentina (and not about transportation), and the cure is to ditch the entire section.
--
Jerzy·
t 19:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
answer
while the fibers are alternate layers of graphite, not necessarily rolled up, the nanotubes are little compose pipes from sheets of closed graphite on if same and all forms an only separate molecule.
they're more resistant and some are supercondutors.
translated frame from the Italian
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)
I don't understand why people don't run a spell check or other basic grammar service before they post.
Stackleschwien
20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why people would go around policing the internet for grammar and spelling, completely ignoring the perfectly understandable question that the guy asked. Try not being such an asshat if your have the maturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papajohnin ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Can anyone give enlightenment on this topic? 203.128.81.210 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"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)
Yes, carbon has always been a conductor (some say a semiconductor) used in the manufacturer of resistors and other electronic components (at least since the 1920s).
The thickness of pure carbon and its level of impurities changes its resistance. When you cover it with epoxy or other resins, only then can it be used as an insulator.
I have seen carbon fiber reinforced insulators where fiberglass was not strong enough for the job, but alone, it will conduct. -- X42 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Non-polymer materials can also be used as the matrix for carbon fibers. Due to the formation of metal carbides (i.e., water-soluble AlC), bad wetting by some metals, and corrosion considerations, carbon has seen limited success in metal matrix composite applications; however, this can be improved by proper surface treatment, e.g., for carbon-aluminium MMCs a vapor deposition of titanium boride on the fibers is often employed. Reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) consists of carbon fiber-reinforced graphite, and is used structurally in high-temperature applications, such as the nose cone and leading edges of the space shuttle.
The fiber also finds use in filtration of high-temperature gases, as an electrode with high surface area and impeccable corrosion resistance, and as an anti- static component in high-performance clothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.118.90 ( talk) 13:27, 2007 November 7 (UTC)
Working in a communications field, we've always used the term "Micron" when referring to billionths of a meter. I've come to understand that in general practice this has become an archaic term now. I changed "5-8 micrometers" under "Structure and properties" to "5-8 microns" partially because the "micrometer" portion linked to the tool and not the unit of measurement. Aside from the link being incorrect, I understand that I may be in the wrong on this change and would like some feedback. Crmadsen ( talk) 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
All chemistry, physics, and engineering researchers I have had contact with use the term micron. most of these people got their phds in the 1990s or earlier. most of these people use the term because they learned it back in the 1960s,70s and 80s or learned it from their old advisers and colleagues. 13.43, 30th June 2011 (UTC)
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)
What is the wiki regulation on US vs British spelling? If you are a Brit, why didn't you change them all to 'fibre' so as not to pain yourself?
124.176.224.97 (
talk)
00:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
"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)
I think its referring more to top level sport as at recreation level carbon fiber equipment may not by financially viable ( Crictv69 ( talk) 10:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC))
The section on Manufacturers, which was those who made carbon fibers, had this added:
Carbon Fiber Plant Design and Equipment Manufacturer:
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)
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)
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) Brap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.233.25 ( talk) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I honestly have practically no experience with carbon fiber yarn. However, I do know how to Google, and so I found these references to a search for carbon fiber yarn:
So, 2 of these 3 specifically mention "twisted" and "yarn". The third mentions a "tow", leaves me wondering -- is a yarn is made out of a bunch of "tow", or is a "tow" and a "yarn" are the same thing, or is perhaps a "yarn" is twisted but a "tow" is not twisted? -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 04:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I read a journal [1] 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)
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)
Isn't it called Fibre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregas485 ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Worth a mention here? Hcobb ( talk) 02:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. While there is general recognition that the current title is not ideal, there is not consensus to move the page over a redirect that points elsewhere. If a move is still desired, I suggest a more focused discussion on the proper target of the redirect first, perhaps at WP:RfD; note that although "RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes," "for more difficult cases" it also "can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point." A subsequent request would have more chance of achieving consensus if the target were pointing here. Dekimasu よ! 18:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Carbon (fiber) → Carbon fiber – The article uses "carbon fiber" throughout. Because this isn't about a fiber called carbon, but about a fibre made of carbon. – Srnec ( talk) 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 17 April 2015. The result of the move review was no consensus in the MRV to overturn the NC closure of the initial RM. |
The result of the move request was: No clear consensus to make this move as requested, however there does appear to be good rationale in this discussion to adjust the titles of this and related articles, redirects, dabs etc. to provide more clarity for readers on this complex subject. I would encourage someone to take the initiative to start a new RM laying out a solution that reflects the most cogent arguments and alternatives discussed in this RM. Don’t rehash old ground but instead give editors a good enough solution to discuss and resolve, giving the closer a clear solution if indeed there is consensus to make a move. Mike Cline ( talk) 15:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Carbon (fiber) →
Carbon fiber – The current title is misleading. This isn't about a fiber called carbon, but about a fibre made of carbon. The proposed new title currently redirects to
carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), which is a composite material made of carbon fibers. Although the latter is sometimes called "carbon fiber", this is a case of slang or jargon and results in the suboptimal title we have for this article. An analogous case is that
glass fiber, which is about fibers of glass, and
fiberglass, which is about the composite material composed of glass fibers.
As an encyclopedia we should should answer the question "What is carbon fiber?" straightforwardly. How do other reference works do that? The Oxford Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering defines carbon fibre as "a filament reinforcement used in composites". The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea starts its entry by saying "carbon fibre is mainly produced by separating a chain of carbon atoms from polyacrynitrile through heating and oxidation". There are many book-length treatments of carbon fiber and CFRP. All of the following treat "carbon fiber" as referring to fibers of carbon and not to their composites: G. M. Jenkins and K. Kawamura, Polymeric Carbons: Carbon Fibre, Glass and Char; G. Savage, Carbon–Carbon Composites; D. D. L. Chung, Carbon Fiber Compositse; P. Morgan, Carbon Fibers and their Composites; or J.-B. Donnet, S. Rebouillat, T. K. Wang and J. C. M. Peng (eds.), Carbon Fibers, 3rd ed. But it isn't only specialist sources that take "carbon fiber" to mean the fiber.
Here is an article from Car and Driver.
Here is how a Formula 1 resource explains it.
Here is about.com.
Here is How Stuff Works.
Here is Zoltek. They all start with the basic sense of "carbon fiber": fibers made of carbon.
Both this article and the one on the composite were viewed about 60,000 times in the last 90 days. See
here and
here. The redirect was viewed about
14,000 times. Switching the hatnote from one article to another will not greatly inconvenience users.relisted --
Mike Cline (
talk) 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Srnec (
talk)
20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''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.{{
About|the fiber|the composite material made with the fiber|Carbon fiber (composite)}}
at the top. This is also an acceptable result to me, in addition to the two options I already !voted for. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
About|loose or woven carbon filament|the rigid composite material made from carbon fiber used in aerospace and other applications|Carbon fiber reinforced polymer}}
I personally think that this may be sufficient. I am also unsure whether or not there are other forms of
"Carbon-fiber-composite materials". I think that "
Carbon fibre (fibre)" sounds and looks ridiculous. If a
WP:CONCEPTDAB has to be used I'd suggest
Carbon fibre (constituent of composites) which, as far as I know, fits
WP:PRECISE. I have not heard of any uses for single carbon fibres. The other title can stay as it is otherwise
Carbon fibre (composites) or
Carbon fibre (composite materials) might present the range of topics covered.
Greg
Kaye
12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
PS: Material science is working at the nanotechnological level these days, so there very probably are uses for single carbon fibers; I'm not sure what that really had to do with anything, though. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of conceptdab pages, but in this case, as an alternative to the above, I would support it, per SMcCandlish. -- В²C ☎ 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
So, how about it? The MR closed with a suggestion to pursue that angle. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Carbon (fiber) →
Carbon fibers – Excuse me, but the current parenthetical disambiguation is ridiculous. This material is never simply called "
carbon", that is the chemical element from which it's made. Silent (unspoken) disambiguation is insufficient, because the distinction is too subtle to be understood in context. If we do call it just "carbon", we've much more likely to mean
carbon fiber, which redirects to
carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. For example,
carbon bicycle is shorthand for
carbon fiber bicycle. This is one of those rare cases where disambiguation by using the plural form is possible. I believe that "carbon fibers bicycle" would be grammatically incorrect. This is the common name. As evidence of that, the string "carbon fibers" occurs 18 times on this page—not counting this requested move, and 22 times in the article itself. That title is linked from other articles, too: e.g.
Arman Sedghi, "known for his scientific achievement in production of low cost
carbon fibers." I can't believe this has been through two move requests and a move review, without anyone getting this, though it did take me some time pondering this to get the
(
carbon filament) to turn on. –
Wbm1058 (
talk)
01:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
— Wbm1058 ( talk) 01:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Carbon fiber does not exist only as a plural." Yes it does. Because in singular form, it's not carbon fiber. It's carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. Wbm1058 ( talk) 03:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Carbon fibers. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Re [7]
Should the Hickey-Moody paper [8] be included? This is an unusual sociological paper whose thesis is that CF is misogynistic, either inherently or as a social construct.
I'm inclined to include this. I don't especially like this paper: it assumes, without basis, that homosociality is inherently misogynistic and relies on this assumption heavily to draw its conclusions; it also conflates disability with handicap as both being social constructs, against the conventionally accepted social model of disability. However I am interested to see this correlation between cf and misogyny drawn out in a RS source (Hickey-Moody is an academic at Goldsmiths, publishing in a WP:N journal). It is not rocket science to regard CF as a signifier of "boys toys". There is a vast marketing culture devoted to this, to non-functional and skeumorphic levels. Hickey-Moody is merely taking that to a further level. One does not have to agree with the conclusions of this paper to see it as a valid opinion. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
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" [9]:
"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)
I noticed that Socialcomplex ( talk · contribs) 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)