Talk:Nanocomposite

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nanocomposite article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Saying that "The percentage by weight of the nanoparticulates introduced can remain very low (on the order of 0.5% to 5%) due to the incredibly highsurface area to volume ratio of nanoparticulates" is simply WRONG! Think about the highest surface area to volume ratio "particles": single-atoms or single-molecules, this does not imply that a nanocomposite can be made by adding a few percent of Argon or water!!! Sylvania w (talk)

I agree with the above.PolymerSci (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between solutions and composites lies in the presence or absence of discontinuous phases. If, as with a composite, you have a discontinuous phase mixture (for example glass fibre and epoxy resin on the macroscale, or exfoliated clay particles and a resin system on the nanoscale) then surface interactions become significant. On the macroscale, control of the degree of interaction is important - too much adhesion and the composite will be brittle and have poor resistance to crack propagation - too little and the material will lack structural integrity. At the nanoscale, the nature of the interactions are less well investigated, but are certainly described in the literature, if usually by implication, as significant property changes are noted at low levels (when compared to macrocomposites) of reinforcement addition. My intention is to work this up as a properly referenced addition to the article Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

What you say is generally correct (there are many exceptions on the interactions) but what she(?) refers to was the original definition given here, which was more-or-less absurd. Also, your description above (continuous phase matrix including a discontinuous phase) also includes things like polymer-gels and doped-semiconductors, both of which cannot possibly be termed or considered as nanocomposites. PolymerSci (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment! - see section on proposed outline below Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody can confirm if it is really necessary that the separation among the fillers is equal? It sounds me quite strange. :/

It is very difficult to control such thing ... specially at low mass rations of particulate material( like in SWCNT reiforced polymers for example) ... cheers!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.245.24 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. This wiki article probably needs a lot more work on polymer-matrix nanocomposites, and definitely needs additions on Metal-matrix and Ceramic-matrix nanocomposites. Although I relate to the polymer-matrix composites excitement (as my username indicates I like polymers) there are many nanocomposite-materials based on ceramic and metals that must be added here... PolymerSci (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had suggested this same thing quite some time ago... Seeing after a lot of time that this 'article' remains a stub, with few if any at all changes and additions, I would second this recommendation and would make it even more strict: let's first define (scientifically or encyclopedically) the various classes of nanocomposites, and then users may be attracted here to build on with details and opinions. Sylvania w (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way to classify composites is by the nature of reinforcement: particulate - exfoliated clay particles, short fibre - carbon nanotubes, long fibre - electrospun nanofibres...Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even before that, it makes sensse to classify as polymer-matrix, ceramic-matrix, metal-matrix nanocomposites, etc, and within each of these classes they can be further distinguished between clay-reinforced, nanotube/fibre-reinforced, etc.. For example, fibre-reinforced nanocomposites can be polymer/nanonotube, ceramic/carbon-whisker, or semiconductor/nanowire (metal or ceramic), etc, all very different in how the reinforcement works and what the changes in performance are. Sylvania w (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, having thought it through, have to agree with that - see below about your proposed re-structure Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. May I recommend that the line on "energetic" nanocomposites (propelants and explosives containing nanoparticulates) should be extended, by whomeever added it?, and become a section or subsection later down the article? Also, as it is written it reads as quoting sources open to interpretation and seem non-peer-reviewed. PolymerSci (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I also took the time to read through the referred PDFs. These 'energetic' nanocomposites do not seem as a broad-interest topic. Sylvania w (talk)

I just did a google-scholar literature search and I get hundreds of hits(i.e. papers) for polymer-nanocomposites (2950), ceramic-nanocomposites (497), or metal-nanocomposites (375) and only 31 hits for energetic-nanocomposites; I moved it to the end as a section, but recommend it's removed Sylvania w (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Outline[edit]

What about having a general definition up-front,
followed by sections on
-polymer-matrix nanocomposites
-ceramic-matrix
-metal-matrix, etc
and subsections on specific classes within (for example, within polymer-matrix section, classify general trends, polymer/clay, polymer/nanotube, polymer/ceramic, etc). Sylvania w (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! Depending on how this wiki evolves this outline may change and it will morph, depending on editors' contributions. You are too conservative, apparently you know about/read on this topic, you need not ask advise or permission for making changes, go ahead and make the edits the best you think/can, and if the community does not like or approve, it will change very fast. (Sorry if I come across as 'patronizing'!) PolymerSci (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This structure looks good - taking on board PolymerSci's comments above, and to kick it off, I've put in a definition from Ajayan et al, and expanded the rest of the introduction to be a bit more broadly based Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having discovered the miracle of the expand command, I have put in the skeleton (no sub sections yet) of Sylvania w's suggested structure, invited further contributions, and incorporated the section on energetic nanocomposites into the metal matrix section where maybe it will be more at home. Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]