Talk: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.

^[1]

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)

Five and a half year later, still no mentioning of the redirected term acetylene black in the article itself. That is somewhat frustrating, but thank you for the reference, Tendermecies. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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:CHEMS 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)

That is all a nice exercise in understanding WP policies and the topic of conducting polymers. With all due respect, I don't see how this is all related to polyacetylene. Conductivity of polymers needs to be properly described in its articles (which you already did) and not copied to all marginally related polymer articles. Materialscientist (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, if the article asserts that conductive polyacetylenes were discovered in the 1970's when the reliable secondary sources clearly indicate that they were really discovered in the early 1960's, then this needs to be included in the article, if only for NPOV. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Improving is only appreciated, but not with polypyrrole or other distant "derivatives". The described there article might be not the earliest, but at least on polyacetylene. Materialscientist (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I changed the article so it only mentions "polyacetylene". Unfortunately for your argument, this means the 1964 monograph that cites several papers reporting very low conductivity polyacetylenes. This is getting rediculous and a violation of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. See particularly

• "7.Stonewalling – actively filibustering discussion, or repeatedly returning to claims that a reasonable editor might have long since resolved or viewed as discredited (without providing any reasonable counter of the discredital), effectively tying up the debate or preventing a policy-based resolution being obtained.

Also see: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

• 8.'Borderlining' – habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.
• 9.Bad faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised.
  • Example: Arguing that it is covered in another article, an editor negotiates a reluctant concensus to remove WP:RS well-verified material from one article. The editor then deletes the material from the second article."

While you may dismiss them, "The rules" are to protect editors against the sort of things you are doing. BTW, I recall one incident where you did exactly the offense described in number 9. Everyone values your contributions as an editor and admin, but this does not give you the right to blatantly flout the rules. Enough is enough. See, e.g.,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria. Nucleophilic (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your are accusing me of (please don't play with that). As I said, I would welcome constructive editing. Your addition to the article was after my comment. I have no access to that book, but found a source quoting that book with values of low conductivity of iodine doped polyacetylene cited to that book. Thus your last edit was generally Ok with me, but Smokefoot had his reasons to revert it, and he might wish to explain them. Materialscientist (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather reluctantly, I get involved in an editing dispute. Anyway, the references provided are good and hardly "obscure". Nor is the issue. That conductive polyacetylenes were discovered in the 1960's (not 1970's) is well-known in electrochemistry and is even the subject of a chapter in a major contemporary text-book on conductive polymers. I would suggest that this cite gets posted here too.

What is the problem, to induce such gaming and POV-pushing, not to mention gross WP:civility violations ? If I read the cases right, the sort of thing that gets people desysoped or banned. Personally, I would not have been as obliging as nucleophilic. And yes, polyacetylene is the parent compound to polypyrrole, etc. The only difference electronically is that polyacetylene has more long-range order and so is more "metallic". Clipjoint (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is more relevant discussion of this issue evolving on Talk:Nobel Prize. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted another attempt to remove cites, etc. on prior history. Clear POV-pushing in the face of so many good review articles, etc.. While smokefoot is a valuable member of the wikipedia community, this does not empower him any more than any other editor. Nucleophilic (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors are associated with developing articles on [[John McGinness[[ and Peter Proctor and others apparently embittered by not being recognized by the Nobel Prize for conducting organic materials should desist from editing this and related articles owing to a conflict of interest. The articles and the work that they suggest are not mentioned in the Nobel Prize citation but intended to prop up the POV by these apparently embittered individuals. The Nobelists reviews also do not mention these articles in their reviews. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Smokefoot: Hard to see what you mean. First, this is not my work. I have nothing to do with this field, except very indirectly. At best, enough physics training to sort of vaguely understand the issues.

Second, presumably, you are referring to the 1970's work of Mcginness et al. In fact, the restored cites (dating to 10+ years before McGinness et al) throughly establish that they did not orginate this field, not that they have ever made this claim. Just the opposite in fact. The cites indicate that, at best, they were merely the last of a string of researchers reporting highly-conductive polyacetylenes before their rediscovery by the 2000 Nobel prize winners. So this seems an entirely straw argument.

Possibly the real objection is that the field of conductive polymers has a long prehistory that inexplicably you do not want reported. Hell, it is the subject of an entire chapter in Inzelt's textbook Conductive Polymers. Which makes no reference to McGinness et al, presumably because they were so late. If you have counter-arguments and your own cites, please post them, as is proper wikiprocedure. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Walled garden about the editing related to conductive organic materials, Peter Proctor, and McGinness. Your citations to Weiss are not to polyacetylenes. As most people define such materials, they were invented by Shirakawa et al. Why would insert "However, because of the numerous prior discoveries of highly-conductive polyacetylenes, their priority is disputed." There is no dispute.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

With due respect-- this statement makes me wonder if you even understand what polyacetylene is. Likewise, the article does not even mention McGinness et al, which is why your argument is rather straw. Rather, it cites a book chapter and a review article reviewing the history of the field of conductive polymers. Nothing more.

Likewise, the issue is not who discovered polyactylenes, which were discovered in the 1800's as such. Rather it is who discovered highly-conductive polyacetylenes. The reviews indicate these were the subject of active research long before the work of Shirakawa et al. If you need a cite that the Nobel is "controversial", Inzelt (a major figure in the field of conductive polymers) directly questions their priority. Go argue with him, who literally "wrote the book" on the subject and presumably knows what a conductive polyacetylene is. Likely better than either of us, anyway. If you have contrary cites, etc. please post them. Otherewise, OR. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Polyacetylene is a generally linear organic polymer with alternating double bonds. You Proctor, McGinness have redefined it to suit your POV. I cannot assume good faith when I see what your clan has done to so many articles and the extent to which you prop up articles on Proctor and McGinness. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Right about the alternating double bonds. As for the rest, OR, and (misplaced) ad hominem, about which I will refrain from commenting in the interest in civility. I suggest a perusal of any review on conductive polymers, most (all?) of which are derivatives of polyacetylene and are generally considered as such. Again, I suggest starting with Inzelt's textbook and again suggest you come up with your own cites to the contrary. Otherwise, OR. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ichthyothereol is cited at the bottom of the article as an example of naturally-occurring polyacetylene. However, the molecule clearly has carbon-carbon triple bonds, as opposed to the carbon-carbon double bonds featured in the rest of the article. Surely this would make ichthyothereol a polyyne and not a polyacetylene? A Google search for <ichthyothereol polyyne> appears to indicate such. 192.197.178.2 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. The whole section about naturally occurring polyacetylenes is wrong. Polyacetylenes have alternating single-double bonds. Polyynes have alternating single/triple bonds. That section should be deleted entirely from the polyacetylene article, rewritten, and then added to an article about polyynes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.98.14 (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The literature is not consistent. The cited refs highlight many "polyynes" (per that technical definition) and specifically and only identify them as "polyacetylenes". One meaning is from the polymer world--the polymerization of triple-bonded monomers gives consecutive double-bonded units in the polymer--and it the meaning used in this article. But the other meaning appears to be just "poly" meaning "many". I agree it's confusing when there are two meanings of the term, and I agree that the "multiple alkynes" meaning does seem synonymous with the "polyyne" meaning. So I have moved its content there. However, we cannot ignore the reality that this meaning is associated with the article here as well, so I also added a note here to help readers disambiguate the ideas. DMacks (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a relevant discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize controversies