Talk:Crystal - Revision history

MassimoNespolo at 13:15, 6 July 2011

2011-07-06T13:15:25Z

MassimoNespolo at 15:09, 5 April 2009

2009-04-05T15:09:37Z

GervaisChapuis at 14:06, 5 April 2009

2009-04-05T14:06:40Z

GervaisChapuis at 14:05, 5 April 2009

2009-04-05T14:05:26Z

GervaisChapuis at 14:02, 5 April 2009

2009-04-05T14:02:58Z

MassimoNespolo at 12:59, 3 April 2009

2009-04-03T12:59:52Z

New page

What about [http://www.pnas.org/content/102/30/10451 two-dimensional crystals]? --[[User:MassimoNespolo|MassimoNespolo]] 13:59, 3 April 2009 (BST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 What about [http://www.pnas.org/content/102/30/10451 two-dimensional crystals]? --[[User:MassimoNespolo|MassimoNespolo]] 13:59, 3 April 2009 (BST)
---[[User:GervaisChapuis|GervaisChapuis]] 15:06, 5 April 2009 (BST)
+:First, the article points to a 2D crystal and not a crystal. Second, the name was coined by the authors of the article and they are the sole responsible for their definition. Apparently this 2D crystal can only be dealt with on a Si substrate and can only observed with with HREM or AFM. We are dealing here with a very special case of some atomic arrangements which can be formed in HREM. Should any mono or di-atomic surface which can be observed in EM be called 2D crystal?
-First, the article points to a 2D crystal and not a crystal. Second, the name was coined by the authors of the article and they are the sole responsible for their definition. Apparently this 2D crystal can only be dealt with on a Si substrate and can only observed with with HREM or AFM. We are dealing here with a very special case of some atomic arrangements which can be formed in HREM. Should any mono or di-atomic surface which can be observed in EM be called 2D crystal?
+:I would be reluctant to modify the definition of crystals just to include atomic layers --[[User:GervaisChapuis|GervaisChapuis]] 15:06, 5 April 2009 (BST)
+::Personally, I do agree but the debate (for example, on wikipedia) has been launched and I think that soon or later the Nomenclature Commission should take a position. --[[User:MassimoNespolo|MassimoNespolo]] 16:09, 5 April 2009 (BST)
-I would be reluctant to modify the definition of crystals just to include atomic layers
+:::Time to relaunch the discussion, after the graphene affair? --[[User:MassimoNespolo|MassimoNespolo]] 14:15, 6 July 2011 (BST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:09, 5 April 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:

	I would be reluctant to modify the definition of crystals just to include atomic layers		I would be reluctant to modify the definition of crystals just to include atomic layers
		+	:Personally, I do agree but the debate (for example, on wikipedia) has been launched and I think that soon or later the Nomenclature Commission should take a position. --[[User:MassimoNespolo\|MassimoNespolo]] 16:09, 5 April 2009 (BST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 What about [http://www.pnas.org/content/102/30/10451 two-dimensional crystals]? --[[User:MassimoNespolo|MassimoNespolo]] 13:59, 3 April 2009 (BST)
 First, the article points to a 2D crystal and not a crystal. Second, the name was coined by the authors of the article and they are the sole responsible for their definition. Apparently this 2D crystal can only be dealt with on a Si substrate and can only observed with with HREM or AFM. We are dealing here with a very special case of some atomic arrangements which can be formed in HREM. Should any mono or di-atomic surface which can be observed in EM be called 2D crystal?
 I would be reluctant to modify the definition of crystals just to include atomic layers

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 What about [http://www.pnas.org/content/102/30/10451 two-dimensional crystals]? --[[User:MassimoNespolo|MassimoNespolo]] 13:59, 3 April 2009 (BST)
-First, the article points to a 2D crystal and not a crystal. Second, the name was coined by the authors of the article and they the sole responsible for their definition. Apparently this 2D crystal can only be dealt on a Si substrate and can only observed with with HREM or AFM. We are dealing here with a very special case of some atomic arrangements which can be formed in HREM. Should any mono or di-atomic surface which can be observed in EM be called 2D crystal?
+First, the article points to a 2D crystal and not a crystal. Second, the name was coined by the authors of the article and they are the sole responsible for their definition. Apparently this 2D crystal can only be dealt with on a Si substrate and can only observed with with HREM or AFM. We are dealing here with a very special case of some atomic arrangements which can be formed in HREM. Should any mono or di-atomic surface which can be observed in EM be called 2D crystal?
 I would be reluctant to modify the definition of crystals just to include atomic layers

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:02, 5 April 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	What about [http://www.pnas.org/content/102/30/10451 two-dimensional crystals]? --[[User:MassimoNespolo\|MassimoNespolo]] 13:59, 3 April 2009 (BST)		What about [http://www.pnas.org/content/102/30/10451 two-dimensional crystals]? --[[User:MassimoNespolo\|MassimoNespolo]] 13:59, 3 April 2009 (BST)
		+
		+	First, the article points to a 2D crystal and not a crystal. Second, the name was coined by the authors of the article and they the sole responsible for their definition. Apparently this 2D crystal can only be dealt on a Si substrate and can only observed with with HREM or AFM. We are dealing here with a very special case of some atomic arrangements which can be formed in HREM. Should any mono or di-atomic surface which can be observed in EM be called 2D crystal?
		+
		+	I would be reluctant to modify the definition of crystals just to include atomic layers