Difference between revisions of "Crystal"
From Online Dictionary of Crystallography
| 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 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) |
| − | :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) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:15, 6 July 2011
What about two-dimensional crystals? --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 --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. --MassimoNespolo 16:09, 5 April 2009 (BST)
- Time to relaunch the discussion, after the graphene affair? --MassimoNespolo 14:15, 6 July 2011 (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. --MassimoNespolo 16:09, 5 April 2009 (BST)