Actions

Talk

Difference between revisions of "Crystal"

From Online Dictionary of Crystallography

 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
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?
+
: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
+
: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)
 +
:::Time to relaunch the discussion, after the graphene affair? --[[User:MassimoNespolo|MassimoNespolo]] 14:15, 6 July 2011 (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)