_ _    _ _____  ___   __                       
 __      _(_) | _(_)___ / ( _ ) / /_   ___ ___  _ __ ___  
 \ \ /\ / / | |/ / | |_ \ / _ \| '_ \ / __/ _ \| '_ ` _ \ 
  \ V  V /| |   <| |___) | (_) | (_) | (_| (_) | | | | | |
   \_/\_/ |_|_|\_\_|____/ \___/ \___(_)___\___/|_| |_| |_|

File talk:Types of Carbon Nanotubes.png

In today's world, File talk:Types of Carbon Nanotubes.png is a topic that has gained great relevance and has generated intense debate in different areas. Since its emergence, File talk:Types of Carbon Nanotubes.png has captured the attention of academics, professionals and the general public, generating conflicting opinions and provoking deep reflections on its impact on society. In this article, we will explore different perspectives on File talk:Types of Carbon Nanotubes.png and analyze its influence on various aspects of everyday life. From its origin to its consequences, we will delve into an in-depth analysis that will allow us to better understand this phenomenon and its implications for the future.

I have some strange problem with your zig-zag nanotube: You write (0,10) nanotube in your image, but everytime I count the hexagons (equivalently to the number of unit vectors along the circumference), it's 14. Did I miss something "theoretically", or is this a real mistake? Thanks for any hint! Jan


It is a not a (0,10), but a (14,0) tube. Zig-zag tubes are generally (n,0), so the first mistake is messing up n and m. The second is as Jan correctly states, that there are 14 a1 vectors around the circumference. BR Jakob

Ooops…

… thank you guys, I messed up. I'll corret that as soon as possible! Mstroeck 09:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Misleading

The picture has several problems:

- (n,n) tubes are called armchair tubes because their circumferential edge is armchair-like (ignoring cut bonds). This is not evident in the (10,10) example since an oblique edge was chosen.

- Likewise, there is a disconnect between the (periodic) bonds shown in half in the (0,10) wireframe and the (0,10) picture -- which still actually is (0,14).

- In a schematic figure like this, color should serve to illustrate a quantity or separate components. Here, it seems just thrown in and the viewer is left to guess. "Depth" in a perspective drawing is better (if at all) illustrated by fogging.

- The black background is unsuitable for printing and most paedagogical uses.

Use of the your image

Dear Michael Ströck,

I would like to ask authorization to use this image "carbon nanotubes" - http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wiki386.com/en/Image:Types_of_Carbon_Nanotubes.png. How do I talk to you about this? My e-mail is [email protected]. Please, write to me. I work in a educational group in Brazil.

Best regards, Claudia Cruz Iconografia - Tecnologia Educacional Positivo Informática —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.160.22.25 (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia