218.205.178.250 (talk) science is not about conflicts between Wikipedia editors |
218.205.178.250 (talk) whoever NIMSOffice is, this is irrelevant for readers |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
I have just had the same conversation elsewhere. Our conclusion? 'Aneutronic fusion' avoids the word 'fission'. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/114.120.112.41|114.120.112.41]] ([[User talk:114.120.112.41|talk]]) 12:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I have just had the same conversation elsewhere. Our conclusion? 'Aneutronic fusion' avoids the word 'fission'. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/114.120.112.41|114.120.112.41]] ([[User talk:114.120.112.41|talk]]) 12:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== discussion of gamma-B is mislead by NIMSOffice == |
|||
The phase diagram reproduced here comes from our paper - Oganov et al. (Nature 2009), but NIMSOffice incorrectly gives references to lots of papers to diminish credit to Oganov's Nature paper. |
|||
Discussion of chemical bonding in gamma-B is also wrong - our paper (Oganov et al., Nature 2009) explicitly stated that the bonding is "partially ionic" (or, equivalently, and also explicitly stated "polar covalent"). There is conclusive evidence supporting this picture. Therefore, the phase is both ionic and covalent - as shown by us. There is nothing novel in a covalent bonding in an element, but a significantly ionic bonding was unexpected for an element. That was a big surprise. |
|||
This page is closed for editing, so I cannot correct these mistakes. I suggest the editors put the following text: |
|||
"Gamma-B is peculiar from the chemical viewpoint in that its bonding is not purely covalent, but contains a significant ionic component. This is the only so far known elemental phase that has a significant ionic fraction of chemical bonding (Oganov et al., 2009)". |
|||
Note - my investigation shows that NIMSOffice is directly involved in the controversy on discovery of gamma-boron and is either a coauthor of the Zarechnaya-Dubrovinskaya-Dubrovinsky-Filinchuk papers, or their collaborator on other papers. |
|||
I suggest an investigation on the identity of NIMSOffice, who in my opinion should be banned from editing Wikipedia for vandalism and pushing a personal agenda. |
|||
Artem R. Oganov |
|||
== please correct mistakes == |
== please correct mistakes == |
Revision as of 21:25, 3 April 2012
![]() | Boron has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Elements GA‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
|
||
"Fusion"?
11B is also a candidate as a fuel for aneutronic fusion. When struck by a proton of about 500 keV, it produces three alpha particles and 8.7 MeV of energy.
5P + 6N add 1P → 3 alpha particles (3 x 2P+2N) + energy. This sounds like fission to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.223.141.144 (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have just had the same conversation elsewhere. Our conclusion? 'Aneutronic fusion' avoids the word 'fission'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.112.41 (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
please correct mistakes
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Borphase.jpg/220px-Borphase.jpg)
1. Phase diagram of boron is taken from our work (Ref. 11), but credit is not given. Most of the phase equilibrium lines on this diagram were calculated by me, the rest were constrained by our experiments, previous experiments and our calculations. To construct this diagram we used information that comes 90% from our own data and 10% from previous works, and this diagram only appeared in our work (Ref. 11).
2. Discovery of gamma-B should include Ref. 11 and probably Ref. 10. Ref. 12 should be deleted from the "discovering" papers, since it was done much later (submission 2 years after Ref.12) and not independently from Ref. 11 (see http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/filinchukmisconduct).
3. Sentence "It is not clear yet whether the chemical bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]." does not make sense - the phase is mixed ionic-covalent and I suggest the following text instead:
Chemical bonding in gamma-B has been described [11] as mixed ionic-covalent. Significant ionicity is unexpected for a pure element, but it has been shown that some effects characteristic of ionic crystals (e.g. the LO-TO splitting) are present in gamma-B
- The phase diagram has been removed from the article and a notice of dispute has been added to that section. I'll start reading my references on boron to get up to speed and report back. --mav (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Although adding the citations to the caption in this article will be useful (and maybe satisfy the orginal creators), the primary requirment is that the source information should be on the image page. That also allows as many sources as needed to be added in greater detail, as has been done AFAIK, there is no more legal requirment for attribution, as the attribution is on the trancluded image page.YobMod 13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Started a artcle on Allotropes of boron .--Stone (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Boron also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ?
Shouldn't Boron also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Boron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Quite a comprehensive, wide-ranging, article on Boron.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- This is quite a comprehensive article with a wide-ranging scope, so I'm awarding GA-status. I think that there is scope for slightly expanding the article and I discuss these below; however their lack is not sufficient to cause me to withhold GA-status nor for putting the WP:GAN On Hold - after all GAs can nearly "always" be improved.
- Pass or Fail:
However, the pdf version of reference 70 is flagged as a {deadlink}: the link to the pdf file should be either corrected or removed.
Possible improvements:
- There is no mention of boron hydrides; however diborane is mentioned, but not as a hydride.
- There is no mention of organoboron compounds; however the use of Triethylborane is mentioned, but not as an organoboron compound.
- No mention of Tourmaline mineral group.
Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Filter
The article says boric acid in reactor water is slowly filtered out. Doesn't it dissolve in the water, in which case, how could it be removed by filtration? Unfree (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- After reading through Google books on that I realize that "filtering" here is a simplification of a complex process, which involves ion-exchange resins and multi-stage evaporators. No mistake though. Materialscientist (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Colour
I seem to vaguely recall reading once that the colour of absolutely pure boron was uncertain (due to the difficulty of preparing it) and that the conventional black/brown colour may be due to impurities. The article doesn't seem to mention this; have I remembered incorrectly? 86.134.90.61 (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes and no. The article mentions the band gaps, which correspond to a deep-red/brown color (pure boron). Impurity might easily change that to black, gray, but not lighter color. This situation is more annoying in silicon carbide, which should be colorless or yellowish when pure, but in reality is usually gray, green or brown. Materialscientist (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Use of the word "enriched"
To the lay(ish) reader (me) this bit confused me at first.
Given that we are talking about B10 and B11 to use the word enriched boron for B10 and depleted boron for B11 is counter-intuitive with out a close read of the article and even then some might miss it. At first read I am thinking how can 10 be greater than 11?
IE we are talking about a process that alters the natural abundances of the two isotopes.
To talk about 'enriched' boron is also a bit silly, can it be humored as well?
Seeing as this page is "semi protected" I suggest changing the title
Enriched boron (boron-10)
To
Boron Enrichment
As what this section is really talking about is not just boron BUT really a process for the purpose of producing a product for either the nuclear industry or the space industry.
IT may then be possible to combine the two sections (ie Enriched boron (boron-10) and Depleted boron (boron-11) with a discussion of the direction of enrichment of the different isotopes for different end uses.
You can then link off to Isotopic Separation (which I note used to be Isotopic Enrichment - maybe the same discussion was had?)
And really, why would you call it Depleted boron (B11) when it is the most abundant isotope as stated in the article! Another potentially misleading use of the word depleted for the lay reader?
What you are saying is that the isotope used in these space applications (B11)is the product that remains after the B10 has been removed. Now 'enriched', surely?
Really, ask yourself the question which one we would call enriched and depleted if the first use of Boron was spacecraft and not nuclear reactors? And there are currently more spacecraft than nuclear reactors anyway....
IF NEEDED maybe state that B10 is commonly referred to in the Nuclear Industry as enriched Boron.
Thats what Id do... then this article might be worth its 'accolades'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.112.41 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Two Questions
1. How IS Boron enriched?
2. Can it exist in a liquid form? JeepAssembler (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- 1. I have read an article, where it is done by column chromatography. Several hundred meter long columns.--Stone (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- 2. As a element, yes, but only above the melting point of 2349 K, 2076°C. There are several chemical compounds of boron which are liquid.--Stone (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Don't remember by heart how it is done with boron, but most pure semiconductors are enriched by growing them from an isotopically enriched compound - not by directly enriching the pure form. For example, enriched germane/silane/methane for germanium/Si/diamond. Same should be for boron. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are right it is not enriched in pure, but as compound. A column chromatography at 2000°C would be challenging, but not economic.--Stone (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Don't remember by heart how it is done with boron, but most pure semiconductors are enriched by growing them from an isotopically enriched compound - not by directly enriching the pure form. For example, enriched germane/silane/methane for germanium/Si/diamond. Same should be for boron. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Miss-Identified Mineral picture
The picture in the Characteristics section under occurrence is improperly identified, as it displays the mineral "Tincalconite after Borax" and not actually borax as it is labeled. This miss-identification is common but is not correct.
http://www.galleries.com/minerals/carbonat/tincalco/tincalco.htm "Tincalconite is a mineral that is closely related to and often intimately associated with the mineral borax. Most old mineral specimens of borax are chalky white due to a chemical reaction from dehydration. They have actually altered (at least on their surface and ultimately throughout) to the mineral tincalconite with the loss of water molecules. This kind of alteration from one mineral to another, can leave the shape of the original crystal intact. Mineralogists refer to this as a pseudomorph, or "false shape", because the tincalconite has the crystal shape of the predeceasing borax. Most all specimens of borax in museums and collections should technically be labeled "Tincalconite" or even more accurately "Tincalconite after Borax". " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.46.172 (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Could you please explain why this picture is of tincalconite and not borax? We don't know its age, and the surface doesn't seem to show any water-related erosion. Materialscientist (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
+4 Oxidation State
Boron can form compounds whose formal oxidation state is not three, such as B(IV) in boron carbide BC. What does it mean? If so, we may be able to obtain a helium compound very easily because it has only 2 protons and so the 2S electrons will be much less tightly bound!--Anoop.m (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- The formula for boron carbide is B4C. Your question assumes facts not in evidence. SBHarris 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
B(IV) is mentioned several times in the article - I believe this is a mistake. [B(OH)4]−, for example, contains B(III), but the article implies it is B(IV).
Ben (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only evidence for B(IV) in the article is BC in the infobox. The recently added unreferenced part on B(IV) has to be fixed or removed - oxidation state IV does not derive from coordination IV. We don't say Cd has oxidation state IV only because it forms zincblende CdS. Charged species don't count here. Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, you're both right. Coordination number 4 with oxygen remains oxidation +3 so long as there's a formal -1 charge on the boron (the fourth bond is a coordinate bond). So both B(OH)3 and B(OH)4- are boron (III) = +3. The oxygens are always -2 and the oxidation number of the boron has to make the ion charge come out to what it is. All the borons in tetraborate are +3 also: there we have 9 oxygens (-18), 4 hydrogens (+4), and 2 negative charges, which leaves us +12 for the 4 borons, which gives them +3 each. Wups. I'll fix this.
The oxidation number for MgB2 is wrong also. The borons bonding to each other have no oxidation state. The only electrons are lost from the magnesium, one per boron, so the formal oxidation state for B is -1 in that compound. If we assign nitrogen -3 in BN compounds, the boron is always +3 in these various structures also. That leaves me with no +4.
Ideas are welcome about what do do with BC compounds. B4C isn't quite stoichiometric anyway, as noted. If it were, and carbon were assigned +4, the boron would come out -1 as in MgB2 again. But I'm not sure it's fair to assign carbon as the electropositive element here, any more than to choose boron as electronegative in all the hydrides, which are analogous to hydrocarbons. What do you think? SBHarris 02:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was actually referring to the BC molecule. As to B4C, it is a complex lattice with B12 icosahedra connected by carbon chains. There is an "explanation" here (doi:10.1039/b618493f) why it is non-stoichiometric, and I am just reading it. Anyway, the structure of B4C seems uncertain and can hardly indicate B(IV) state. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the icosahedra are fascinating, and these compounds go up to B(6.5)C stoichiometrically. They should be neat things to make 10B containing composites for spacecraft with maximum B-10-enriched-boron per structural weight. I don't know of any BC molecules except as isolated gases or free radical trapped in argon. BC. would be a free radical, and BC: with the extra electron would have a negative charge. There should be a compound HCB, rather like HCN:, except the electrons in the sigma lobe of HCN: would be missing in HCB, due to boron's smaller charge by 2. In all cases the bond order is about 3, but (again) I'm not sure how to assign C or B as the negative or positive here (they are nearly the same electronegativity), so the oxidation state of the B is a mystery to me. I guess it's either +3 or -3. If you must have your carbon negative, then the B is still +3. And yes, B(+IV) was my mistake. I admit it! Moving on... SBHarris 08:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was actually referring to the BC molecule. As to B4C, it is a complex lattice with B12 icosahedra connected by carbon chains. There is an "explanation" here (doi:10.1039/b618493f) why it is non-stoichiometric, and I am just reading it. Anyway, the structure of B4C seems uncertain and can hardly indicate B(IV) state. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, you're both right. Coordination number 4 with oxygen remains oxidation +3 so long as there's a formal -1 charge on the boron (the fourth bond is a coordinate bond). So both B(OH)3 and B(OH)4- are boron (III) = +3. The oxygens are always -2 and the oxidation number of the boron has to make the ion charge come out to what it is. All the borons in tetraborate are +3 also: there we have 9 oxygens (-18), 4 hydrogens (+4), and 2 negative charges, which leaves us +12 for the 4 borons, which gives them +3 each. Wups. I'll fix this.
boron is not a plant nutrient
"Boron is an essential plant nutrient"? Plants can do not eat boron because these element does not dissolve in water. Plants consume boron in dissolvable formes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.94.195 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- This makes me sad. — raekyT 16:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- By this argument, iodine and iron are not an essential nutrients either, since we do not drink iodine solutions, nor do we eat rust for the iron. This is a nonsensical argument.—Tetracube (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
the article is not really informative
Very many questions of interest to the ordinary reader are not there. What is the etymology of the word "boron"? Not many people may perhaps know that Burack was the name of the white horse of Prophet Mohamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.209.33 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- So what? That fact is relevant only if it had something to do with boron. Did he name the horse for borax, or is the word borax from the same color as the horse? Is this a general Arabic or Persian stem/root for "white"? In which case Mohamed just named his horse "Whitey", which is a boring bit of trivia that might belong in the article on the prophet, but not here. We're not a madrasah. The article states, as is:
SBHarris 21:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)The name boron originates from the Arabic word بورق buraq or the Persian word بوره burah;[2] which are names for the mineral borax.[3]
Former use as a food additive and health implications
What about the use of Borax as a food preservative, it was very common at one time - THE USE OF BORIC ACID AND ITS SALTS AS FOOD PRESERVATIVES.(1902) The Heinz food company funded Harvey Washington Wiley and his campaign against Borax Pure ketchup: a history of America's national condiment, with recipes
I'm not sure boron is so harmless Experimental Study on the Estrogen-Like Effect of Boric Acid
The National Acadamies are authorative Although not observed in humans, animal studies have shown that high doses of borax or boric acid produce adverse effects in the testis and affect male fertility —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, under Biological role is the unreferenced "U.S. Department of agriculture conducted" experiment, with results showing that boron "activated estrogen and vitamin D". According to my gynecologist, estrogen is created in ovarian egg cells or by conversion of androgen in fat cells, it is not lying dormant in postmenopausal women waiting to be "activated". The possible reference states that "Boron Enhances and Mimics Some Effects of Estrogen Therapy in ..." Journal of Trace Elements in Experimental Medicine 5:237-246 (1992). Gnach (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Adding a bit to the lede
The lede/lead for this article is one of the shortest for a major element, so I've added a bit, since there is a lot in this article to summarize.
Boron is really rare in the universe, being produced only by spallation and a bit in the Big Bang. It's rare on Earth also, but luckily the salts disolve in water and are concentrated in evaporate ores. So all that works well in the the first paragraph.
The second paragraph is about the pure stuff, as is traditional.
The third paragraph is about the compounds. The major industrial uses of boron are actually as perborate bleaches and borax in fiberglass. But it has a big future in supermaterials, I think, as people learn to work with the nitrides and carbides.
The forth paragraph, as also traditional, is the biological role, which is not an important one for life, but at the same time isn't indifferent. Boron is a bit like sodium and iodine-- it's so rare that you wouldn't think life would need it, but the ability of the ocean to concentrate it has made it more used than its crustal concentration would cause one to guess. SBHarris 01:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Add a link?
Shouldn't borax be wikilinked in the "etymology" paragraph? JCM83
- It's already linked first in the lede and also later in the mineral section. I put in a third link, but that's three. Number of links for the same term in an article should be limited. Here it's when used for the first time, then then maybe when needed to stimulate the memory. A new one in etymology is okay with me, and then the section about borax minerals--- but that's it! SBHarris 05:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion for giving the solid density of Boron
For the solid state no density is given in the table on the right. Here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/entities/elements/boron/to/45/hf/ it says: 2.46 g/cm3 But this one seems to be more reliable: http://www.springermaterials.com/docs/info/10681727_595.html 2.354(5) g cm–3 (293 K) I suggest to take the last value, or give 2.4 as the density at ambiant temperature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.180.39.174 (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are four allotropes, thus the density is given for them all in a table in the "Allotropes" section. Materialscientist (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Boron Shielding and other errors and Omissions
Sorry but although Borate solutions are used to SRAM reactors and a small amount of Boric acid added to stabilize "swimming pool" reactors (evap or water boil concentrates Boron-10), Boron shielding is ineffective for x-ray and gamma radiation generated due to low mass) and less expensive steel or concrete typically serve both purposes. Note that B0ron-10 generates high energy He and Li particles on absorbing a neutro, and Boron-10 plus alpha gives C13 and neutron as well as alpha plus Boron-11 (80% of Boron) also yields neutron, in fact Boron can be part of a neutron generator when admixed with Polonium-210 or Radium or other Alpha emitter.[4]. No reference to using Boron shielding in a real reactor.
By the way, Borax is a condiment in the Middle East and Asia, and can be found in Hallal grocery stores for want of another reference.
Shjacks45 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Boron-10 is useful in theory as a neutron shield in places where weight is a premium and shield materials need to do double duty and structural support and radiation shields. That would be especially the case for boron and boron composites (like boron carbide) in interplanetary manned spacecraft. Secondary neutrons from cosmic rays are very difficult to stop without some type of neutron absorbant. This doesn't take care of the whole problem (the cosmic rays themselves, which are mostly fast protons plus a few heavier nuclei), but it does help with the cleanup. A reference is given. SBHarris 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Consensus is clearly to keep this article listed as Good. AIRcorn (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC).
I feel that the article is not suitable referenced; there are many paragraphs that lack refs. In addition, the prose strength does not seem GA-worthy to me. StringTheory11 05:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- The page grew from 54,848 bytes (2009-07-21) to 71,713 bytes (2012-01-05) and also from 98 refs to 112 refs, there might be the good chance to improve the page with the help of the main contributors.--Stone (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script and relevant WikiProjects for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep While it could be improved I am not seeing anything here or at the article that warrants delisting. Maybe if some examples of poor prose or unreferenced statements were provided a stronger case could be made. AIRcorn (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep The ref situation improved and without further recommendations it is hard to change the article.--Stone (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Aircorn and Stone. Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
User Materialscientist should not be deleting the useful references from Wikipedia
I inserted references to the latest papers, which I found useful and sure that others will find them useful too. User Materialscientist deleted them without explaining why. This indicates he has not read the papers I refer to, or has the conflict of interest. Reading comments on the Talk page I see how this article on Boron was before suffering from the deleting of articles and references and some conflicts of the interests. Please don't delete useful articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Each piece of knowledge is precious. Deleting knowledge as Materialscientist does it, without reasons, helps nothing. If I found these references useful, other readers will find them useful too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- You could use the information in the paper to add something useful to the article instead of just putting it in the External links. AIRcorn (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Good suggestion for improving. But Materialscientist just deleted references that I add and does not explain why. And now the article is not editable. What can I do? I think Materialscientist should explain himself or else he should be stopped or banished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Oganov A.R., Chen J., Gatti C., Ma Y.-M., Yu T., Liu Z., Glass C.W., Ma Y.-Z., Kurakevych O.O., Solozhenko V.L. (2009). "Ionic high-pressure form of elemental boron" (PDF). Nature. 457: 863-867 (free download). doi:10.1038/nature07736.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Shipley, Joseph T. (2001). The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. JHU Press. ISBN 9780801867842.
- ^ "Etymology of Elements". innvista. Retrieved 2009-06-06.
- ^ http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1019v1/css/h1019v1_108.htm