Talk:Carbon fibers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3D effect or depth effect[edit]

when carbon fibers are laquered a ed effect and a depth effect are there! it looks so amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saludacymbals (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2018 January 28 (UTC)

Disposal / Safety section needed[edit]

The title says it all. This section is needed especial because of the reference to asbestos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.237.7 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... Search for disposal. It seems to be a safe enough material until broken or disposed. In manufacturing processes there should be appropriate air filtering both for employees and outgoing air to prevent possibility of asbestos like scenario. There appears to be some applications where safe disposal is, purely by my own common sense, impossible or too expensive to implement. Example: carbon fiber reinforced concrete. Seemingly fine application until you want to get rid of the building and the only way I can imagine of safe disposal is laser cutting the concrete or moving the whole concrete building to air tight disposal facility! Other disposal processes inevitably leak some fibers into air where they can cause electrical interference (src: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/environmental/TechNotes/TechNotes2003-11.pdf ) or just generally end up in the environment. From what I can tell they are not biodegradable, potentially hazardous to breath and light enough to not really fall in the ground, there really should be some oversight of what applications they are used for, so that recycled high end fiber product won't end up in eg. some building cement and pose a great problem in future when said building need to go down cheaply it either cannot or will do so at the cost of releasing the fibers to the air.

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/carbon-fiber-life-beyond-the-landfill.aspx

Suggests that the properties of recycled fibers are no longer good enough compared to using some cheaper materials. Until efficient recycling is possible the best approach is for manufacturers to try and come up with some standard parts for common products that could be reused after some soap+water processing rather than having to break the existing product into pieces affecting the strength or risking the release of fibers if not properly (expensively) done.

Also it says:

"In 2004, most European Union (EU) member states passed laws forbidding landfill disposal of composites. Further, incineration of plastics is suspect because of the potential release of toxic byproducts."

This makes it sound that if you have some consumer CFRP products they'd need to be specially disposed. How many know to do that and are there even proper processes in place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722620.stm

This news is on report from Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and says: "carbon nanofibres, whose constituent nanotubes have in preliminary laboratory experiments shown similar dangers to those of asbestos. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7408705.stm

"A recent study showed that when mice inhaled nanotubes they developed inflammation that peaked within seven days of exposure, and returned to normal within one or two months"

This article also says the "short tubes" didn't cause problem and this is because there are cells that can engulf them. However imagine if everything was done from nanotubes (if some cheap manufacturing process came available or the recycled stuff would replace accepted materials) ... the current approach seems to be "lets wait until it's all over the place and see if there were bad effects". If you create near-indestructible things that can spread in the air and causes health problems, I'm not sure people would vote to wait wait and see until it's too expensive/difficult/inconvenient to get a handle on the problem? There should be extensive trial runs in artificial environments before we have everything made from recycled carbon fiber. The point here is, even if the small tubes are safe(r), if it's not biodegradable it will accumulate over time and given that stuff will end up in China etc for cheap improper disposal I think it's best to keep the use of this tech at bay until proper tests (10+ years high dose release to artificial environment) is made. Climate change is normal, Carbon fiber-based climate isn't. And one is something that can be easily regulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 23:22, 2008 November 14 (UTC)

Biodegradable?[edit]

If it was soaked in water, would bacteria be able to eat the carbon fiber? Puddytang (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They possibly would, given very favourable circumstances. The answer is probably no until someone sees the need to develop/breed/GE bacteria that does this. --194.251.142.28 (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

name[edit]

"Carbon fiber" is not the name of the composite! See composite materials and GRP vz. fiberglass.

Egil 00:55 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. the whole carbon-fiber / crp / cfrp mess needs some also laminate and lamination. --Iediteverything 16:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing some information about the history of carbon fiber, but had a hard time finding anything on the web. According to this page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3131165.stm

It was invented in by the RAE in Farnborough, Hampshire. It seems like it was developed in the 1960's and became commonly available in the 1990's, but I haven't found an authoritative source for that.

If wikipedia intends to spell everything in the English language, the american way then why isn't there two seperate languages on the toolbar on the left. To spell carbon fibre as "carbon fiber" in the English translation of this article frankly disgusts me. Sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.43.39 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Totally agree, i makes the whole thing very difficult to read. As its a British Invertion should it not use Fibre?(94.4.74.53 (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Carbon Fibre was invented by Messrs; W. Watt, L. N. Phillips, and W. Johnson, at, as stated above, the RAE, Farnborough. It was first announced to the engineering industry in 1966 - see 1971 Flight article here; [1]
BTW, it was being used by BAE Warton in the Future European Fighter Aircraft (Fefa) in 1984 - see link to same magazine here: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.54.192 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing process[edit]

The article states that the mould for CRPs is first evacuated, then the epoxy is filled in. Is this correct ? I remember a process where first epoxy is filled in, then plastic sheets laid over the composite, then air drained below the plastic sheets , to remove superfluous epoxy and to increase the amount of fibre percentage in the composite.--Iediteverything 07:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you are talking about vacuum bagging, while the process mentioned on the page is resin infusion [3] [4] or vacuum infusion. Vaccum bagging is a method to place pressure on the CFRP while the epoxy cures. With resin infusion, a refinement on vacuum bagging, the CF and form are layed out dry, which makes is it useful for large or complicated forms. The vacuum is created and used to suck resin into the bag, which serves the same purpose as in vacuum bagging (good fiber/resin ratio, etc.). So really the two methods are very similar and work the same way; the main difference is how and when the resin is applied. Resin infusion is a bit newer and vacuum bagging seems more common, so I guess both methods should be mentioned. That paragraph needs to be worked over anyway. PlatinumX 09:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's no mention of pre-impregnated (pre-preg) material, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyparadigm (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2005 February 1 (UTC)

The "See also"s[edit]

What's with these lks? Why shouldn't they just be dumped? If there's a reason, why can't they become inline links instead of non sequiturs? 

== See also ==
They are analogous materials, basically included as a navigational aid. Someone might be interested in composite materials in general, and not have a tabbed browser. This allows them to move on to the next one when they finish reading this article. Perhaps we can do without the graphite link, though...I'll go ahead and remove it, but I won't object if someone puts it back.--Joel 17:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a tabbed browser: i have a Back tool built in to my browser, and when i want to backtrack and branch, that's what i do rather than plan on some editor guessing at where i want to go next.
Readers come to this article not primarily from any one place such as Graphite-reinforced plastic or whatever page you're thinking of, but from about 100 different pages. I came to it from Yo-Yo Ma, so for me the related material is Wood. I'm not about add Wood to the see alsos, but IMO the 3 existing ones are as bad an idea as the explicitly deprecated scheme of trying to outthink the reader by deciding Argentina/Transportation is a good title because people who read it want to know other things about Argentina (and not about transportation), and the cure is to ditch the entire section.
--Jerzy·t 19:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw it as serving the same purpose as the failure modes sidebar in buckling, corrosion, thermal shock etc. In fact, I think we should have a {{structural composite materials}} template (including wood!) for this kind of thing, but if "see also"s are not a good way to accomplish this, so be it. It's a higher priority for me to relink all those "carbon fiber" links to graphite reinforced plastic where appropriate, but perhaps some time I'll put in the effort to make a good template.--Joel 22:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

carbon fibre vs nanotubes[edit]

obvious question: what is the difference between the two? is it simply that fibres are a graphite-like sheet and tubes are a graphite-like tube? does that difference really affect the properties so much? mastodon 20:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


answer while the fibers are alternate layers of graphite, not necessarily rolled up, the nanotubes are little compose pipes from sheets of closed graphite on if same and all forms an only separate molecule. they're more resistant and some are supercondutors. translated frame from the Italian


In solid state chemistry structure is king. Yes, it does make such a difference. There is a series of excellent MIT lectures (SS-Chem 309.1) on YouTube if you want to know all the details and have a few days to spare.--194.251.142.28 (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lighter than aluminum, stronger than steel?[edit]

ive heard of this but its not mentioned on this page how its strength and weight compare to steel and aluminum. anyone know?

Sahuagin 04:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't understand why people don't run a spell check or other basic grammar service before they post. Stackleschwien 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why people would go around policing the internet for grammar and spelling, completely ignoring the perfectly understandable question that the guy asked. Try not being such an asshat if your have the maturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papajohnin (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page on tensile strength has details on the subject. Different alloys of aluminium and steel can approach CF in strength, but not even maraging steel exceeds it. You can put so much epoxy in CF that it becomes heavier than steel of comparable strength or leave it out completely, but aside from these extremes CF always beats the metals. --194.251.142.28 (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epoxy Boards[edit]

Should be Glass-Epoxy boards. Epoxy, Polyester and Vinylester resins can be used in carbon fibre laminates. The author refers to the use of carbon versus glass as the fibre component of the composite materials.

Feuser 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

Do instruments made of carbon fiber instead of wood make different sounds? Does a carbon fiber bow, used with a normal wooden instrument, produce different sounds? LordAmeth 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire rating of Carbon Fiber aircraft components v's aluminium components.[edit]

Can anyone give enlightenment on this topic? 203.128.81.210 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and properties[edit]

"It has high electrical and low thermal conductivity."

It has high electrical conductivity.

This can not be right? Carbon Fibre is used as an insulator so how can it have high electrical conductivity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.231.230 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, carbon has always been a conductor (some say a semiconductor) used in the manufacturer of resistors and other electronic components (at least since the 1920s).

The thickness of pure carbon and its level of impurities changes its resistance. When you cover it with epoxy or other resins, only then can it be used as an insulator.

I have seen carbon fiber reinforced insulators where fiberglass was not strong enough for the job, but alone, it will conduct. --X42 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


from old article( not sure where this belongs)[edit]

Non-polymer materials can also be used as the matrix for carbon fibers. Due to the formation of metal carbides (i.e., water-soluble AlC), bad wetting by some metals, and corrosion considerations, carbon has seen limited success in metal matrix composite applications; however, this can be improved by proper surface treatment, e.g., for carbon-aluminium MMCs a vapor deposition of titanium boride on the fibers is often employed. Reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) consists of carbon fiber-reinforced graphite, and is used structurally in high-temperature applications, such as the nose cone and leading edges of the space shuttle.

The fiber also finds use in filtration of high-temperature gases, as an electrode with high surface area and impeccable corrosion resistance, and as an anti-static component in high-performance clothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.118.90 (talk) 13:27, 2007 November 7 (UTC)

Micron or Micrometer?[edit]

Working in a communications field, we've always used the term "Micron" when referring to billionths of a meter. I've come to understand that in general practice this has become an archaic term now. I changed "5-8 micrometers" under "Structure and properties" to "5-8 microns" partially because the "micrometer" portion linked to the tool and not the unit of measurement. Aside from the link being incorrect, I understand that I may be in the wrong on this change and would like some feedback. Crmadsen (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed micron is still in wide use, but is incorrect, as you yourself state. The problem here is that micrometer links to the insturment and micrometre links to the measurement. Its a UK vs US spelling difference (and should probably be addressed with a single disambiguation page rather then different spellings leading to different articles). Since this particular article uses US spelling throughout, it was linked to the wrong article, I changed it back to read micrometer but link to micrometre and removed your change to micron. Russeasby (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I neglected to mention I work in a MILITARY communications field, we're chock full of archaic terms. I probably should have made the fix you suggested, thank you for the feedback. 153.29.46.60 (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well "micron" and "micrometer" or "micrometre" both mean one millionth of a meter. AFAIK "micron" has NEVER meant a billionth of a meter in archaic communications or anywhere else.220.239.190.75 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Micron has always been a term to indicate a micrometer that (believe it or not) is still in use in some fields, despite the fact it is frowned upon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micron EDIT: I see what you're saying, that was my mistake; pardon. I hear "billionths of a meter" so often it just sticks.Crmadsen (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I work in physics research - I use the term micron in conversation to avoid confusion with the measurement tool. For example, the term 10 micron laser is frequently used for a CO2 laser of wavelength 10.6μm. When writing I would use μm to avoid any confusion (although being from the UK, this should not happen, as we spell it micrometre (for the measurement).

All chemistry, physics, and engineering researchers I have had contact with use the term micron. most of these people got their phds in the 1990s or earlier. most of these people use the term because they learned it back in the 1960s,70s and 80s or learned it from their old advisers and colleagues. 13.43, 30th June 2011 (UTC)

Consistency[edit]

I think the article would flow much better if the entire thing was fiber or fibre as opposed to switching back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.212.24 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much as it pained me, being a true Brit, I've changed all instances (I hope!) to fiber. the wub "?!" 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


What is the wiki regulation on US vs British spelling? If you are a Brit, why didn't you change them all to 'fibre' so as not to pain yourself? 124.176.224.97 (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Competition" sport?[edit]

"The properties of carbon fiber such as high tensile strength, low weight, and low thermal expansion make it very popular in aerospace, military, and motorsports, along with other competition sports."

Isn't the word "competition" tautological here? Or is there some specific meaning of the phrase "competition sports" intended?

A more specific phrase might be preferable. eg Mind Sports would seem to come under the general heading of "competition sports", yet this whole category has little use for carbon fibre.

81.86.230.24 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its referring more to top level sport as at recreation level carbon fiber equipment may not by financially viable (Crictv69 (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Manufacturers vs equipment for manufacturing Carbon fiber[edit]

The section on Manufacturers, which was those who made carbon fibers, had this added:

Carbon Fiber Plant Design and Equipment Manufacturer:
Harper International Corporation

I've removed it as being outside the scope of that section. Are there any other articles that it should be in instead? ChemGardener (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed: graphitic/turbostratic[edit]

The atomic structure of carbon fiber is similar to that of graphite, consisting of sheets of carbon atoms (graphene sheets) arranged in a regular hexagonal pattern. The difference lies in the way these sheets interlock. Graphite is a crystalline material in which the sheets are stacked parallel to one another in regular fashion. The chemical bonds between the sheets are relatively weak Van der Waals forces, giving graphite its soft and brittle characteristics. Depending upon the precursor to make the fiber, carbon fiber may be turbostratic or graphitic, or have a hybrid structure with both graphitic and turbostratic parts present. In turbostratic carbon fiber the sheets of carbon atoms are haphazardly folded, or crumpled, together.

The difference between graphite and turbostratic carbon fibre is clear. However, the difference between graphite and graphitic carbon fibre is not. The article does not explain how the carbon sheets are arranged in graphitic carbon fibre, so, based on the word "graphitic", one can only assume that they are arranged in the same way as in graphite. But in that case, graphitic carbon fibre would appear to be identical to graphite. Is that true? If not, what's the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.241.197 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Twisted together to form a yarn?[edit]

The current article states that "Several thousand carbon fibers are twisted together to form a yarn, which may be used by itself or woven into a fabric." Would someone like to explain this sentence? I have never seen or heard of a twisted yarn. The yarns I am familiar with are strategically placed as straight as they can be. Any amount of twist would be a defect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.148.209.132 (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Brap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.233.25 (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have practically no experience with carbon fiber yarn. However, I do know how to Google, and so I found these references to a search for carbon fiber yarn:

  • "Several thousand carbon fibers are twisted together to form a yarn, which may be used by itself or woven into a fabric." -- http://www.zoltek.com/carbonfiber/
  • "carbon fiber yarns which comprise an intimate association of carbon fibers ... transforming said long fibers on standard spinning equipment ... the fibers are twisted together" -- United States Patent 4825635
  • "Carbon fiber filaments are finer than a human hair. These filaments are bundled together to make a fiber of 3,000, 6,000 or 12,000 filaments which is called a "tow". The tow is sized with an epoxy compatible material to improve the handling characteristics." -- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cmpages/yarntow.php

So, 2 of these 3 specifically mention "twisted" and "yarn". The third mentions a "tow", leaves me wondering -- is a yarn is made out of a bunch of "tow", or is a "tow" and a "yarn" are the same thing, or is perhaps a "yarn" is twisted but a "tow" is not twisted? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... type I and II carbon fibres."[edit]

I read a journal [1] mentioning "... type I and II carbon fibres." So far, no mention about the types here, yet. Could anyone elaborate on that? Thanks. Kerina yin (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ WJ Cantwell, J Morton (1991). "The impact resistance of composite materials -- a review". Composites. 22 (5): 347–62. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(91)90549-V.
There's some references to the two types (Type I and Type II) in this 1970 Flight International article here: [5] - one is high stiffness, the other is high tensile strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber[edit]

It seems clear to me that the word "fiber" in the name "carbon/graphite fiber" is just the generic word, and hence has the alternative spelling "fibre" - is it really necessary to clutter up the intro with this? Brian Jason Drake 12:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it called Fibre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregas485 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis Section[edit]

if accuracy, completeness are desired, rather than simple casual explanations, then 2 points MUST be made:

1) industrially produced carbon fibers, when analyzed under a TEM, are composed of a variety of carbon structures. you will find graphene sheets of irregular size and shape, partially formed buckyballs, partially formed or uncapped nanotubes, nitrogen and oxygen defects, and even small amounts of tetrahedral 4 coordinate carbons (diamond carbons).... all of these structures will be found in varying concentration and in varying size. some will be formed in very small concentrations (like diamond carbons), others will be formed in high concentrations. there are no incredibly long/wide graphene sheets that traverse the entire length of a carbon fiber (which can be milimeters or centimeters in unbroken length)

2) van der waals bonds are extremely important in carbon materials like carbon fiber. as I pointed out, the overall structure is NOT continuously covalently bonded. there is no single chain of covalent bonds from one end of a carbon fiber to the other... but rather overlapping structures of various shape and size. thus the bonding between these discrete structures are incredibly important for describing their mechanical properties

what you must understand is that basic van der waals forces are not the only thing going on here. because essentially 100% of the carbon structures of interest in these materials are composed of AROMATIC SYSTEMS, there are also significant forces due to so called "pi stacking" interactions. these interactions signficantly increase the intramolecular (and even intermolecular) forces inside the matierial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.52.200 (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed missing step in synthesis: spinning of precursor polymer[edit]

Fixed big assumption in synthesis: the section was missing the step that the precursor, at least rayon or PAN, is first spun into fibers. Somehow it seemed that all you had to do was heat up a lump of rayon or PAN and carbon fibers popped out. Oh well. Referenced to manufacturing process on zoltekcom's site, but would like to find a better reference. Woodega (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

history section lacking[edit]

The history section keeps talking about British attempts to stay ahead of foreign manufacturers, but never goes into any detail on those foreign manufactures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.176.149 (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

history section - wrong linking[edit]

In "In 1958, Dr. Roger Bacon created high-performance..." the link to Roger Bacon links to the historical person, not the scientist. Is there a wiki on the scientist at all? 130.225.198.198 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delinked. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions on export[edit]

http://ap.stripes.com/dynamic/stories/U/US_CARBON_FIBER_ARREST?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Worth a mention here? Hcobb (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2014[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. While there is general recognition that the current title is not ideal, there is not consensus to move the page over a redirect that points elsewhere. If a move is still desired, I suggest a more focused discussion on the proper target of the redirect first, perhaps at WP:RfD; note that although "RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes," "for more difficult cases" it also "can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point." A subsequent request would have more chance of achieving consensus if the target were pointing here. Dekimasuよ! 18:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon (fiber) → Carbon fiber – The article uses "carbon fiber" throughout. Because this isn't about a fiber called carbon, but about a fibre made of carbon. – Srnec (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE please remember to correct the redirects Carbon (fibre), Carbon fibre (fibre) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment carbon fiber (fiber) would work, if the composite is the primary topic (epoxy carbon fiber), and not its component fiber. Look at the analogous situation at fiberglass, where the epoxy composite is the primary topic, not the glass wool or the fiber itself. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Carbon fiber (fiber)" is a silly title. The Oxford Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering defines carbon fibre as "a filament reinforcement used in composites". The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea starts its entry by saying "carbon fibre is mainly produced by separating a chain of carbon atoms from polyacrynitrile through heating and oxidation". Using "carbon fiber" to refer to the CF reinforced plastic is jargon or slang. We should avoid it, except to note it. In the analogous situation you cite, glass fiber is its own article. Srnec (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see why you claim it is "silly". The disambiguator ("fiber") is separate from the primary title ("carbon fiber"), and disambiguation should make logical sense. So, per your own nomination rationale, it is called "carbon fiber", but the composite is also called "carbon fiber", how else would you disambiguate it if it isn't the primary topic? The base title portion and the disambiguator portion are separate considerations. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It actually makes better sense for Carbon fiber to be an article about the fiber rather than a redirect to a discussion of a polymer, so the counter-argument here doesn't seem to have merit. And carbon fiber (fiber) is silly. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The current redirect target, a substance incorporating carbon fiber, is a subtopic of carbon fiber, not the topic for it. bd2412 T 21:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Correct me if I'm wrong, but when one commonly uses the term "carbon fiber" in general conversation, one is usually referring to the polymer, no?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Yaksar. As per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE "Carbon fiber" should redirect to the composite, without question the primary topic: CFRP Carbon (fibre) – Cloverleaf II (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't about primary topic, but correct terminology. Carbon fibres are one thing. Carbon fibre reinforced polymers another. That more people are reading the article on the latter is irrelevant. The jargon is appropriate in some contexts. An encyclopedia isn't one of them. The fact that Yaksar refers to "the polymer" is an indication of the problem. What polymer? The polyepoxide, which is reinforced by carbon fibre? The carbon fibre itself, which is composed of carbon-carbon polymer? Or, in a jargony way, the fibre-epoxy composite material, which is not itself a polymer? Srnec (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, since this is first of all about a redirect page (Carbon fiber) it is about primary topic before terminology. Page views show that people searching "Carbon fiber" on the wiki are looking for Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer, since "Carbon fiber" in all uses but technical ones is synonymous with the composite.
For my part Carbon (fiber) can be moved to whatever you feel most accurate (I agree the current page name isn't satisfactory), but Carbon fiber should remain a redirect as it is now. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your stats are wrong, because you used British spelling. You meant Carbon (fiber) with 18,420 hits this month. The redirects have 1408 + 4724 hits this month, so most folks don't get to the CFRP page by searing for "carbon fiber/re" on site. Srnec (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I still dispute the requested move though: since neither article has prevalence over the other, Carbon fiber should be made into a disambiguation page. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, carbon filament currently redirects to incandescent_light_bulb#Filament; the filament DAB page redirects to, among other things, fiber. See also wiktionary:filament. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you dispute the current primary topic of "carbon filament" ? (the light bulb filament) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing that there is no primary topic for carbon filament just as there is no primary topic for filament. This clears the way for carbon (fiber) (an article about "loose or woven carbon filament" according to its hatnote) to carbon filament. WP:PTOPIC says that the primary topic should be the "topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (i.e. "carbon fiber" = carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer) or the term with "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" (i.e. carbon (fiber), a "loose or woven carbon filament"). The primary topic criteria point to different topics, thus there is no primary topic for carbon fiber and I oppose the assigning of one by this move. --Kkmurray (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no primary topic for carbon filament, then you would be assigning one by moving this article there, instead of having a disambiguation page there as well as at this title. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It would have to be carbon fiber (filament). --Kkmurray (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I agree with the nominator's reasoning. JIP | Talk 05:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support but could we get an expert, please? Red Slash 03:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is not about carbon, it is about carbon fiber (carbon fibers, carbon fibre, etc.). For comparison – the article on copper sheathing is called copper sheathing, not copper (sheathing), which would be ridiculous. Maproom (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, the composite is also called "carbon fib[re/er]" For comparison, fiberglass is about the composite, not the glass fibers. So we also have to see if the composite or the fibers are the primary topic for "carbon fiber". -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's another article on the composite: carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. This one is, or ought to be, on the fibers. Maproom (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note So I think the issue we are having in this discussion that makes it harder to get a sense of consensus is that this is really on two separate decisions. I think almost none of the participants here disagree with the nominator's argument that the current title of Carbon (fiber) is inaccurate and that a title of Carbon fiber would be better. What we do not agree on, however, is whether or not this subject is the primary intended article for those searching the term "carbon fiber" and therefore whether a disambiguator will be needed. Do I understand this correctly?--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are three choices: A) There is no primary topic for carbon fiber, B) The primary topic of carbon fiber is the current carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer because it is the "topic sought when a reader searches for that term", or C) The primary topic is of carbon fiber is the current carbon (fiber) because that is the term with "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". The current situation is B and the requested move is C. Option A is also available as a compromise but it raises some additional naming issues. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I know nothing of this topic but the title does not match usage in the article. The usage has community support so the title should match the content. There should be disambiguation if there is another usage of the term "carbon fiber". Perhaps this article should be called "carbon fiber (whatever)" if another substance is the primary topic for carbon fiber, but I think it is established at least that sources call this material "carbon fiber". Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The composite currently using "carbon fiber" (carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer) is another usage of the term. That carbon fiber is the one people mean when they talk about carbon fiber in car magazines and aviation magazines and spaceflight magazines and boating magazines (except for sailcloth). This article's carbon fiber (fiber) is a component of that article's carbon fiber (composite). When they talk about "carbon fiber" in design and fashion, it means the appearance of the composite, which may not use any carbon fiber at all, just the look, so is a third meaning. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are these magazines reliable sources for our articles on either carbon fibre or CFRP? These usages are jargon and I don't see why they should force us into an awkward title, like your proposed carbon fiber (fiber), when the plain meaning of "carbon fibre" is fibres made of carbon and that is how our best reliable sources use it. Srnec (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, Flight International, Air Transport World, Aviation Week, Janes Defence Weekly, etc are considered RS. So are Car and Driver, Road and Track, Motortrend, Automobile, etc. Further, as secondary sources, they are considered better sources to use for articles than primary sources are. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't ask if they were reliable sources. (I asked if they were RS for these articles, although I should have said, for determining primary usage.) Specifically, do they distinguish between carbon fibre and CFRP? If they don't, I don't see how their usage can be relevant (on its own) for determining the proper title. At best, they indicate how one of the terms is used in certain contexts—but that is only part of a case for establishing primary usage. If we are debating whether Pluto primarily refers to the planet or the god, we cannot cite a bunch classicists who don't mention the planet to show that the god is primary usage.
            I am not advocating primary sources. See the sources I cited above or G. M. Jenkins and K. Kawamura, Polymeric Carbons: Carbon Fibre, Glass and Char; G. Savage, Carbon–Carbon Composites; D. D. L. Chung, Carbon Fiber Compositse; P. Morgan, Carbon Fibers and their Composites; or J.-B. Donnet, S. Rebouillat, T. K. Wang and J. C. M. Peng (eds.), Carbon Fibers, 3rd ed. Not one of these is a primary source; they are all secondary. They are all RS. And good ones. Srnec (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The primary meaning of carbon fiber is carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer, so the current redirect is correct. Agree that the name carbon {fiber) is wrong, but the current proposal is not the way to fix it. Andrewa (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence? Even a plain Google search turns up:
    1. "Carbon fiber is basically very thin strands of carbon" at howstuffworks.com
    2. "Carbon fiber has become a popular reinforcement in the composites industry" at fibreglast.com
    3. "Carbon fiber is, exactly what it sounds like – fiber made of carbon" at composite.about.com
    4. "The raw material used to make carbon fiber is called the precursor. About 90% of the carbon fibers produced are made from polyacrylonitrile (PAN)." from zoltek.com
    Those are in the top ten. Add to it a youtube.com video about making carbon fibres and our two articles and what primary usage are you talking about? Do your Google results differ? (I've already cited plenty of reliable secondary sources above.) Srnec (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't say exactly what your plain Google search is, but here is mine [6] and my first hit is http://www.carbonrev.com/ (yes, your results probably do vary) which is clearly about the composite material not just the bare fiber. Second hit was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAdVO8Rkv6c and is again about manufacturing carbon fiber parts, referring to the composite, using carbon fiber reinforcing material to mean the bare fiber. As to your numbered evidence, I assume that howstuffworks.com means this page, it contains the text you quote but you only seem to have read the first few words, because it continues for example Replacing steel components with carbon fiber would reduce the weight of most cars by 60 percent... again referring to the composite material, not the bare fiber. Provide the actual URLs for the others you seem to cite but don't and I'll check them too, but I think it's pointless trying to guess what you mean by the rest when the first two checks completely fail to support your claims. Andrewa (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I modify your URL from .com.au to .ca, I get this. It is not quite the same as my last search. I have no idea how Google works, which is why I didn't waste time posting URLs. You are right about the YouTube video. You are wrong about the howstuffworks page. It clearly treats "carbon fibre" as the fibre, even in the sentence you quoted. See also: "To make carbon fiber take on a permanent shape, it can be laid over a mold, then coated with a stiff resin or plastic". Here is the about.com page. It distinguishes clearly "carbon fiber" and the composite. Here is the Zoltek page. The pimary meaning used by these websites in that of the fibre. There is nothing here, for example, that contradicts it. Srnec (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't understand how Google works, all the more reason to give your search URLs. The howstuffworks page, in the quote I gave, is not treating "carbon fibre" as the fibre. It talks of Replacing steel components with carbon fiber. Do you really believe that you can replace steel with bare carbon fibre? Remind me never to travel in a car you've modified! It's the composite that replaces the steel, not the bare fibre. Actually, when I think of it, taken to its conclusion such cars would be ultra-safe... they'd never make it out of the workshop, they'd just sit there in a floppy heap. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it is not unusual to say "X is made of Y" in English when X is not made only of Y, and given the first paragraph, which is all about carbon fibers, I take the sentence in question to mean "Replacing steel components with carbon fiber[-based components] would reduce the weight of most cars by 60 percent." Two sentences earlier it says, "To make carbon fiber take on a permanent shape, it can be laid over a mold, then coated with a stiff resin or plastic". This is what the reader has in mind when he gets to the sentence about steel vs CF. The later sentence "In fact, Formula One race cars are all carbon fiber..." is a case in point: they are not all carbon fiber, although at this point the author has shifted to using CF as a short-form for CFRP. Still, racecars are not all CFRP. The primary meaning is the one that should answer the question "What is carbon fiber" to somebody who doesn't know. Here is how Formula One tackles it. Here is an article from Car and Driver that jumps between meanings of carbon fiber: in the first paragraph "CF" is obviously the composite, yet later we "CF cloth" and "bond between  the CF and the resin", where it means the fibres. Srnec (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 21 March 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No clear consensus to make this move as requested, however there does appear to be good rationale in this discussion to adjust the titles of this and related articles, redirects, dabs etc. to provide more clarity for readers on this complex subject. I would encourage someone to take the initiative to start a new RM laying out a solution that reflects the most cogent arguments and alternatives discussed in this RM. Don’t rehash old ground but instead give editors a good enough solution to discuss and resolve, giving the closer a clear solution if indeed there is consensus to make a move. Mike Cline (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Carbon (fiber) → Carbon fiber – The current title is misleading. This isn't about a fiber called carbon, but about a fibre made of carbon. The proposed new title currently redirects to carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), which is a composite material made of carbon fibers. Although the latter is sometimes called "carbon fiber", this is a case of slang or jargon and results in the suboptimal title we have for this article. An analogous case is that glass fiber, which is about fibers of glass, and fiberglass, which is about the composite material composed of glass fibers.
As an encyclopedia we should should answer the question "What is carbon fiber?" straightforwardly. How do other reference works do that? The Oxford Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering defines carbon fibre as "a filament reinforcement used in composites". The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea starts its entry by saying "carbon fibre is mainly produced by separating a chain of carbon atoms from polyacrynitrile through heating and oxidation". There are many book-length treatments of carbon fiber and CFRP. All of the following treat "carbon fiber" as referring to fibers of carbon and not to their composites: G. M. Jenkins and K. Kawamura, Polymeric Carbons: Carbon Fibre, Glass and Char; G. Savage, Carbon–Carbon Composites; D. D. L. Chung, Carbon Fiber Compositse; P. Morgan, Carbon Fibers and their Composites; or J.-B. Donnet, S. Rebouillat, T. K. Wang and J. C. M. Peng (eds.), Carbon Fibers, 3rd ed. But it isn't only specialist sources that take "carbon fiber" to mean the fiber. Here is an article from Car and Driver. Here is how a Formula 1 resource explains it. Here is about.com. Here is How Stuff Works. Here is Zoltek. They all start with the basic sense of "carbon fiber": fibers made of carbon.
Both this article and the one on the composite were viewed about 60,000 times in the last 90 days. See here and here. The redirect was viewed about 14,000 times. Switching the hatnote from one article to another will not greatly inconvenience users.relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Strong oppose This is not the primary topic of "carbon fiber", the composite is the primary topic of "carbon fiber". We discussed this the last time. It is not slang to call the composite "carbon fiber", it is common parlance used by the public at large and industry. Rather, the technical material covered by this article is not what the public knows as carbon fiber, nor what most carbon fiber products are primarily referring to. The composite is. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – The common term as a composite derives its name from the material discussed in this article; to argue that the original name is displaced by common usage (or "common parlance") is nonsense. This is an encyclopaedia, not a common usage dictionary. The redirect Carbon fiber should become a DAB page. The current title must change: it does not adhere to naming policies; just because there is another meaning laying claim to the name should is a terrible argument against a rename. Anyone opposing this proposed rename must come up with a name for this article that adheres to naming policies; otherwise I consider their oppose vote as being unconstructively obstructionist. Also, look at Carbon-fiber-reinforced_polymer#Properties: it says "In CFRP the reinforcement is carbon fiber, which provides the strength." That should be linked to this article, yet by the argument opposing the rename, that sentence should be rewritten with a different phrase? Are we to pretend that "carbon fiber" does not also mean the material covered by this article? —Quondum 05:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. While people talk widely of "carbon fibre" they generally do not care or specify whether they are referencing the composite material CFRP or the reinforcement alone. Fibres can be used in other matrixes, for example glass fibre is sometimes used to reinforce cement rather than plastics. Nobody would think that a worker talking of adding "glass fibre" to the cement mix was suggesting that resin be poured in. Similarly, I believe that carbon fibres have been used to reinforce metal matrices. If the popular usage were precise then that would be a different matter, but it is not: Wikipedia should not be treating it as a barrier to correct technical naming. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the closed discussion above. The current consensus is that the primary topic of carbon fiber is carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because it is the "topic sought when a reader searches for that term". A very good argument can be made for the primary topic of carbon fiber being the current carbon (fiber) because that is the term with "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value", but that doesn't seem to be the consensus. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the previous closing conclusion of "no consensus" really support an "oppose"? And is the current consensus really as you state it? ;) —Quondum 16:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not set in stone, it can be overturned. One could say that this second RFC is to test whether that needs doing here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the consensus: carbon fiber should be a DAB page. I also disagree with the proposed move: if there is a primary topic, it is carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, instead of DAB I recommend merging carbon (fiber) and carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. There is significant overlap between these two articles and a well-constructed merged article could easily support the polymer chemistry as well as the properties and applications of carbon fiber filaments and things made from those filaments. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This article is about fibers made of carbon. The title should match; "Carbon fiber" is a simpler title and better, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not the primary topic of "carbon fiber", which is the composite. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is about the fiber and where it is used, i.e. applications. Rightly or wrongly, the composite (fiber plus matrix material) is covered at Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • "carbon fiber" rightly redirects to "Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer" because the composite is the primary topic. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the material is the crucial thing. But honestly, the best solution is probably to merge and have a WP:CONCEPTDAB like football Red Slash 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, I agree with the nominator's logic. This is about fiber made of carbon, not about carbon in itself. JIP | Talk 07:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The current title is simply indefensible; the proper name for the topic is "Carbon fiber", and certainly not just "Carbon". That it has been hijacked by a colloquial use by a related product should not be of encyclopedic concern: WP:COMMONNAME is not a suicide pact, and redirecting "carbon fiber" to the composite defeats WP:PRECISION. Also, I would strongly oppose making a WP:DAB or WP:CONCEPTDAB; although merge does seem attractive I think the topics are distinct enough to warrant separate treatment. No such user (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fiberglass is about the composite, not the glass fibers, this is an analogous situation. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure who you're responding to. Nonetheless: glass fibers are described in – surprise – glass fiber. As far as I know, nobody uses the term fiberglass for glass fibers, (and, according to typical English morphology, fiberglass would be 'glass made of fibers', which is apt) so I don't see an analogous situation. The composite made with carbon fibers is not called carbonglass or like. No such user (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Interestingly, glass fiber is a page about fibers made out of glass and glass (fiber) redirects to fiberglass. A Fiberglass → Glass fiber move request is here: Talk:Glass_fiber#Requested_move and the rationale can be applied to carbon fiber by replacing "glass" with "carbon": "Either material is known as fiberglass [carbon fiber], but the composite is much more commonly referred to as that, as it is a versatile multi-purpose construction material used in many industries, whereas the glass [carbon] fibers themselves have relatively few niche uses". --Kkmurray (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom's proposal (per nom and most of the above). Also okay with Carbon fiber as a WP:CONCEPTDAB. It's unfortunate that carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer is what the general public usually think "carbon fiber" means, but the exact opposite is the case in higher-quality technical material, which uses the more precise phrase, so the previous WP:PRIMARYTOPIC analysis was faulty, essentially declaring car magazines and the like more reliable than engineering and chemistry texts. We have a case where two meanings share the same WP:COMMONNAME for different audiences and in different kinds of sources, so we have no primary topic for WP purposes. I agree, regardless, that "carbon (fiber)" implies a fiber named carbon, or (as someone in older discussion noted), carbon in the general context of "fiber" whatever that context might be. Meanwhilel, a fiber made of carbon is a "carbon fiber". WP:NATURAL policy contraindicates a parenthetical like "carbon (fiber)" when we do not have to use one. Even if it didn't, this "carbon (fiber)" one is confusing, so it just utterly fails at the purpose of disambiguation, by simply introducing a worse ambiguity, with at least three obvious, conflicting interpretations. NB: Regardless of outcome, the Commonwealth-spelled "fibre" versions of all these titles should redirect to the "fiber" versions correctly (or vice versa, per WP:ENGVAR, where "fibre" was originally used in an article).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Additionally, move Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer to Carbon fiber (composite) per WP:COMONNNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carbon fiber (fiber) would fix the issue of the current article title. (as the other is carbon fiber (composite), but as it is the primary topic in the vast majority of carbon fiber uses in actual things/items/objects, "carbon fiber" is the composite) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carbon fiber (fiber) would be redundant. Carbon fiber (composite) is a good disambiguated name for the other article, with this one being simply at "Carbon fiber", with {{About|the fiber|the composite material made with the fiber|Carbon fiber (composite)}} at the top. This is also an acceptable result to me, in addition to the two options I already !voted for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • SMcCandlish at the top of the present Carbon (fibre) page is the hatnote: {{About|loose or woven carbon filament|the rigid composite material made from carbon fiber used in aerospace and other applications|Carbon fiber reinforced polymer}} I personally think that this may be sufficient. I am also unsure whether or not there are other forms of "Carbon-fiber-composite materials". I think that "Carbon fibre (fibre)" sounds and looks ridiculous. If a WP:CONCEPTDAB has to be used I'd suggest Carbon fibre (constituent of composites) which, as far as I know, fits WP:PRECISE. I have not heard of any uses for single carbon fibres. The other title can stay as it is otherwise Carbon fibre (composites) or Carbon fibre (composite materials) might present the range of topics covered. GregKaye 12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firstly, the problem that's led to this discussion is that "carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer" (with the proper hyphenation of a compound adjective, or without it) is not the WP:COMMONNAME of that material, but a technical jargon name. The common name really is "carbon fiber", which is also the common name of the carbon fibers from which the composite material is made and from which the imprecise common name of the composite derives by the extension of sloppy language use in less technical sources. Thus the need to disambiguate. The simplest solution really is having the article about the fiber (or a CONCEPTDAB) be at the title "carbon fiber", as the PRIMARYTOPIC, and the name of the secondary, derived composite disambiguated, e.g. as "carbon fiber (composite)". Secondly, CONCEPTDABs don't work that way; they are not themselves disambiguated with a mess like "Carbon fibre (constituent of composites)", something no one is ever going to search for. They sit at simple names like "carbon fiber" (fibre, whatever), and disambiguate between various topics to which the name applies, to help people find what they're looking for and what the difference is. They simply do so at more prose length than a simple disambiguation page would. Finally, having a "Carbon fibre (constituent of composites)" page and "Carbon fiber (composite)" page would still leave open the question "where should Carbon fiber itself go?", meaning we would have solved nothing at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

          PS: Material science is working at the nanotechnological level these days, so there very probably are uses for single carbon fibers; I'm not sure what that really had to do with anything, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I find the argument that the composite is the primary topic for "Carbon fiber" to be compelling, thus justifying the current situation where Carbon fiber redirects to the article about the composite. As an aside, I would argue the title of that article should be Carbon fiber, as that is the name most commonly used to refer to that topic. But I agree the current title is problematic for the reasons given by the nom. How about Carbon fiber (material)?

    I'm not a fan of conceptdab pages, but in this case, as an alternative to the above, I would support it, per SMcCandlish. --В²C ☎ 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Carbon fiber (material)" to me sounds like it's referring to the composite, the material from which we make "carbon fiber" stuff; in fact, it's usually referred to as a "composite material" ("composite" by itself is a shorthand). The fibers themselves seem to me to be more of a "substance" or something like that, than a "material", except perhaps in the strict technical sense used in materials science. But that brings us full circle to the original problem - a term with conflicting (but not unrelated) vernacular and technical meanings - so using "(material)" to disambiguate won't actually disambiguate but just introduce a new ambiguity. The least ambiguous result is to have the actual fiber be, naturally, at "Carbon fiber" and the composite made with these fibers be at "Carbon fiber (composite)". When it comes to this sort of thing, we have to ask ourselves what best serves our readers, and work from there, eschewing technical procedural nitpicks sometimes when necessary, per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR. Clearly, the least ambiguous pair of names that are recognizable is that solution. No clear case for the composite material being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has actually been presented. Rather, good cases have been presented for "carbon fiber" being the WP:COMMONNAME of both topics, and a flawed case was presented in earlier discussion (which reached no consensus, remember) for the composite being primary, based on popularity, at the expense of all other considerations, including quality of sources, the relationship between the topics, the incorrectness of the term as applied to the composite, the availability of a more correct name for the composite (which is and appears to be slated to remain the actual title of that article), and the problems in trying awkwardly to disambiguate not the composite article but the fiber article, with clumsy constructions like "carbon (fiber)", which has at least 3 interpretations, and "carbon fiber (fiber)" which is pointlessly redundant. Going with this article as Carbon fiber and the other as Carbon fiber (composite) (or leaving that one at Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer) would not be some reversal of a recent, previous consensus, but rather actually coming to one, finally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The best argument for carbon fiber redirecting to carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer is that all but a few of incoming links are aimed at the composite. --Kkmurray (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A look at some of those links is illuminating. From archery: "Shafts of arrows are typically composed of solid wood, bamboo fiberglass, aluminium alloy, carbon fiber, or composite materials." The distinction between fiberglass and "carbon fiber" on the one hand and "composite materials" illustrates a confusion this page move would clarify. Badminton uses "carbon fiber composite" (linked) before it uses (unnecessarily) "carbon fiber". The link at Carbon should link here ("Plastics are made from fossil hydrocarbons, and carbon fiber, made by pyrolysis of synthetic polyester fibers is used to reinforce plastics..."). Carbon nanotube has a hatnote to carbon fiber, but it should be to this page, since a nanotube is more likely to be confused with a fiber than with a composite material. Srnec (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-RM proposals for a WP:CONCEPTDAB page[edit]

So, how about it? The MR closed with a suggestion to pursue that angle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Carbon (fiber) → Carbon fibers – Excuse me, but the current parenthetical disambiguation is ridiculous. This material is never simply called "carbon", that is the chemical element from which it's made. Silent (unspoken) disambiguation is insufficient, because the distinction is too subtle to be understood in context. If we do call it just "carbon", we've much more likely to mean carbon fiber, which redirects to carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. For example, carbon bicycle is shorthand for carbon fiber bicycle. This is one of those rare cases where disambiguation by using the plural form is possible. I believe that "carbon fibers bicycle" would be grammatically incorrect. This is the common name. As evidence of that, the string "carbon fibers" occurs 18 times on this page—not counting this requested move, and 22 times in the article itself. That title is linked from other articles, too: e.g. Arman Sedghi, "known for his scientific achievement in production of low cost carbon fibers." I can't believe this has been through two move requests and a move review, without anyone getting this, though it did take me some time pondering this to get the (carbon filament) to turn on. – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional note in support: The lead is easy to rewrite for the new title:
    • Carbon fiber, alternatively graphite fiber or CF, is a material consisting of fibers about 5–10 μm in diameter and composed mostly of carbon atoms.
    • Carbon fibers, alternatively graphite fibers or CF, are fibers about 5–10 μm in diameter and composed mostly of carbon atoms.

— Wbm1058 (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, geesh. "In rare circumstances, we ignore the rules here in order to make the encyclopedia better." Per WP:PLURAL.
"Carbon fiber does not exist only as a plural." Yes it does. Because in singular form, it's not carbon fiber. It's carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on items like carbon fibers are not located at awkward, unnatural titles like carbon (fiber). Paraphrasing WP:PLURAL. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no conflict with the carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer meaning either. We wouldn't say a car or a plane was made of carbon fibers, any more than we would say a building was constructed of steels or woods (except maybe Tiger's house ;o) Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The technical way to disambiguate this, going strictly "by the book":
Again, articles on items like carbon fibers are not located at awkward, unnatural titles. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well this doesn't conflict with the composite, since that one doesn't usually carry the plural. carbon fiber (fiber) would be a good choice, since it would be a "(fiber)" called "carbon fiber", but "carbon fibers" would seem to also work. "Carbon fiber" itself would have the composite as its primary topic, per general usage, for the normal person on the street, as well as industry, since it is a material used in the production of goods. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional note in support: The hatnote on Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer supports this too:
    • "Carbon fiber" redirects here. For fibers of carbon, see carbon (fiber). becomes
    • "Carbon fiber" redirects here. For fibers of carbon, see carbon fibers.
    and the lead also links directly to the proposed title: "...is an extremely strong and light fiber-reinforced plastic which contains carbon fibers." Wbm1058 (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not opposed to merging or rearranging content, but this seems like a good short-term fix which doesn't prevent that from happening later. An issue with merging the articles though, is that neither is exactly a stub, and there may be a desire to somehow split the merged article in some other way, per WP:summary style. Carbon fiber composite seems like it would be the main sub-article, which would be linked from a hatnote in the Carbon fibers § Applications section. – Wbm1058 (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q. Should the hatnote on Carbon nanotube (which uses the plural form in its lead) be Not to be confused with Carbon fibers. Wbm1058 (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NATURAL. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an improvement. Srnec (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support but please let's get a conceptdab going ASAP Red Slash 17:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carbon fibers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Fibre Masculinity: disability and surfaces of homosociality[edit]

Re [7]

Should the Hickey-Moody paper [8] be included? This is an unusual sociological paper whose thesis is that CF is misogynistic, either inherently or as a social construct.

I'm inclined to include this. I don't especially like this paper: it assumes, without basis, that homosociality is inherently misogynistic and relies on this assumption heavily to draw its conclusions; it also conflates disability with handicap as both being social constructs, against the conventionally accepted social model of disability. However I am interested to see this correlation between cf and misogyny drawn out in a RS source (Hickey-Moody is an academic at Goldsmiths, publishing in a WP:N journal). It is not rocket science to regard CF as a signifier of "boys toys". There is a vast marketing culture devoted to this, to non-functional and skeumorphic levels. Hickey-Moody is merely taking that to a further level. One does not have to agree with the conclusions of this paper to see it as a valid opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are also "academics" who publish creationist drivel in creationist "journals." Do they deserve to have their point of view on the radioisotope dating article?
Does Alan Sokal's infamous deconstruction of quantum gravity hoax belong in the quantum gravity article simply because it was in a postmodernist journal?
I'm not well enough versed in wiki standards to state them, but surely, there must be something preventing the anthropomorphization of material substances on their main page, lest we also get the argument that ABS plastic is white supremacist and refractory ceramics are black nationalist. Don't even get me started on the biphobic implications of magnesium alloys.129.65.78.29 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to exclude it. The view that "CF is misogynistic, either inherently or as a social construct" may be noteworthy in an article on gendered materials or masculinity and homosociality, but in this article it is fringe. Also, the specific text in question is misleading. What will the average reader think of "has been linked to acts of misogynistic aggression"? Not what it actually means. Srnec (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should not be included. It seems wholly inappropriate to include - fringe and non-noteworthy. When you look at it closely, it is essentially off topic, not really about carbon fibers, but rather about society, anyway. Deli nk (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The paper is near-incomprehensible rubbish. Anyone could make a similar "argument" about the connection between any material and either masculinity or femininity. Don't include this gobbledygook. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

galvanic corrosion[edit]

The risk of galvanic corrosion would be good to describe in this article. As a reference, see 2021 article from Corrosion Communications: "Galvanic activity of carbon fiber reinforced polymers and electrochemical behavior of carbon fiber"[9]:

"When an engineering metal is joined to a CFRP in the marine environment, a perfect galvanic corrosion cell will be formed, and the metal will be subjected to galvanic corrosion attack."

I'll kick off the addition by including the above claim and citing the Corrosion Communications article. The article looks like a useful source; it contains an extensive bibliography, and claims it "comprehensively summarizes the existing studies on the galvanic effect of CFRPs on engineering metals." 73.60.233.220 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You left the article in a state that said carbon fibre is displacing aluminium because of galvanic issues (implying CFRP is good) but that CFRP had galvanic issues (implying CFRP is bad). This is contradictory. I add a clause that said a sealant between the metal and CFRP is required but perhaps it could be worded better.  Stepho  talk  22:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium batteries[edit]

I noticed that Socialcomplex (talk · contribs) has added some details about lithium batteries but has been reverted each time. I understand that his stated aim of doing this as school homework is not valid - however, as long as it has valid supporting references then his motive for adding is unimportant.. I also note that a small portion of his edits did not have supporting references - those are okay to remove. However, I also see that the bulk of his addition has 7 references to what seem to be valid scientific studies. Is there a reason why this reference addition is being reverted?  Stepho  talk  00:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a couple of them, and the citations don't actually support the statements they're attached to. They're all about using carbon fibers in batteries, that much is true. But they don't make the specific claims they're being attached to. MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which claims did you find that were not supported by the sources? Socialcomplex (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carbon_fibers&oldid=1193950252"