From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Mon Mar 03 1997 - 21:32:56 MST
>
> > [...]
> > Buckyballs and bucky tubes are chemically more diamond-like than anything.
>
> I dunno. Adamantane is diamondoid. Diamantane is diamondoid. Buckyballs,
> and buckytubes form a class of their own. Which color have buckytubes?
> Glossy black? What electrical conductivity?
>
> > The distinction between diamond and graphite is not the shape of the
> > crystal/molecular structure, but the bond hybridization between atoms.
>
> I'd say the both are _very_ closely linked. Remember what happens,
> if you twist the ethene bond.
>
My apologies. I was unclear. By diamond-like I was stating that bucky
allotropes were generally pure sp3. They do not exhibit the crystalline
qualities of diamond. The macro properties are very much a function of
the general structure with less regard to bond hybridization, but
chemically, diamond and bucky allotropes exhibit similar conformational
and energy characteristics. The primary differences between diamond and
bucky allotropes is that bucky allotropes generally will have differences
based primarily on the lack of a crystalline lattice. This will obviously
impact things such as optical properties. Chemically they should be very
similar, although the reaction rates will vary significantly.
I am no expert on bucky allotropes, so my statements should be viewed as
educated guesses based exclusively on the fact that I am familiar with
their chemical structure.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:13 MST