Get our free book (in Spanish or English) on rainwater now - To Catch the Rain.

Talk:Improving Mechanical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes

From Appropedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I would suggest that you improve the formatting of your document by 'cleaning' it up. I found it a bit hard to go through in the beginning. For example, use major headings and sub headings.

Coding in page would look like this: ==Introduction== is easier to read than ===Introduction=== (for a major heading) Test those out and see how you can implement them, if need be.

Suggestions: 1) Add captions to images and figures.

2) Talk about the synthesis of the nano-tubes, and what processes we learnt about in 370 are actually applied in the manufacturing process of CNT's. This part remained ambiguous.

3) Talk about how you could improve on these processes to increase the efficiency/energy savings of the processes. Even if it is in only hypothetical terms.

4) Use more Wikipedia internal linking. For example, in the paragraph where you say:

"The mechanical properties of carbon nanotubes are defined by two main measurements, the Young’s Modulus and tensile strength (carbon nanotubes are respectively the stiffest and strongest materials yet to be discovered). The Young’s modulus is a measurement of the stiffness of a material, while the tensile strength descries how much stress is needed to for the material to fail catastrophically."

Rather than actually explain the Young's modulus and stiffness in your own words, provide direct hyperlinks to the terms on Wikipedia to facilitate easier reading. See the coding of other articles in our class to figure out how to do this, if don't know how to already.

5) Maintain neutrality of tone in your discussion of CNT's. Rather than saying

"It provides amazing energy enhancements."

You can instead say "It provides significant energy enhancements over current methods." and then provide a reference to an article confirming this. I feel the first instance of quoted text is more personal opinion than actual fact.

Otherwise, the page has good depth and is coming along well.

--B.S.Kukreja 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

good start[edit]

The most important part is still very light....--Joshua 13:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)