Talk:Conductive polymer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lead section

The lead section of this article is too big and too complex. I don't know anything about Conductive polymers, so can someone who does move the data into the article body? Josh Parris ✉ 06:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Not only the lead section but the whole thing is so complex. Can someone please translate this interesting article with more basic concepts. Thank you. --Quinlan Vos 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

1) Historically, the linear-chain polymer "blacks" have been called melanins. Some fungal melanins are even pure polyacetylene.

2) If this were a "vanity" article, is it for Weiss's group. In 1963, they reported [1] a conductivity as low as 1 S/cm in oxidized, iodine-doped polypyrrole (verses the prize-winners oxidized, iodine-doped polyacetylene). Mcginness was merely the last (and most visible, with papers in Science and and a news article in Nature) person to show high conductivity in this class of organic polymers before the Nobel winners grabbed the credit. And this was only incidental. Pproctor 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well this should not be a vanity article for any group, IMHO. WE is not an effective forum for settling past injustices, real or perceived. A very useful service for readers of WE would be to summarize the science, invite others to contribute..And let the McGinness thing go - he is forgotten. So were lots of scientists.--Smokefoot 02:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to provide a brief history, not give anybody a puff. The fact that Weiss et al anticipated in detail the Nobel winners is an important part of this history. Read the respective papers (link above), if you question this (er) convergence. BTW, the Jan Hendrik Schön science fraud incident also involved conductive polymers. McGinness' work a decade later merely reinforces the point that conductive polymers were discovered several times and that the history is messy. Unfortunatly, you seem to have read other stuff into this. Pproctor 02:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

but based on your link in this article (itself a curious inclusion) [2], you are partner and coauthor with McGinness "JOHN MCGINNESS, PETER CORRY, PETER PROCTOR Physics Department, University of Texas Cancer Center, M. D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, Houston 77025" which implies that you lack NPOV. Also you are editing articles by inserting repeated reference to your own publications. But I can see from your talk page that others have issues with your perspectives.--Smokefoot 04:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is true that before I figured out how things really work here, I crossed a clique by attempting to add some NPOV to the Raymond Damadian biography. Mostly, because I was there and really knew what went on. Same as this one. Interestingly, my main hassler User:DuncHarris seems to have been banned. Hopefully the fuss I raised contributed. Wikipedia is now actively cultivating experts, possibly because of the pending competiton from Sanger's new startup.

WP:NOR sez:

• Citing oneself== "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, then the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources...."

As you note, we were the second people to discover high conductivity in a linear backbone polymer. Not contenders at all, at least for high conductivity per se. "Close only counts in horse-shoes and handgrenades"--and our decade later is hardly "close". I fact, it is only matched by the "Prize"- winners 14 years later. But it does give mucho authority to pronounce who really has priority claims, naturally, supported by the literature-- This is Weiss' group. I was a grad student at the time and haven't been involved here for years. Now a physician, thank goodness. All these shenangans are too much.

But I do retain an intellectual interest. So I feel quite qualified to discuss the history dispassionately. As noted above, "Experts" are specifically valued here because we know the literature. We can cite our own publications at arms length. I do so mainly to give historical credit where it really belongs. This is with Weiss and his coworkers, the Australians who discovered high conductivity in a linear backbone polymer 10 years before we did and 13 years before the eventual Nobel winners. All NPOV, NOR, and with appropriate cites. etc. If you object to these cites, which speak for themselves, please tell us all how and why.

Interestingly, the original cite to Weiss et al was provided by an anonymous poster whose IP number traces to the University of Woolagong, which just happens to be a big Australian center of research on conductive polymers. Allegedly, (I cannot provide a printed cite so it is OR) the Aussies were a bit put out by the Nobel. Don't blame them myself. Pproctor 05:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)