Talk:Carborane

Academic forever?

This article is very much "ivory tower" because it fails to mention any uses for the material. What is the purpose of a molecule if it has no appliaction at all? Chemistry is a utilitarian science! 91.83.16.142 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No ivory tower thing here. This species, like most compounds, has zero applications. Sorry to disappoint.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what we chemists deserve this kind of hostility for.. I have never considered it a 'utilitarian' science. People who do only want apples not appletrees and that is pretty stupid. It is usually only (mis?)managers that come up with such nonsense. And please don't tell me that that belongs in an encyclopedia...

I do think it would be nice if the page could at least give some idea of the properties of these materials.

Jcwf (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this molecule has a very interesting structure that yields insights into how molecular bonding works. If nothing else, I'd say that deserves an article.—Tetracube (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article: https://phys.org/news/2020-01-team-electrochemical-method-uranium-potentially.html mentions they were envisioned as being possibly a ( better ) replacement to hydrocarbons for rocket fuel. Even if that didn't, in fact, pan out in the long run, that's definitely worth mentioning ( I was reading the article and came to Wikipedia to learn more about this rocket fuel angle, and was very disappointed to see nothing was mentioned ). --Arthurwolf~enwiki (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carboranes do have uses, they're just not mentioned in this article! One important application is as a source of boron for the synthesis of pharmaceuticals for boron neutron capture therapy - see Chem. Rev., 1998, 98 (4), pp 1515–1562.

Further uses are given in Acta Cryst. (2007). E63, m1086-m1088 (crystal structure of a carborane-phosphine AgCl complex).

Ben (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

85.101.59.226 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't strongest acid lead to this article?[reply]

The carborane superacid is pretty strong, but it isn't the strongest. Fluoroantimonic acid has a far higher acidity, albeit with different properties that make it less feasible for certain applications that carborane acids are useful for.

Anyway, I've added an applications section with the two references mentioned above, plus another use of carboranes in solid superacids. I hope you ivory tower people are happy now. ;-)—Tetracube (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more work

This article is seriously out of date. It deals only with 12-vertex species. See, for example, "Carboranes" by Russel Grimes. Petergans (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Equation

The given equation for the formation of the "dianion" () section Dicarbollide) is wrong, as it actually represents the formation of the monoanion. The dianion is obtained in a second stept by deprotonation using hydrides, e.q. KH:

KC₂B₉H₁₂ + KH → H₂ + K₂C₂B₉H₁₁

Done.Thank you for reporting this problem.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]