Talk:Aramid

para-aramids??

Wow. Excellent article, good writing! Good practical info for Everyman! ...way above par for Wiki!

But aramids and para-aramids seem to be used interchangeably. Are they? This needs to be made explicit. If not, needs explaining, with examples of aramids and so forth.

Also needing explaining are "sensitive to acids and salts," and "sensitive to ultraviolet radiation." Such as; how bad is it? Two days in the sun? 10 days in seawater? Fixes, product variations, or work-arounds? etc... Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:C16D:7F97:1C4C:6D39 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I've added a brief explanation of the difference between meta-aramids and para-aramids, in a new Terminology and chemical structure section. As to when the article is talking about one or the other or aramids in general, that might be another matter. Sometimes it looks as though aramid on its own is used as a synonym for meta-aramid and contrasted with para-aramid . . . Musiconeologist (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

FTC gave the name

The wording in the source is Generic name given by the F.T.C. in 1974 to a class of aramatic polyamide fibers that differ in properties from the conventional nylons. Unfortunately they don't say what F.T.C. stands for, but presumably it's the Federal Trade Commission, which has it as an approved generic name?

But given seems an odd choice of word. It seems more likely that they adopted or approved a word already in use (maybe in research papers or similar) than that they invented it themselves. Is there a better source anywhere? Musiconeologist (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: this site uses granted and explicitly mentions the Federal Trade Commission, so I can at least expand the acronym safely. Musiconeologist (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Further update: I've changed it to established. Maybe they established it by coming up with it, and maybe they established it by approving it. The directindustry.com link is taking forever to load, so I've not attempted to turn it into a citation. Musiconeologist (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'm having trouble finding decent sources, but the actual situation seems to be:

• 1972: First known use of the word (source: |Merriam–Webster)
• 1974: Approved/granted/"named" by the FTC as a new classification to distinguish aramid from nylon (source: various manufacturers' websites, online course materials and the like)
• 1977: Adopted by the ISO in some way. (Source:the directindustry.com page, but I'm now landng on an entirely different page when I try to visit it direct rather than via the DuckDuckGo result that found it.)

So I'm guessing there might be a 1972 academic paper or similar that introduces the name and ought to be cited. Musiconeologist (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Finally: I found a decent reference for 1972. I've amended the introduction and moved the history of the name into its own section. Suggested remaining improvements:

• Find a good reference for the ISO adopting the word in 1977.
• Add very brief explanations of aromatic and polyamide, so people needn't follow the links if they don't want to.
• If possible, track down the first published use of the word. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

They are used in aerospace and military applications . . .

The current second sentence of the article is structured as They are used in A and B, for C and D, in E, F, and as G. I can't tell whether aerospace and military applications (A and B) are meant just to be the first item on the list, or to encompass some or all of the remaining items. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

International definition

I've kept the FTC definition (now quoted in a footnote to the terminology and chemical structure section). But it seems very odd to be using a particular country's trading regulations as the source for a scientific definition. Really we need the definition used by the ISO or an international scientific body, even if it turns out to be identical. Musiconeologist (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

over-determined wording?

In the section called 'Production' I read: 'In 2007 this means a total production capacity of around 55,000 tonnes per year.'

I increasingly often also in German come across this type of - to my perception over-determined - phrasing.

'In 2007 this means a total production capacity of around 55,000 tonnes.' Should be enough and therefore much better than giving the impression that the omitted words are somehow necessary. Or maybe they are and I just have not gotten the role they play .. Lodidol (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)