4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Boron nitride thin fibres obtained from a new copolymer borazine-tri(methylamino)borazine precursor

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORGANOMETALLIC CHEMISTRY
卷 657, 期 1-2, 页码 107-114

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-328X(02)01588-7

关键词

boron nitride; precursor; fibre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

dBoron nitride thin fibres have been obtained using the melt drawn technique from a new molecular precursor prepared by reacting borazine (HBNH)(3) with trimethylamino-borazine (CH3NHBNH)(3), (MAB). Borazine reacted very slowly with MAB at room temperature but this reaction was very enhanced when heated. Polymers have been prepared with different borazine/MAB ratio and. several reaction temperatures and times. According to the precursor properties required for the melt drawing technique, the best results were obtained with copolymer prepared with a borazine/MAB molar ratio of 90/10 heated at 75 degreesC for 36 h. Its glass transition was 22.5 degreesC and no decomposition occurred up to 100 degreesC. The ceramic yield was 78%, however the ceramisation, even under an ammonia atmosphere, was very slow up to 300 degreesC. Using a spinning machine, a mother fibre was easily extruded at 85 degreesC under a 40 daN pressure with a diameter of about 200 pin but its mechanical properties were too low to allow stretching of this crude fibre to lower its diameter down to 20 mum without a lot of breaks. After a chemical and thermal treatment up to 1800 degreesC, samples of BN fibres have been obtained. If the diameter from the crude fibres was thin enough, short samples of a thin ceramic BN fibre have been obtained, but if the diameter of the crude fibre was to important, the ceramisation yield to catastrophic defects on the surface of the fibre. Theses results were related to the low glass transition of the copolymer and to the poor reactivity of the crude fibre during the preceramisation treatment as showed by TGA. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据