Talk:Solid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Techincally speaking, the opening sentence of this article is untrue. Look at the grammar. Any suggestions on correcting it? I can't come up with anything prettier than dropping the A and italicizing solid. --Dante Alighieri 10:02 27 May 2003 (UTC)


I think it's fine this way, since the meaning is very clear. 'Solid' is often (incorrectly?) used as a noun. A sentence like 'Sodiumchloride is a solid at room temperature' is perfectly legible, although it should read 'Sodiumchloride is solid at room temperature'. (Ben, 14 Aug 2004)
"A solid is a state of matter" doesn't sound right to me, either, although there is no problem with using solid as a noun - the OED says that the noun solid comes from the adjective solid. How about "A solid is a body of matter with a definite volume..."? -- Heron 15:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
FixedJoe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed split[edit]

I realise this article is pretty sad for such a major concept, but nevertheless I believe that the use of the term "solid" for the state of matter dominates. Therefore I recommend that other uses of the term in maths and jewellery should not be on this page, except in redirection notices. Walkerma 05:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

DoneJoe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 00:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC). I(Twilight sydney)am looking for three faster ways to dissolve a solidfaster, i would like some help. Visti me at www.edwardbellajacobcullen.wetpaint.com . i could use a lot of help!!!! thanks

Short article[edit]

Why is this article so short, when Gas and Liquid are much longer?--Thatgains (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Extension[edit]

I thought I would 'beef things up' a bit. When I stumbled across this article (after an exhaustive review of the various articles on solid mechanics) it seemed to be 'calling to me' for extension ;-)

If there are any questions about copyright violations, I have been through this before with my article on Colloidal crystals (M.S. work @ UCLA). My own educational website on "Pure and Applied Chemistry", which includes a major section on "Materials Science", has already been declared as Public Domain.

Please be patient (or jump on in!) as links and references will follow shortly. Apart from any other potential complications and/or objections, I am only too happy to contribute, and sincerely look forward to working with you as a group :-) -- logger9 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to lob a potshot without doing any revision of my own, but this article's opening paragraph really needs reworking. The technical jargon is appropriate for the body of the article, but the first sentence should be a plain-English definition of a solid. The concept is basic, so we're likely to get a lot of laypeople and young people coming here for help, and the first paragraph as it stands will completely torpedo their understanding. I'll come back later and see if I can't work something up.Illexsquid (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Great suggestion ! What can we say about solids ??? -- logger9 (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Image does not fit to its caption[edit]

File:Coll 3.jpg
Crystal structure in a typical monatomic elastic solid, as illustrated in this scanning electron micrograph inside the bulk of a colloidal crystal composed of amorphous colloidal silica (particle diameter 600 nm).

I claim that the above image shows no long-range order. There is a small island of crystallinity in the top right corner, but it is nearly impossible to say whether or not it is fcc structure. My attempts to remove this image, which is already present in 10+ other WP articles, are getting reverted by user:Logger9 without explanation. Therefore, I put this issue here for community vote on whether or not you agree that the above image corresponds to its caption and purpose to illustrate a crystalline solid Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What are we being asked to vote on? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
  • I think that the SEM image shows substantial regions of long-range order but much disorder too. Most solids have combinations of order and disorder. Disorder is ubiquitously present in all real solids. Whether the packing is fcc or hcp cannot be discerned and is irrelevant anyway. My only quibble is that a colloidal crystal is far from being a typical elastic solid and it certainly is not monatomic. A better example might be a TEM of a common elemental metal or a simple compound like NaCl. The SEM shown is not even a good example of its kind. There are better SEMs of natural opal available which show the regular packing of the spheroids better with fewer instances of disorder. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
    Whereas I mostly agree, just a note on "Disorder is ubiquitously present in all real solids". We are talking about crystals here, which usually cease to exist when density of defects exceeds few percents. Do you think this threshold is passed in that picture? Materialscientist (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
We are not talking about crystals here, we are talking about solids. Maybe the caption could be changed to illustrate the coexistence of order and disorder in a solid. I agree about the lack of fcc evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
  • I dunno if there's long-range order in there (visually, I would say no), but I know that if the purpose of this is to show an FCC arrangement, it fails miserably. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of the image is to give a peek inside of an ordered crystalline solid. In actuality, Colloidal solids are ideal examples (with proper scaling considerations) of monatomic elastic crystalline solids. -- logger9 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Says who? I thought ideal examples of monatomic elastic crystalline solids are monatomic elastic crystalline solids, aren't they? Besides, why an article on solid should restrict itself to monoatomic ones? We've got a few atomic-resolution pictures. Just look around. If you are so fond of colloidal solids and proud of your own work (above), look at File:Crystallinelatex.jpg, File:FLY EYE.jpg below and reconsider. (i) In the picture above, atoms are not ordered as in typical solids (say metals); (ii) Using silica spheres for atoms is same as taking a photograph of a chemical constructor model. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Can I join in this conversation? Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

MS says that: "Using silica spheres for atoms is same as taking a photograph of a chemical constructor model." Not exactly. A chemical constructor model is not an example of an elastic solid. -- logger9 (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

MS asks: "Says who..." that colloidal crystals are ideal examples of monatomic elastic crystalline solids ? For the original reference, see Williams & Crandall in Physics Letters A Volume 48, p. 330 (1973) or their subsequent article in Science Magazine in October 1977. "Gravitational Compression of Crystallized Suspensions of Polystyrene Spheres". -- logger9 (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, page number in first ref. is 225 and year is 74; neither reference supports your claim. (I do understand what you wanted to say there, no need to explain. Just be more careful with facts and do not push them where they don't cover). Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You should be far more careful with your criticism where it has no sense of validity -- in a subject matter where you are clearly uninformed. Whether or not the page number is correct is completely insignificant. Both references clearly support my claim that the colloidal crystal is an elastic solid. Moreover, numerous other authors have done a plethora of work supporting this concept. If you cannot see that, then you do not have a reasonable comprehension of the concept of the elastic solid.
Crandall and Williams clealry identified the role of the ordered phase as an elastic colloidal solid, as evidenced by the elastic (or reversible) deformation due to the force of gravity. This deformation can be quantified by the distortion of the lattice parameter, or inter-particle spacing. In addition, periodic ordered lattices behave as linear viscoelastic solids when subjected to small amplitude mechanical deformations. Okano's group experimentally correlated the shear modulus to the frequency of standing shear modes using mechanical resonance techniques in the ultrasonic range (40 to 70 kHz). Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Vol.17, p.305 (1978). In oscillatory experiments at lower frequencies (< 40 Hz), the fundamental mode of vibration as well as several higher frequency partial overtones (or harmonics) have been observed. Structurally, most systems exhibit a clear instability toward the formation of periodic domains of relatively short-range order Above a critical amplitude of oscillation, plastic deformation is the primary mode of structural rearrangement. Russel, W.B., et al., JCIS, Vol.83, p.163 (1981).
Using a single body-centered cubic colloidal crystal, the occurrence of Kossel lines in diffraction patterns were used to monitor the initial nucleation and subsequent motion caused distortion of the crystal. Continuous or homogeneous deformations occurring beyond the elastic limit produce a 'flowing crystal', where the nucleation site density increases significantly with increasing particle concentration. Sogami and Yoshiyama in Phase Transitions, Vol.21, p.171 (1990) Lattice dynamics have been investigated for longitudinal as well as transverse modes. -- logger9 (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to augment the article with any of the above images. But I see no valid reason for excluding my work. -- logger9 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If you stayed calm and impersonal you would note that "that colloidal crystals are ideal examples of monoatomic elastic crystalline solids" is plain wrong and wouldn't waste time for the above, which is obvious. That colloidal crystals are crystals nobody questions, but they are only one, minor, and rare example, and by no means should be put in front of the whole concept of solids as it is done in the paper. The articles needs a subsection on colloidal solids and this is where you work goes. Materialscientist (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Calmly and impersonally, the article on Colloidal crystals is already published on the Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with using the illustration as an example here, as long as that is the way in which it is presented. -- logger9 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Classes of solids[edit]

There are a couple big issues here. We're missing at least one category, probably more: for example, crystalline insulators like ice don't fit into any of these. Nor does glass, or coal. I could start making up categories here ("insulators," "glasses," etc.) but I was hoping someone would have a better idea. The other issue is weight: the length of each treatment is wildly out of proportion to the category's importance. Gruntler (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Several sections, in particular "classes of solids" and "physical properties", have become very long. Much of the material is very specialized; often the length of treatment is out of proportion. We should remember the rule "be bold" and shorten most sections by factors 2 to 5, providing links to more specialized articles. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed again two sections explaining inorganic and organic compounds. While this classification is important in chemistry, its relevance for the solid state does not become clear. In the long term, the entire parts "crystal and glass", "classes of solids" and "chemistry of solids" should be reorganized in a clearer way. Why not proceed as most textbooks: they start with a classification according to the nature of the bonds that keep the solid together. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry of solids[edit]

The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is odd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand the continuing problem there. -- logger9 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thermal properties ?[edit]

Marie has attempted to create a new section (in an already lengthy article) called "Thermal properties" by copying the text verbatim from the opening image. Then she has placed the image there. The copied text hardly constitutes a section on thermal properties. And the image was fine where it was, especially since it is now just a large blank space. -- logger9 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well vibrational modes isn't the first thing that a reader would think of seing when it comes to solids. The lead should have an image like an ice crystal or a bar of metal, which the reader will immediately contrast with liquids and gases.
The current section on thermal properties is fine (although if a bit short), it's just that the caption should be trimmed to stuff directly pertaining to the image something like "Shown here are the one-dimensional normal modes of vibration in a crystalline solid. The amplitude of the motion has been exaggerated, and is actually much smaller than the lattice parameter." and everything else be in article text. Captions should be descriptive of the image, not be used instead of the main text. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a respectable section on thermal properties would be welcome. But this caption does not constitute even the beginnings of one. E.G. Refractories are known for their mechanical performance under high temperatures (see thermo-mechanical properties). If you want a separate section, then you had better have something else (maybe relating to thermal sensors ?) of reasonable significance to discuss -- logger9 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
That is way too specific. The section needs to concisely summarize general thermal properties like thermal conductivity (probably mentionning the best natural and synthetic heat conductors), specific heat/heat capacity, and so on. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in. The way I see it is the topic of Solid is immense and should star with the basics (distinction of solid, mechanical properties, melting point, atomic structure, etc.) as well as mention numerous pertinent properties, which are so many (optical, electrical, thermal, mechanical, etc). It can only be an umbrella article, i.e. a brief summary of everything linking to numerous WP articles. It takes a lot of pain to write such an article and one can not afford leaning to essays, OR or to be overly specifics - numerous example are around (electron, etc). Materialscientist (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunno what exactly the content dispute is about...[edit]

...but from what I can see, there's a section clearly out of place. Crystals and glasses should be a subsection of Classes of solids. I also agree with the jist of recent removals. The cut sections are best left cut. They are simply too wordy and add little to the article. Writing a lot does not mean that it's well written. Consider the two examples:

The lion is an animal from Africa. It is a big cats with four legs and thus is a quadruped. Lions walk by moving their legs forward one after another just like other animals. They also have yellow-brown fur, which is lots of strands of hair formed of keratin with yellow-brown pigment. They hunt and eat other animals (but not plants). Lions never eat trees, but they eat gazelles, gnus, and zebras. Lions' digestive system are not well-adapted to eat plants since most felines are carnivorous, in fact lions will often get sick if they are force-fed pine trees.

Detailed section on general quadruped anatomy

Subsection on lion anatomy

and

The lion (latin name) is a four-legged feline from Africa. Lions have yellow-brown hues of fur, which help them hide amongst the tall grasses and bushes. As carnivorous predators, lions hunt and kill other animals present in their enviroment, such as gazelles, gnus, and zebras.

Section on lion anatomy

Be concise, treat the reader as an intelligent person (aka no need to be pedantic), and don't write simply for the sake of writing (aka don't write about relatively (compared to the whole) unimportant details). Use {{Main}} and {{See also}} before creating a new section or paragraph. It tells the reader "This is a summary of the topic, For detailed explanations, go on this article dedicated to the topic." or alternatively "This is not directly relevant, but it treats a complementary aspect of the topic". Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! That's exactly the problem with this and several other articles I've seen. The trouble is that it's so hard to get people to let you remove stuff like this, because there's nothing objectively wrong with it; it's just inappropriate. I'm going to remember your lion example and refer back to it. —Keenan Pepper 18:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall structure / aims of this article[edit]

It seems to me that one factor that has contributed to the recent dispute is a lack of a top-level view on what this article should cover. It seems to me that the topic is huge, and so this can only be a very high-level article, especially if it is aiming to be beginner-friendly. I would divide the topic up something like:

  • Classes of solid
    • Metals
    • Semicondutors
    • Ionic solids
    • Organic solids
  • Structure
    • Crystalline
      • Polycrystalline
    • Glass
    • Ceramic
    • Composites
  • Properties
    • Mechanical
    • Thermal
      • Heat capacity
      • Heat conductivity
    • Electrical
      • Conducting / insulating
    • Magnetic
    • Optical
  • Analytical techniques

(This is only top level - I haven't attempted to fill in all the sub-levels. Clearly the bonding and structure in the first two main sections are what determine the properties in the third section.)

If there was a general agreement on the direction the article should be going in, it would be easier to see what areas need more work. Once all the important topics are well covered, it's then easier to determine whether any disputed section is an irrelevant aside that just makes the article longer and more confusing, or whether it should in fact be included. Djr32 (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry of solids[edit]

The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is odd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand the continuing problem there. -- logger9 (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's one perspective --- others would say that the most critical differentiation is between metals and non-metals, or between crystalline solids and amorphous solids. But in any case, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the concepts of inorganic solid and organic solid are irrelevant, just that the current section on organic solids seems to be answering the question "what is organic chemistry?" rather than particularly addressing the topic of solids. Djr32 (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
No progress on this issue for several weeks now, and the article is still a mess. I've made a few rearrangements based on my suggestion below. I think the next step is to move the organic solids section to be a subsection of "classes of solid" (which is effectively dividing solids by type of bonding), and delete the inorganic and sol-gel section. Any disagreements? Djr32 (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that you are on the right track DJ. But I would suggest that instead of deleting any of these sections, we continue with your current mode of rearrangement -- which appears to me to be helpful :-)
1) Both organic and inorganic solids could be included in classes of solids (by bonding).
2) Sol-gel chemistry could be included as a subsection of the new Nanotechnology section -- especially since that is primarily what it deals with.
-- logger9 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I see that you liked the proposed rearrangement so much that you broke it altogether... I assume that putting a couple of top-level section breaks inside the "Classes of solid" section was accidental. I was more surprised to see that you removed the section on structure (crystalline vs amorphous) entirely, and moved the description of crystal structure into a section on glass ceramics. I'll try to fix the section hierachy / ordering later today if I get a chance. Djr32 (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Classification scheme[edit]

As per the suggestion(s), I took a first shot at a new hierarchy based on:

Classes of solids: Inorganic, Organic and Composite.
  • Note: I think that we could use more specifics on the emerging class of organic materials. Polymers is just a start for that section. A section on wood would seem appropriate, eh ?
-- logger9 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to disagree with this classification as it implies, for instance, that organic materials can't be semiconductors (see organic semiconductor) or metals (google it) and that inorganic materials can't be polymers (counterexample: polythiazyl). I'm also one of those who doesn't think that the organic/inorganic divide is the most fundamental one. I think I'd try something like:
Classes of solids: we can classify solids based on their electrical properties, their structure and constitutents, and...
Structure
Crystalline
Glassy
Polymer
...
Electrical
Metal
Insulator
...
Chemistry
Organic
Inorganic
...
...
and so on. Certainly we should avoid implying that any scheme is THE scheme for classifying solids. Gruntler (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Unfortunately, no matter which classification scheme we choose, there will always be exceptions. I guess that is why I agree with you that no scheme will be final. -- logger9 (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
True, there are always exceptions to everything. Try writing the rules of English. I've pretty much finished helping out over at liquid, but thought I may be able to give a little advice over here, although I feel even more like a fish out of water. (No pun intended.) I really don't have a lot to add to this particular article, but, like the liquid article, perhaps I can help to improve the organization.
The lede is a bit overly detailed. I would probably break this into a rather simplistic lede, and a more comprehensive introduction. The lede is usually no more than a basic dictionary definition. Intro sections, which are unnecessary in a purely technical article (like I prefer to work on), are invaluable in a scientific article. The intro should provide a much broader definition, usually with a paragraph covering each section to follow. Once the intro is written, the basic layout for the rest of the article will be revealed. The following sections should cover the exceptions.
This same concept is usually used when writing a section. Start with a intro paragraph that sets the layout for the rest of the section. I created the section Liquid#Applications partly as an example of this. Even paragraphs should be written in this manner: Intro sentence. Content sentences. Summary sentencesd (which are often some kind of example).
As I don't have much time to research the subject right now, I'll just leave this and the above advice: Get the simple stuff organized and everything else will fall right into place. Zaereth (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest set of structural changes[edit]

The latest set of structural changes seems to take us away from having an overall structure as discussed above, and make the article seem (even more) like a random, unconnected set of subsections. I think this is a bad idea, and so propose reverting the changes. (There were also some unnecessary line breaks removed in the same change, which I don't care about either way!) Djr32 (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am neutral about them - please keep or revert them as consensus decides. Materialscientist (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, as nobody else has commented either way, I have reverted the changes. Djr32 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I am siding w/MS on this one, in that I don't see much difference. It dawned on me that we don't need the additional subsections, so I was merely trying to further simplify things. But it's not important to me. I.E. It works fine either way -- with no apparent losses that I can identify.
I appreciate DJ's recent contributions to this article (all constructive in my eyes) so I am willing to support his/her actions here. Thru our joint efforts, I think it is becoming a great article ! -- logger9 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thermo-electrical properties / chalcogenide glasses[edit]

I see that the section that I removed a few weeks ago has been re-inserted, together with many more paragraphs copied straight from Glass transition#Chalcogenides. This material is completely out of place in this article, it belongs in a much more specialised article. The section on physical properties needs to discuss the properties of solids in a much more introductory way, explaining their physical significance, etc. Djr32 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if a certain user is reverting to his old habits. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).
I agree that this is far too technical for this particular article. The primary purpose for any info here is to answer the ultimate question: What is a solid? Sections on ceramics, metals, etc ..., should be a very quick summary of their main articles. The info contained in the summary should go to answering the ultimate question. (ie: What makes a metal a solid? A ceramic?) That can usually be done in just a few paragraphs. Specific info on various substances should go in their respective articles, where the ultimate question becomes: What is a metal? What's a ceramic? Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Quick comment: The relevant Wikipedia guideline here is Wikipedia:Summary style. —Keenan Pepper 06:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Djr32 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, Djr32, despite any constructive criticism I might offer, I think your work in this article has lead to some drastic improvements in readability and understandability. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)