Talk:Ice

Is Ice a fluid?

Is or isn't ice a fluid? My science teacher seems to think so, but my other teachers disagree.

The page answers that, although not in so many words. Most forms of ice, including ice I sub h, the form we are familiar with, are crystalline, and therefore not a fluid (unlike, say, glass), but it is possible to create amorphous ice by very rapidly cooling water, something like they way they make Liquidmetal brand golf clubs. Quadibloc (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ice is a solid not a liquid.

'Upside-down growing icicles'?

I saw an incredible image on newspaper today(I live in South Korea). This is the link to the article. Below is the traslation of this article:

The icicles shooting up from the earth' are growing in front of disused tunnel's entrance at Sinseo myeon, Yeoncheon gun, Gyeonggi do. The reason why this 'upside-down icicles' 5~120㎝ in height that looks like standing candles are formed is not known yet. Reporter Young-cheol Cho <youngcho@joongang.co.kr>'

Does anybody know the reason of this phenomenon?

• it is possible that warm air is exiting the tunnel with a lot of moisture in it, hitting cold air at the tunnel's exit. cold air holds less moisture than warm air, so the water might percipitate out and freeze. a thought, no idea if it's right

• Maybe they are ice spikes. JMK 14:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

New York Times

Ice!

Strength

How strong is ice? That is, in regards to like concrete and stuff? How cold must it be for a certain volume of ice to be structurally sound if one were to make an ice hotel or something? Does anybody know this?

I think this would be a good place to look: [1]--Thorseth (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

There're waaaaaaaay too many pictures. We need to clean the page up a bit. Isopropyl 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to post that, I mean seriously, there's like 3 pictures of icicles, 2 pictures of feather ice, and other copies! We only need 1 example per ice variance! Abcw12 (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I took out some pictures that I felt were either copied or completely unneeded, but feel free to take out more pictures. Abcw12 (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proton conductor?

See Talk:proton conductor. The Internet says in a few places that ice is a good proton conductor, but it's disputed. I found this hint that maybe it's only certain phases of ice? Can one of you ice experts comment over there and give better references and more specific details? — Omegatron 23:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Iam testing which type of ice is colder ice or dry ice if youknow email me at Maya8907@sbcglobal.net I doubt ice is a proton conductor. Protons are H+ ions, found in particular in liquid water. Yet [ionic] [solids] do not conduct ions or even electrons, why should ice be any different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.234.24 (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Icicles

I think icicles certainly deserve a separate article, not just a redirect here. --Paul Pogonyshev 23:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Types of Ice:

The article currently states, "As well as crystalline forms solid water can exist in amorphous states as amorphous solid water (ASW), low density amorphous ice (LDA), high density amorphous ice (HDA), very high density amorphous ice (VHDA) and hyperquenched glassy water (HGW)." However, according to the article at amorphous ice, ASW, LDA, and HGW are all different names for the same form. I'd like to prune this list down to remove the redundant entries, but wanted to verify first that my understanding is correct. -- Heath 66.32.117.111 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

It's wayyy too hard to figure out the simple physics of how much heat ice needs at 0C or 32F to melt, and how much must be subtracted for it to freeze, under normal conditions. We've over-answered the question. Please put yourself in the boots of a first year college student trying to look up the answer to this question, and read the page. I think you'll go, "huh?", along with me.

Phase diagram

How about somebody conjures up a nice phase diagram of ice for inclusion here? ʍαμ$ʏ5043 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pancake Ice circular redirect

I saw a link to Pancake Ice in the article, but upon clicking it, I was redirected to the Ice article itself. Couldn't we at least get a stub? Or rewrite the section and remove the link. 69.118.138.25 06:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

I tried to add some information, but all I could think of was that Ice played a part in global warming. However, I think maybe what I wrote can be improved on and put somewhere else instead of 'Uses of Ice'. Littleghostboo[ talk ] (Win an argument and leave your mark in history.) 07:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Freezing Point of Water

I have a question, I have pulled bottles of water out of the freezer that were liquid. When I opened the cap the water then began to freeze into a slush. I have never seen this before. The only things that I can think of that could cause this would be the environment that I am in. It is over 100 degrees F and very dusty (Iraq). IS it the pressure change, the introduction of nuclei, or the combination of both?

This article is gross

The writing is very staccatoed and doesn't flow well at all, there are too many irrelevant pictures, and there are are not enough citations. I came to this article from the "freezing point" section of water, expecting to find out exotic facts about phases of ice, and I think the article is thoroughly uninteresting to that end. This could use some work before inclusion in anything. Hjfreyer 11:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ground ice

Hey, I took some pictures of some weird looking ice that grew from the ground. These ice-crystal strucutres were like pasta that come out an extruder, but there is no extruder, it's from the ground. I figure, the ground was wet, and since the temperature was just below freezing, as the water was draining from the ground, it froze, only to be pushed further by more excess water. The pieces I saw were about 2 inches in length and were bunched together in strings about as wide as a pencil lead, and in bunches about the diameter of a little finger.

How the heck do I post a picture?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.201.252 (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Moleculestructure

I miss pictures of the moleculestructure of ice. It would be more clear why ice is less dense than water Compufreak (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Would be good for our readers if this article explained why ice is less dense than water.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

From reading several web pages I gather that ice is 9% less dense because it has hydrogen bonds where as water has the stronger covalent bonds.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Difference in density is a matter of molecular packing. Both in water and in ice molecules are interacting through hydrogen (not covalent) bonds. Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Walking on water?

Recently in my biology class, me and a few other students argued about whether or not walking on ice counts as walking on water. Most of us agree that it does count, as ice is simply a form of frozen water. However, one kid (David) will not agree with us and repeatedly argues that it won't count. He claims "when you think of water, you think of a liquid". What do you guys all think about this? AquaStreak (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a right or wrong. In everyday speech, water refers to the liquid. In everyday terms, David is right. This is also how the water is usually used in science. But of course since ice is a form of water, you're right too. Saros136 (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think David is right...if I were to ask for some ice cubes in my hot tea, I wouldn't say "pass the water", I would say "pass the ice cubes". Walking on water refers ONLY to liquid water. If you wanted to specify a different form of water, you can't just call it water, you have to specify it as something else. That is, you have to specify: "I'm walking on frozen water", otherwise its misleading. You aren't walking on water, because even scientifically, ice has a different molecular configuration than water (in terms of spacing, and probably the influence of hydrogen bonding in solid structure). Yes they are obviously made of the same substance, but solids and gases are clearly different than liquids, and need to be specified as such. So both colliquially and scientifically, I firmly agree with David. Fascinating discussion by the way!24.141.47.62 (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it most definitely is walking on water when you walk on ice, though the above person is right that it could very easily be intentionally misleading. However, only the implication (that you're talking about liquid water) is wrong, but the actual sentence (supposing you are arguing about saying "I can walk on water", or something similar) contains no false information. It's like saying you have wood in your room, but it turns out to be a bookcase. Yes, you were being misleading, but also yes, your sentence was completely true (unless the bookcase isn't made of wood, but that's not the point at all). Aeonoris (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the adjective

that means "of or pertaining to ice"? Serendi^podous 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say, 'icy'. --DaGeekyNerd (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

history of ice making

I came to this site trying to find gathering ice, I saw nothing on the history of making ice. (And there is no link. When I tried typing "ice machine," I just got directed to te things in fridges.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.30.91 (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slipperiness Theory

I thought ice become slippery because the thin layer of water on top of the ice is trying to bond with the ice beneath it, due to the water having to expand slightly it makes it more slippery. Elantrix (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rotten ice

Article should not be merged into this one. There are other articles such as Candle Ice and Black ice and Verglas describing ice states. If all such articles were merged into this, it would make the length unwieldy. Also the rotten ice article should be expanded -- I just didn't have access, for example to photographs. Also rotten ice may in some cases be caused by biological processes, or may shelter special biological forms (I don't have access to the scientific papers regarding this, and it isn't my field). Piano non troppo (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ice and volatiles

I think some part of this diff with planetary science info should be merged back into "non-water ice" -- thoughts? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the extraction of the Ice in transportation chapter

I would like to ask the community, if we should move the chapter Ice in transportation to an article called Ice in transportation or similar.

We already have Category:Ice in transportation. We need an admin who recalls the authors, too. --Scriberius (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics (dubious tag)

Do we have a cite for this? What about the thermal/volcanic vents on the ocean floor maintaining a "bubble" of meltwater where life could survive? Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Any body of water would have frozen from the bottom to the surface?

The statement, "if ice had sunk instead of floating, any body of water would have frozen from the bottom to the surface" is not at all obvious. Although other people have made this or similar statements, that doesn't prove that it is true. An insulator between water and the atmosphere can slow the rate of heat flow from water to the atmosphere; however, unless there is a source of heat input to the water, the water will approach the same temperature as the atmosphere. However, according to selected properties of fresh water, ice has a higher thermal conductivity. This means ice will conduct heat from the water to the atmosphere faster than if there was no ice cover. PE RHB100 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If ice had sunk and melted then doesn't matter, we are talking about equilibrium. If (significant amount of) ice had sunk and didn't melt then water had to freeze because of thermal balance. Am I missing something? Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume that when you mention equilibrium you are talking about thermal equilibrium between the water ice mixture and the air above it. This occurs when the water ice mixture is at the same temperature as the air above it. But i don't see anything you have said that in anyway implies that "if ice had sunk instead of floating, any body of water would have frozen from the bottom to the surface". Are you able to provide a rigorous proof using standards of rigor typical of a book on advanced calculus. If you could do this I might be able to understand you but I just don't follow your logic in the above paragraph at all, Professional Engineer RHB100 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I ignore air, but water and ice should reach equilibrium temperature - either ice melts or water freezes. I might be completely wrong in here because ice formation usually needs undercooling. If so then probably you're right that sinking ice would not freeze water (well, you can just fill it up with sinking ice if there is endless supply from top :-) Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is your argument that if ice sinks then warmer water at the surface would cause more heat flow to the atmosphere than if ice were at the surface? PE RHB100 (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if contact with ice alone is not enough to freeze the bottom of the pool then sinking ice would push water up to the cooling source (to the top, where the ice had formed in the first place). I guess one could experiment on that, making ice around metal bars and submerging it. Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the way this problem should be analyzed is by looking at the total heat flow out of the water ice mixture, completing ignoring what takes place internally. There is heat flow at the surface and heat flow at the bottom and sides where the water ice mixture meets the earth. Probably the earth, atmosphere and water ice mixture never reach the same temperature. This brings up the question, is a condition in which the net heat flow is zero ever reached? And if so, is this a condition in which there is freezing from bottom to top of thw water? PE RHB100 (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Essential is not equilibrium but dynamics, i.e. if the convection is such that warmer water is pushed up to the cooling air then the pool will freeze regardless any equilibrium. As to "zero", it doesn't exist. You'll need to specify max. variations and look for the climate where this might occur. Some pools freeze to the bottom, i.e. icecap slows but doesn't stop the freezing. Freezing from bottom up? I imagine a river in a very cold place. Somehow its top layers move quickly enough to avoid freezing, but the stale bottom slowly cools through the ground. Hardly possible. Materialscientist (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardness, anyone?

What is the hardness for each form of Ice? Accepting that water, as a whole, has a very low hardness, what is the hardness of a molecule of water in directed spray form for the following nozzle pressures at an object at standard 1 Atm pressure at a certain distance removed:

           KE(Nozzle) 1"  2"  6"
    10 psi
   100 psi
 1,000 psi
10,000 psi

(Fractalhints (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Ice phases merge

Could all the ice phase articles ( Ice II, Ice III, and so on) be merged into this one? They don't give any information that isn't already in this article, and I think they'd be more coherent as part of one article rather than 15 different one-liner single-paragraph articles that lack introductions and context. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The summary table in this article is good enough, merging would swell it too much as some of those sub-articles are more elaborated than to lines. Merging in a separate article is possible though. Those stubs clearly need expansion. Materialscientist (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I found:

• Amorphous ice - long article, 7 kb 7 ref

• Ice Ih long article, 7 kb 2 ref

• Ice IcA - one liner, duplicated in table, 4 ref.

• Ice II - 2 lines, 1 ref

• Ice III 1 line, 1 ref

• Ice IV 1 line, 1 ref

• Ice V 1 line 1 ref

• Ice VI 1 line 1 ref

• Ice VII 5 paragraphs 9 references 5 kb diagram

• Ice VIII 1 liner diagram 1 ref

• Ice IX 1 liner 2 refs "in fiction" section for Vonnegut book

• Ice X 1 liner 1 ref

• Ice XI 2 paragraphs 1 ref 1 kb

• Ice XII 3 paragraphs 2 refs 2 kb

• Ice XIII 1 liner 1 ref

• Ice XIV 1 liner 1 ref

• Ice XV 2 short paragraphs "in fiction" section 4 refs

The "1-liner" articles are flagged as needing more context. Many of the references are to one web site and are not necessarily unique to that phase (some references describe two phases). All the "1-liner" articles contain the same sentence about the Bridgman nomenclature. Most of the actual data given in the single line in these articles is already in the summary table , althoguh I've already noticed some discrepancies in numerical values between the table and the articles. There were a couple of diagrams and the ever-popular "in fiction" section for two items.

I think the unique information (mostly the references if not already present) in at least 12 of these articles can be clearly be merged into the main article, with only the long-ish articles left. I always feel a little disappointed when I click on a link and get no new information. It will take a little more than cut'n'paste to merge the 12 or 13, but it would get rid of 12 or 13 "needs context" flags. This article is hovering around 31 kB which is no longer considered extraordinarily long; the additions would probably be two diagrams and a few references that may not already be here. The numbers should be checked for consistency with the original sources since there seem to be some discrepancies.

More comments? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Update 2010 01 31 . --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger of meteorological information

I added the formation of natural ice as precipitation from the precipitation (meteorology) articles into this one. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Positive/Negative Charged water

A new study found that ice freezes at different places when it is positively or negatively charged: WIRED article -Kylelovesyou (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Slipperiness explanation missing something

The article as of this writing states that the "pressure melt" idea is no longer considered to be the cause of slipperiness, yet there are two things that must be then explained away:

• why blades (that have little surface and therefore exert a relatively higher pressure) are preferred to a wider surface,

  perhaps lower friction

• and also why some ice is not slippery at all but rather tends to stick to whatever object is attached to it. 99.254.159.219 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  I think the answer is not in properties of ice, but in humidity, temperature and the nature of the touching object. Materialscientist (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup the Link List

Is ice sports truly needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.64.214 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lay readers

This article is clearly not written with the lay reader in mind. It's arrogant to have a sentence like this in the lead:

• In non-scientific contexts, the term usually means ice I_h. If that's non-scientific, my rectum smells like roses.98.82.22.154 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The preceding paragraph was posted by me yesterday and apparently quickly reverted, with no explanation whatsoever. Look, whatever your reason for reverting me, short of vandalism, I think I deserve an explanation in your edit summary.

Now to the point. As I mentioned above, this article is not written with the average reader in mind. The current opening is meaningless to most people. What the heck is I_h? Sure, you can click on the link, but here we have an article about one of the most common substances on earth, and the average person gets through the first 33 words in near-total confusion. Someone less bright than average might literally get through the first paragraph and believe that he has arrived at the wrong article.

All I'm asking for is an article that meets our guidelines, including The first paragraph should define the topic without being overly specific . . . It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. It is my opinion (although it's an apparently worthless opinion), that someone who understands these technical terms well (I certainly don't) should try to make this article's opening more accessible to the average reader. Is that so unreasonable to suggest that my idea deserves deletion? 98.82.22.154 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the intro slightly to clarify that ice Ih is one of the solid phases and that the reader is not assumed to know that. As for the deletion of your comment, I assume that Material Scientist found (as I did) that the your first version was rather rude and therefore bordered on vandalism despite its intended constructive content. Your second version is improved. Dirac66 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

changing density of ice

Early on in the article on ice the statement is made that ice is the only non metal that expands when freezing. i.e. the density of the solid is less than the liquid. This contradicts information in the main wikipedia where this characteristic is shared by Silicon and Bismuth. And a couple of metals also.