Talk:Glass transition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Summary missing[edit]

In my opinion the article is still missing a summary, describing the whole content in a few sentences. Actually, the glass transition is event not mentioned in the first sentence.--Afluegel (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it now..... -- logger9 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Done ! -- logger9 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

it's too long, too complicated and too unstructered, im sorry. im learning about glass transitions now, (bachelor physics) and this article is not usefull at all. please specify what you are actually explaining in each part of the article. 'entropy production' isnt much of a title. pieces should also be indepentantly readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please shorten it by a factor of 5-10[edit]

Is this article an attempt to parody the 1000-odd pages book by Wang and Angell ?

The article describes quite special theories and spectroscopies in astonishing length, but in many paragraphs I do not see the least relation to the lemma.

Ideally, the original authors should clean up themselves: shorten this article by a factor of at least 5, and move special material to special lemmas. Otherwise, I do not see any other way but to delete entire sections.

-- Paula Pilcher (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Logger9: you are reverting my changes without any comment. Please take note:

  • I have also a professional background & interest in this area of physics
  • However, my scientific background seems to be very different from yours. In my view, your view of the glass transition is a highly personal one. What you seem to consider part of the subject is for me hopelessly off-topic.
  • Wikipedia is based on collaboration. At every edit, you are warned that your edits may be changed by others. If you do not agree with my changes, please let us discuss on this talk page. But never never never revert changes without explanation.

-- Paula Pilcher (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I should make brief note here that Dr. Angell (Ref. 65 & 129) is one of the truly great research scientists of our time. I met him at a conference of the American Ceramic Society (East Coast Division) once when I was much younger, and enjoyed showing him some of my original work on Colloidal crystals at that time. We discussed the nature of the glass transition in disordered colloidal systems (Colloidal glasses) over gin and tonics ;-) -- logger9 (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to work in this field and not meet Austin Angell... I wonder why you met him only once in so many years... maybe it's because your field of research is firmly on the glass side of the liquid-glass transition - this could also explain why your contributions have so little to do with the lemma "glass transition".

To make a constructive proposal: Please consider whether you could move the material you assembled here to other, more appropriate lemmata. Or even convert them into independent articles, which may then be linked here and there. For instance, if you want to contribute on "internal friction", why not do so in the article friction ? -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Friendly ??[edit]

A "friendly" approach hardly constitutes brashly eliminating nearly 50% of the material that I have worked very hard to make available here to the Wikipedia readers. I think you might re-evaluate your tactics a bit. Just because you do not completely understand something unfamiliar to you does not mean that it is not related material, and highly applicable to the subject matter.-- logger9 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Nice to see you responding here. Please let us try to lower the pitch a little bit. »Eliminating« is quite relative in a medium where everything can be restored with two clicks. At least it worked in getting you to react. Nevertheless, I am ready to apologize if you found my approach too brash.
So, I restore right now the sections I had deleted. By the same token, I restore the other changes I made to the text. On this base, I hope we can agree to discuss conflicting views section by section, hopefully contributing in this way to a synthesis that serves all. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC) did NOT restore them in their entirety...about 10,000 bytes short ! So I have done that now, and made sure to include your contributions as well :-)
FYI: Experimental editing by the "slash and burn" approach is definitely NOT standard protocol @ Wikipedia -- logger9 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

Internal Friction[edit]

Let me start the discussion with one particular section. The section "Internal Friction" starts as follows:

"In the article Physics of glass, we consider the influence of the defect structures in a typical glass on the propagation of sound waves, thus indicating the effects of the elastic scattering of thermal phonons on heat transport and vitrification. In this article, we focus on the mechanisms responsible for the loss or dissipation of energy of thermal acoustic phonons by reflection at an internal surface (aka "inelastic" scattering)."

Boldfaces are my addition. To show a stylistic problem: very long chains of nominal groups, making the text tiresome to read.

But more importantly: what has the dissipation mechanism of phonons at "internal surfaces" to do with the lemma "glass transition" ?

-- Paula Pilcher (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

a concise answer would be helpful... Paula Pilcher (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
otherwise, deletion of the section is the logical consequence... Paula Pilcher (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
A "logical consequence" in your little world. -- logger9 (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Massive Irreversible Plastic Deformation[edit]

I refer you to this discussion on Talk:Physics_of_glass:

Editor: While statistically and or mathematically, there is a driving force toward crystallization, there is no physical mechanism or evidence that all glasses "tend towards" the crystalline state, not even on a "geological" time scale.

Many glasses, for example, traditional silicate glasses more than a few degrees below their glass transition temperature, show no evidence of crystallization. Five degrees below Tg (Kurkjian's work) it takes over a year at high stress to see any evidence of relaxation of the stress in the glass, let alone the amount of rearrangement necessary for actual crystallization to occur. This is at energies near that required for the liquid state to form. At hundreds of degrees below this, the rate of atomic rearrangement towards the so-called inevitable mathematically stable crystalline state would be so low as to laugh at the age of the universe, let alone geological time scales.

Author: Most arguments to the contrary are largely academic -- and highly respected within the scientific community. Some empirical proof I can currently see in the literature is that relating to recent work on quasi-elastic (inelastic) light scattering in glasses.

On the Origin of Quasi-Elastic Light Scattering in Glasses, Europhys. Lett., Vol. 57, p.838 (2002)

Very Low Frequency Raman Scattering in Vitreous Silica, Phys. Rev. B, Vol.12, p.2432 (1975)

Low-Temperature Specific Heat and Thermal Conductivity of Non-Crystalline Solids, PRL, Vol.27, p.1280 (1971)

The concensus of these works is a clear indication of dynamic non-equilibrium behavior of non-crystalline silica (the most basic glass former known) at the molecular level. This would indicate some degree of irreversible (plastic) deformation on the smallest spatial scales. The net result of this over time would most likely be irreversible (plastic) deformation on continuously larger spatial scales.

Editor: I don't disagree that atoms often rearrange in glasses... but that happens in all solids, crystalline or not. You seem to be concluding that the deformation will result inevitably in crystallization, and I respecfully disagree that the dots can necessarily be connected to draw that picture. Academically, this would be the equivalent of the conclusion/myth that old cathedral windows are thicker on the bottom because the glass has been pulled down due to gravity over the years... based on the archaic idea that glass "flows" in one way or another even below Tg, in some mysterious way that makes it different from flow/diffusion/defomation in crystals. The mechanism may be different, but that does not make it any less stable (over trillions of years anyway) than crystals nor does a different mechanism somehow not fulfill the definition of a "solid." It is scientifically inappropriate to draw such a conclusion, and inappropriate in this setting to state so in an article as that would be considered original research or opinion.

Editor: You wrote: "I don't disagree that atoms often rearrange in glasses... but that happens in all solids, crystalline or not."

Author: I was waiting patiently for someone to point out that fact. Notice that I have not (yet) made this statement in the article, nor have I (yet) used these references -- partly for the reasons that you state here. But I would like to point out that plastic deformation in crystalline solids is highly localized due to the extremely finite and localized distribution of point and line lattice defects, and their limited mobility at most temperatures. Amorphous solids, on the other hand, consist largely of defects (by definition). Thus, such irreversible deformation is much more likely to occur throughout the entire structure, and potentially on a much larger length scale.

  • Note: This type of massive structural rearrangement resulting from the continuous interaction of compositional or density fluctuations (remnants of the initial liquid state) is what constitutes the basic mechanisms of the glass tranisition at the molecular level. The inelastic scattering of density fluctuations at internal surfaces (or "defects") consitututes the microscopic apporach to the measurement of this phenomenon in the physics laboratory. -- logger9 (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this a new discussion thread ? Or is it meant as a response to my above question ? In that case, please, do not put it in a separate section. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Subtle is the Lord[edit]

A good book. But what has it to do with glass transition ??? -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, you removed that one. But what about the remaing 15-odd "further reading" recommendations ? There relation to the lemma is far from obvious. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I am truly sorry, but it is not my responsibility to spend the whole day here giving you a lesson in solid state physics. As a professor at a 4-year university, these are potentially constructive suggestions to eager and avid learners in the field. If there are any specific elements of "Further Reading" that truly offend you, then please feel free to remove them ! -- logger9 (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
quite simply: this article is not about solid state physics at large. It's about the glass transition. None of the books is a monography about this subject. If any of this books has a noteworthy section about it, then please feel to reinsert the reference with a proper explanation. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't need to justify the suggestion to other readers of quality textbooks on the physics of glassy solids. They justfify themselves. Don't you have a more valuable way to spend your time and energy than spending endless hours nitpicking over "Further Reading" categories ?? -- logger9 (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As you say, the books are about solids. This article, however, is about a very special solid-to-liquid-transition. So, should we add 15 more books about liquids, and 15 books about phase transitions ? No, because it is fully sufficient to link to the articles about solids, liquids, phase transitions, where further reading can be found. Therefore, I will remove your solid books once again. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Since most of them are referenced in the Physics of glass I have no major objections -- logger9 (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Submicron particle image[edit]

It's confusing. The internal structure of the particles might be amorphous, but this is not what one sees. One sees the almost crystalline packing of the particles. Therefore I suggest removal of the figure. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the whole point of the image. One reading this article is strongly encouraged to see clearly the difference between long-range and short-range order. This micrograph could not be more appropriate for the subject matter. The audience is told clearly that the spheres are amorphous. If this is still confusing to you, then you may be in the wrong field of study ! -- logger9 (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
An image should show things. If the main message is only contained in the figure caption, then the image is off-topic. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The image does show things. I just explained that. So the image is not off-topic. -- logger9 (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I see long-range order of white balls. What else would I see if I were less stupid ? -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I see there is definitely a problem here...because there is no long-range order present in that micrograph. -- logger9 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops. Trying to make sense of your explanations, I had become really confused. And it's quite late at my place. If I rethink about it, the problem is not so much with the image but with the figure caption. Why don't you move all the technical information to the image information associated with The figure caption could then be something like: "Silica nanoparticles (diameter ca. XX nm), prepared from TEOS solution, form a mesoscopic amorphous solid." -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, then there is still a problem with the figure: it shows a mesoscopic glass, but not the glass transition. What's the relation with the lemma, again ? -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


It is good practice in WP to give in the very first sentence of an article an approximative explanation of the lemma - and not at the end of the second paragraph.

WP is hypertext. It works through cross-links. There is no need to start by explaining what 'amorphous' means - we just link to amorphous solid and glass. This is the fundamental reason behind by assessment that this article can be made much much shorter. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, your comments about the introduction are quite rational, and well taken. You should have started your whole approach by trying to make some improvements there. But unfortunately, jumping directly to blanket removal of the bulk of the article's text is competely unfounded -- and highly inappropriate. -- logger9 (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment in sentence 1. A bit patronizing, but kind nevertheless. For the blanket removal, I do not hesitate to repeat my apologies. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger results[edit]

Nice Job ! I think it considerably strengthens the article. Now the audience has the option of deciding for themselves how deeply to get involved in the more theoretical aspects. Keep up the good work :-) -- logger9 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, the entry glass transition temperature redirects here. Therefore, this notion must be explained in the very first paragraph. Please do not insert other material there. The introduction should be concise anyway. Concurrence of glass formation with crystallisation is important, but not central; in the introduction, one sentence must suffice. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Actions Reported[edit]

Your inapproriate methods of removing all contents of the original article have been reported to the proper authorities. There is a close knit group of us in the Glass Sciences who have worked very hard to make sure that these articles are developed using a team effort in a constructive manner over time.

Part of your efforts worked out very constructively. But your insatiable appetite seems to know no limits -- and after initial apologies for blanket removals (which obviously meant absolutely nothing and were completely disingenuous) your unwarranted blanket editing persistence has become somewhat irrational -- and totally obsessive. -- logger9 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A note to all contributors[edit]

I've been invited to take a look at the situation on this page. I'm utterly uninvolved and have no idea about this topic.

As a start, I'm asking everyone to remember to remain civil both here on the talk page and in their edit summaries. Second, please ensure that you use edit summaries when making changes to the article, even minor ones, explaining what you are doing and why. Third, if back-and-forth reversions are a problem here, then the sensible thing to do is to discuss proposed changes on the talk page and achieve consensus before making changes to the article page. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Has been tried. See e.g. above, "Internal friction". This section is obviously off-topic. Logger9 has refused to enter discussion on the talk page. Therefore removal of this, and several other sections, is unavoidable. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I am new to this situation and have only just begun looking into it. However, I have warned one user over a looming 3RR vio for reverts to the article today. I suggest you also avoid reverting and continue to attempt discussion in the appropriate venue, ie: here. Meanwhile, you can attempt to gain consensus by starting a request for comment and posting on the appropriate project pages, such as Wikiproject:Glass and Wikiproject:Physics. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I have fully protected the most recent version of the article for 7 days. All proposed changes will now need to be discussed here; they can be made by an admin once consensus is reached. Have at it. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It happens that I have to leave right now for a couple of days. I am really curious how the community will deal with the collected works of Logger9. Can the problem be solved on a purely formal level, by exposing the multiple-paste style of Logger9's edits ? Or do we find people who are able to judge content ? Good luck -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at mediation: Paula Pilcher, could I ask you to please leave your problems with logger9 behind you for one moment? Let us concentrate on the content. Could you please succinctly explain why you feel that logger9's edits are damaging to the article? Let us try to have a structured and civil discussion here, from both sides. Thank you, NW (Talk) 18:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi NW. Just so you know, Paula is currently blocked for 24 hours, and has also stated she will be absent for a few days. However, I fully agree with your statement above, and I have urged all those involved, and everyone interested, to come to this talk page and build consensus about the article content. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also observing. Just adding my name to the list of editors who have been alerted about this edit war and will now be monitoring this page to ensure a good outcome. I am not an admin. I hope that we can lower the level of combativeness that seems to have arisen between the editors, and find a common ground to move forward upon. I do support the page protection as a way to halt the edit war. I am also not an expert on the subject matter. At the moment, I am also concerted about the editor Paula Pilcher, who appears to have recently, on June 21, become a very active contributor--which is good, but also has caused a lot of strife--which is bad. Let's all work together to make a better wikipedia. —fudoreaper (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for Objectivity[edit]

1) Look at my last few reverts -- or that of Colonel Warden. I would assert that we have ended up building an EXCELLENT article by collaboration and working TOGETHER as a team. I would suggest that we keep it all, and monitor it for protection from those who might not agree.

2) Look at what is currently being protected (90% "her" work, most of which she simply transferred by affecting a merger that had been coming for awhile.) Note that the ENTIRE bottom half of the above is missing. That was originally the bulk of the article.

I.E. After initially wasting ALL of it -- and then openly apologizing for doing so (see above post)-- she(?) just did it again when she felt like it. No reason given. Just WASTED it.

My humble opinion is that part of what she(?) did intitially was GOOD. But unfortunately, she didn't stop there, as it apparently was not enough. Everything following -- including openly insulting, attacking and slandering me as her fellow editor and collaborator -- is BAD.

-- logger9 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Was the removed information all placed elsewhere, in an article more suited for it? It seems the bottom section wasn't.
Negative on all fronts. -- logger9 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Would any of that information be better suited here?
All of it would (in my opinion). That is why it was there. -- logger9 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Does the person who removed it know a significant amount about the subject? If not, can they judge what should be here, and what should be in a side article?
I have no idea whatsoever. She claims to know something about physics. I have extensive training and expertise in the science of glasses and ceramics, and I wrote the part that she insists on deleting comprehensively. -- logger9 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Was any of it removed, not because of content, but simply because someone decided they didn't like the article long? That's never a valid excuse.
I think that was a major part of it. I run across that criticism in nearly all of the 12 major articles I have successfully composed for Wikipedia. -- logger9 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No information should be removed from the article, unless a valid reason is given. It looks to me like pointless wide spread deletion by someone who just didn't want the article to be long. If there are any sections that can be shorten with a brief summary, and a link to a side article for those interested in more detail, so be it. But you should never just destroy valid content, simple because of an article's size. Dream Focus 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a good start, but please focus on article content rather than other editors. A couple of points: first, we don't exactly monitor articles for protection: they can be edited by anybody. This is why consensus is important: if it was agreed, as a random example, that colloidal glasses were irrelevant to this article, then editors wishing to add that information could be informed that this was against consensus, and directed to the relevant talk page discussion on the matter. Second, sometimes articles do get too long. When that happens, they can be split. For instance, World War II, Causes of World War II and Timeline of World War II are all separate articles. The main article contains short sections on relevant topics that are too large to integrate into the World War II article itself. What would be helpful here would be if Logger explained which parts of the article are missing from the current version that should be replaced (and vice versa) and why. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
As I told you in the other discussion, I have already done that above (see Massive irreversible plastic deformation). It is most interesting to me that I am being asked to justify any and all of my work, which consituituted the entirety of the article befoe it ws removed. In addition, you have already leaned toward choosing colloidal glasses as the first next "victim" -- which is also completely my work. Yet her work, which includes the deletion of mine, all of which which was originally accepted, is accepted quietly in absolution. -- logger9 (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No, Logger9. Please let go of the idea that you're being singled out. I simply glanced at the article in search of a phrase to use as an example and chose colloidal glasses utterly at random--I have no idea what colloidal glasses even are. I have no interest in proving either of you wrong and don't have the knowledge of the subject matter that would be required to do so anyway. As to the discussion on which parts of the article are missing from the current version that should be replaced (and vice versa) and why, if consensus has already been reached on those issues, then please provide a link to it here. The reason for establishing that clear consensus exists is to avoid the possibility of an edit war erupting again when the protection expires. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Plastic Deformation in Elastic Solids:[edit]

The Glass Transition[edit]

Once again, I would urge you to refer to above post "Massive irreversible plastic deformation", which is an argument verbatim from (my) other page on the Physics of glass.

While there is clearly a thermodynamic driving force toward crystallization, there is very little evidence for the physical mechanism(s) responsible for the tendencies of most glasses towards long-range order formation or crystallization -- not even on most geological time scales. Many glasses (e.g. traditional silicate glasses more than a few degrees below their glass transition temperature) in fact show no evidence of crystallization whatsoever! Five degrees below Tg it takes over a year at high stress to see any evidence of structural or stress relaxation in the glass, let alone the amount of rearrangement necessary for actual crystallization to occur. This is at energies near that required for the liquid state to form. At hundreds of degrees below this temperature, the rate of atomic rearrangement towards the thermodynamically stable crystalline state would be so low as to question at the age of the universe -- let alone geological time scales.

Most arguments to the contrary are largely academic -- yet highly respected within the majority of the materials science community. Some empirical "proof" in the literature is that relating to recent work on quasi-elastic light scattering in glasses (referenced above). The concensus of these works is a clear indication of dynamic non-equilibrium behavior of non-crystalline silica (the most basic glass former known) at the molecular level. This would indicate some degree of irreversible (plastic) deformation on the smallest length scales. The net result of this over time would most likely be irreversible (plastic) deformation on continuously larger spatial scales.

It should further be emphasized that plastic deformation in crystalline solids (e.g. most metals) is highly localized due to the extremely finite and localized distribution of point and line lattice defects, and their limited mobility at most experimiental temperatures. Amorphous solids, on the other hand, consist largely of defects (by definition). Thus, such irreversible deformation is much more likely to occur on a massive scale throughout the entire microstructure -- and potentially on a much larger length scale.

This type of massive structural rearrangement resulting from the continuous interaction of compositional or density fluctuations (remnants of the initial liquid state) is what constitutes the basic mechanisms of the glass transition at the molecular level. Furthermore, observation of the inelastic scattering of density fluctuations at internal surfaces (or "defects") consitututes one of the more recent microscopic approaches to the measurement of this phenomenon in the materials science laboratory.

Thus, as metallurgists or material scientists, we investigate the mechanisms of plastic deformation (aka structural "relaxation" or internal friction) using techniqies such as dynamic light scattering (aka PCS: photon correlation spectroscopy or quasi-elastic light scattering). [ *Note: I did some introductory PCS work in my first paid job out of graduate school at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Laboratory in Yorktown Heights in the Ceramic Sciences Division, shortly after being nominated to be an IBM Fellow by the head of the division. ]. Using PCS, scientists investigate such contributing factors as central phonon peaks (relevant primarily near critical points in more traditional phase transitions), entropy production (typical of any "plastic" or irreversible phenomena), and thermally arrested density fluctuations (or "heterophase" fluctuations, as originally described in detail by the Russian author J. Frenkel in his classical text on the theory of liquids and the vitrification process).

It is through this type of experimental work that we will be begin to shed additional light on the highly controversial and much debated physical phenomenon known commonly as the glass transition. To dismiss this work is to avoid the reality of highly sophisticated experimental results continuing to be published around the world by our most highly educated and inquisitive scientists, using what we commonly refer to in the scientific community as the "scientific method".

-- logger9 (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do with this. How does it relate to the question of what should or should not be included in the article, or how the article is written? How does it indicate that consensus has been reached on these matters? Or is it even intended to address these issues at all? Exploding Boy (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the general consensus is he knows his stuff, and unless someone else knows about this subject as well as him, don't argue with him. The only people capable of deciding what should be included in a scientific article, are those who understand it. Dream Focus 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. A voice of reason can be very rewarding. -- logger9 (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's a voice of reason: I see no discussion, no consensus, and nothing moving forward. If things continue this way then all that will happen is the article protection will expire and the edit warring will resume. If you know your stuff, wonderful. Then you should also be capable of explaining clearly and concisely what's wrong with the current article and how to fix it, and others who are equally knowledgeable on the subject will heartily agree, consensus will have been reached, and we can all get on with other things. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have done what you ask...repeatedly now. What more do you want from me ? -- logger9 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that right now, there is no one else to discuss with. The ball is very much in Paula Pilcher's court; logger9 has explained why he believes his information is important to the article and now is is up to Paula Pilcher to explain why the information is superfluous. Possible suggestion if things get worse:How about just imposing a 1RR for this page; that should help keep the warring to a minimum? NW (Talk) 22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have much to say about this edit war yet, except that any edit war can be avoided by simple and rational communication on both sides, patience, and an attempt to understand our fellow editor's position. There is no need to be in a hurry, to take an offensive or defensive stance, or to simply dismiss another's ideas as stupid. It wasn't so long ago that the smartest man in the world, Aristotle, was proven wrong on almost everything. It has always been a fallacy to think that science is done learning, and much insight has been gained in the discussion of stupid ideas, (many of which are now accepted theory).
On the other hand, I'm glad I stopped by here, because Logger9's above description is just the summary I've been looking for. Thanks, and I apologize if this has been posted on Talk:Physics of glass, for I appear to have missed it. Zaereth (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
That's what it's all about :-)
I have to admit, I am glad to have written the summary. if allowed to re-post, it might actually serve as a nice introduction for that entire section of the article. -- logger9 (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, the article is in a very poor state, both by scientific and wikipedia standards, and instead of fixing obvious presentation problems (by writing and rewriting, not deleting), some parties (which I haven't identified yet) are merely discussing who has deleted what on what rights. Let us be civil and constructive:

1) Microscopy images must identify object sizes. I have asked Logger9 to fix that in this and other articles and do hope this obvious comment will be addressed.

2) As a summary, the lead should not contain references (with rare exceptions) - it should summarize the topics expanded in the body, and that is where the references go. Currently, the lead is by no means a summary and it contains 5 refs to one statement.

3) The lead throws a teaser: "Alternatively, it can be driven by a change in pressure or by a chemical reaction" which is not appropriate there: statement too strong to stay unexpanded and usupported by references; it should be expanded in the body and for now moved out of the lead.

4) The section title "Hidden phase transition?" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

5) AsGeSeTe hardly exists (should be non-stochiometric). Tellurite is a crystalline mineral and should not have Tg. Tyre rubber is uncertain material, same as some polymers.

Those are merely starters, noticed in few minutes. I will produce a long list of what is incorrect and incomplete in that article if I see anyone interested in having such list and willing to improve the article. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed ! This intially strikes me as truly rational (and constructive) criticism from a fellow professional in the field. As you may have noticed, I have already responded to your request for average particle size specification in all micrographs. What's next, I wonder ? -- logger9 (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
We benefit from those who specialize in a technical area contributing material and references, but nonspecialists who are generally informed in science also need to participate by pointing out what is incomprehensible. There have been sections of overly specialized material without a more general and comprehensible statement as well for the rest of us. This is not a peer-reviewed ultra-specialized scientific journal, but an encyclopedia, and articles must be approachable and informative to the general reader. This article has many undefined and un-wikilinked terms of art. It does not contain a summary of whatever the hell it is about, written at the level one would find in Encyclopedia Britannica or Scientific American. Some judicious editing can include introductory paragraphs, a better lede, and some wikilinking or definitions. "..internal degrees of freedom successively fall out of equilibrium" will not be comprehensible to a lot of readers without a bit of explanation. Edison (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly what I've been saying. I response to Logger9, I think these articles would benefit greatly by adding your summary to it. Perhaps as one large introduction, or broken into smaller intros for each section. After reading it, I now feel I have a much better understanding of the articles, (wow did I have it wrong before), and now I feel I'm better prepared to go through and read them again. Zaereth (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

List of article content[edit]

I am sorry for not taking part in the discussion earlier, which should be my responsibility from WP:GLASS. Now about the article content: From earlier discussions with logger9 it often came out that the content of the articles he is creating is very scientific and at the same time not well understandable, and in my opinion, much less understandable than it needs to be. Therefore, I put the template {{technical}} on the talk pages of many of his articles. Paula Pilcher recoginzed this with good reasons, but also with an attitude of a true warrior, i.e., without caring for "minor" injuries and casualties. Hence, would it be possible to start a table here with the article content in one column, and the discussion the the second column? This would help getting an overview over this messy talk page. Thank you. -- Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 05:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea -- but unfortunately we are not being allowed to access the entire proposed article. This is simply the shortened version proposed by another editor who had eliminated the orignal article in its entirety. I.E. This version just happened to be available when the edit feeeze-out occurred at the time of her suspension. I will be happy to work on parts of it, emphasizing here that nearly all of the limitations you are pointing out were not created by me. Please see my latest reverts in History (or that of Colonel Bob) for the whole story. The sooner we all begin to view the bigger picture collectively by unfreezing the edit lock, the more productive this exercise will be. -- logger9 (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. We're just tossing noodles around here and seeing what sticks, which can be extremely productive in its own way. The article will be unblocked soon, (provided I assume that we can show that we can work together), and these rules are in place for your benefit as well as mine. We're just in a little cool down mode, that's all. (Note: I have no intention in getting involved with this battle, I just want to understand your obviously well sourced information.)
I don't think anyone is disputing the validity of your information, (but I haven't read the entire talk page), or the in depth nature of it. But we all had to crawl before we could walk. It's basic stuff taught in journalism class, start with the headline, (answers the question "what?"), followed by the introduction, ("what?" "When?" "Where?"), followed by the details, ("how?" and "why?"). This gives the reader a little background that you may possess which they do not. If we can work out some of these concerns here, then we will be miles ahead when the unblock happens. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


OK...I would be glad to start the re-write at anytime. I guess I could start a fresh version on my Userpage. I am going to go ahead and post there the Introductory sections as I had written them (for example, without the emphasis upfront on Kauzmann's paradox). I will also be including here the remainder of the proposed article in its entirety. Please refer to this version for further group input and editing suggestions. Thanks ! -- logger9 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a few comments on User talk:Logger9/Glass transition which I hope will help. Zaereth (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. I assumed that the comments would still be made here on this page in the columns provided by Afluegel below. But I am glad to work with it in either (or both) locations.
1) Your comment on the first paragraph was just a typo (""is to in"). Good call :-)
2) You also wrote: "The intro should lightly touch upon each section that comes after it, such as Classes of materials, Transition temp, and Plastic deformation in elastic solids, answering the question, "Why does this stuff matter to the article?"
If there is consensus on this, I will add it. But it will extend the Introduction, which I was told specifically to keep as brief as possible. Please advise. -- logger9 (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that you have removed the material from your worksheet, but I will respond anyway. The intro should be very brief as it is intended to cover the entire article. It should be possible to include very short description of the sections, (just the point), and keep an intro that is no longer than the other sections. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Content Discussion
Introduction It's a good start. All content of the article must be summarized here very shortly and clearly, which is not the case yet. Also "The glass transition is an ensemble of physical phenomena" seems to be wrong to me. As far as I know, it is rather a temperature, where a certain ensemble of physical phenomena occurs. For example, the glass transition is not a thermal expansion jump, but it occurs in the glass transition range. Furthermore, the "internal degrees of freedom consecutively falling out of equilibrium" are nicely cited, but nowhere explained.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I would ask that Logger9 please assemble an introduction using much the same conversational type of writing that was used in his summary, which is located in the section above this one. (Which was very much a pleasure to read.) It seems to me that while glass transits through range of temperature, the actual transition would be the physical phenomenon that occurrs within that range, but I could be wrong. I agree that the quote pointed out, "Internal degrees of freedom..." makes no sense to me without some explanation. Zaereth (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed....but please see this version first. -- logger9 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The glass transition ...
Kauzmann paradox ...
Silicates ...
Polymers ...
Biomaterials ...
Amorphous Metals ...
Colloidal glasses ...
Transition temperature Tg ...
See also ...
Further reading ...
External links ...
References ...

Hello all. I have been invited by several of you to come to this talk page and to participate in an effort to build consensus about the "glass transition" article. I see that Logger9 proposes not to discuss his previous version, but a new version he is writing in his sandbox, User:Logger9/Glass_transition. Unfortunately, in that version all figures but one have gone. More importantly, citations only appear as numbers, starting with "[12]" in the second section. They are not linked, and the numbers do not reappear in the references list at the end. On this base, it is not possible to evaluate the draft. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a moot point. I have no access to the marked up copy of my last revert, due to the edit block. Thus I had to copy it from 'face value'. The references and figures can and will easily be added, once we all agree on the content. PLEASE don't make mountains out of molehills again, when we are just beginning to make some constructive progress. Thanks :-) -- logger9 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NO WAY for this article layout. There are far too many sections, many of them extremely technical and/or of dubious relevance. Why has the Kauzmann paradox been moved to the bottom? Is it possibly because logger9 has a strongly held view as to the resolution to the Kauzmann paradox, a view which is not WP:FRINGE but which is not generally accepted to be true in all cases? I wonder… Physchim62 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My contributions, tho definitely being in the upper end, are actually quite relevant. As far as the paradox goes, I thought that positioning the Kauzmann Paradox at the end would be an excellent conclusion to the article's content. But in hopes to avoid a major conflict, I have moved it back to the top for you. -- logger9 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested structure[edit]

As it is pointless to criticize without proposing an alternative, here are the points which I think should be in an article on the subject. I may have missed a few, but I don't think any of these are superfluous:

  • Practical definition: Glass-transition temperature
    • Viscosity criterion (by FAR the most widely used)
    • Other criteria
    • Examples (NO peanut butter please)
  • Theoretical considerations
    • Definitions: crystal versus glassy solid versus supercooled liquid
    • Kauzmann paradox
    • Resolution A: continuous reduction in heat capacity
    • Resolution B: second-order transition (discontinous heat capacity)

Physchim62 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to be as polite as possible about the addition of the 'peanut butter' image -- which has been the highlight of that particular editor's campaign. I would agree that this, along with the ironing board (alhtough quite cute, actually :-) detracts considerably from the scientific focus of the article. It really depends on the type of image we choose to present as an encyclopedia. -- logger9 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be the core of the article. Furthermore, the should be a section on

  • Relaxation near the glass transition
    • Relaxation into equilibrium vs fluctuations in equilibrium
    • Stretched time or frequency dependence
    • Time-temperature superposition
    • Temperature dependence of characteristic times / of viscosity
    • Angell's classification strong vs fragile glass formers
    • Indications for a change in dynamics at a cross-over temperature Tc some 10 or 20% above Tg

I actually wanted to work on that, but found it impossible as long as the article was full of off-topic material.

I disagree on a detail: the viscosity criterion may be the most widely used in some communities; in practice, in characterizing new glass-forming materials, differential scanning calorimetry is much more accessible than viscosity, and therefore much more often used. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would you possibly find it "impossible" to contribute your ideas in the presence of other material ? Does it (or do I personally) really bother you that much ? I find some of your ideas to be quite interesting. Please TRY to remain objective. It is the only we that we can possibly work together on this or any other materials science oriented Wiki article. -- logger9 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we please see some of these suggestions in writing ? You might even want to add new (sub)sections to the table provided above. Thanks :-) -- logger9 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

Logger9, I think Physchim62 is right that your proposal above goes too far. It might be good in a scientific textbook, but not in an encyclopaedic article. Just look for comparison in another encyclopaedia. You might be able, however, to start other articles that go more into detail about certain topics, but even then, they must still be understandable for an ordinary scientifically interested reader. - Also Paula Pilcher is right about differential scanning calorimetry (DSC); furthermore, dilatometry is also used. I do not know anybody right away who measured the logarithm of the viscosity at 14.5 Poise; this is extremely difficult.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 20:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It is most interesting to me that you intially supported it wholeheartedly in its entirety. What changed your mind, I wonder ? -- logger9 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Logger9, as you know, I put the {{technical}} template on the talk pages of most of your articles, with the hope that you yourself or somebody else would work on it. I am glad that this is happening now for this article. In principle, you can make a nice article following several outlines, possibly also yours above, but I do not see this happening, unfortunately. Physchim62's ideas seem to be down to earth and practicable. Highly advanced topics could only be treated if the basics are all right, and for this article, the basics are somewhat messy. We need to start simple. - But anyway, we are all making errors some time, therefore, please correct me, in case there is a misunderstanding.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. You have the majority of my contributions here, and I have removed the bulk of the 'high end' material from your proposed discussion table above. As per your suggestion, I will be focusing my Wiki efforts on a new article. Good luck ! -- logger9 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Logger9, please don't be put off by Afluegel's helpful remarks. One thing most editors are going to strive for here is organization. If it's a shirt it should go in the shirt drawer, and a sock should go in the sock drawer, and it's just that simple. I'm not going to make any particular opinion as to what should go where yet, but am looking forward to seeing this thing in an encyclopedic format. This actually makes information more accessible to those who care enough to read further, and more interesting to those who are merely curious.
Another thing most editors will strive for is brevity. The goal is to convey all of your information in the fewest amount of words possible. (Letter count is a better way, or even bit count.) An encyclopedia is more of a gateway to knowledge, providing us with both references and and introduction to those references when interesed parties go and look them up. Don't be afraid to "dumb it down" for the rest of us, and try to look at other's with the idea that we all want clear, easily accessible, and accurate information. Zaereth (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In many cases the best is a way in the middle, I mean, first off all an article needs to be correctly presented and easy to understand, and secondly, it also should go further for the interested reader. I think logger9 does not need to remove all contributions. Just be constructive and co-operative. In personal life I just had good lesson recently; a child was teaching me something. Of course, the child was not a clever scientist and it did not have a PhD like me, but, as you know, besides a good content, the content also needs to be well organized. In the latter, the child was much more intelligent than me. - But anyway, if logger9 knows much about colloidal glasses or other topics, I do not know why it should not be in the article. I also realized, that logger9 is really trying to find a reference for every statement, which is a sign of high quality. The new article Plastic deformation in solids has a very good introduction, and hopefully, this will continue also in the remaining sections as soon as they are worked out. I also was reading the section about non-crystalline solids in that article, which is a good start, except for the still missing references. I am wondering if the "zero-point depression" of old glass thermometers would fit into the topic? Some of the subjects of Plastic deformation in solids and Glass transition might be combined at some point, however, avoiding another editing war. --Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 07:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is unacceptable that certain material under discussion here now reappears under the title plastic deformation in solids. It shows how little the author cares about the encyclopedic context. I have suggested deletion of that new articles: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plastic_deformation_in_solids. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I've been watching this discussion for a few days now and feel like I need to make a comment. I see a few people stating that some of logger's contributions are "too technical", "too academic", or "non-encyclopedic" because they are PhD level information. That's not a legitimate argument or point, because this is not a paper encyclopedia. That's one of the great things about Wikipedia, we can put in as much knowledge as we want. If logger want to put in super high level stuff let him. I know that I've added stuff that others might think is too technical. However, I do agree that the article needs to be accessible, per WP:NOTCASE points 5 & 7. As such, I support the {{technical}} template and the calls from others that the article needs work to make it more accessible to the non-academic readers. In order to reach this end, it might not be a completely bad idea to have multiple articles (especially in the light that this article is already pretty big without loggers previous work included), where one include some of the less intense information and the other contains the more intricate points. A good example of this are the general relativity and introduction to general relativity articles. Wizard191 (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, which goes to the organization I was talking about. The dogfight, air combat maneuvering, and basic fighter maneuvers articles are similar, but one is focused more on the historical aspect, while the other focuses more on the technical aspect, and the third describes the individual maneuvers in detail. This doesn't bore people who just want the background without all of the technical, but still keeps everything intact. One thing I agree with Paula on is that it is extremely unusual to have the exact same text in multiple articles, or repeating itself word for word in the same article. If the same info is required in different articles, then it should be rewritten to avoid such redundency. Zaereth (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll agree with you on the point that large portions of text should not be listed in two different articles; that defies the point of having two different articles. In the "simpler" article there should be short sections that have simple introductions to more complicated concepts that then have {{main}} templates to point to the more in-depth articles. Wizard191 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue with highly technical information is that Wikipedia is not a specialized academic journal, but an encyclopedia, and our audience therefore is not a specialist audience, but a general one. We can assume that our audience has a good grasp of English, but we shouldn't assume that every reader of every article has advanced knowledge of the subject. Articles should present their subjects as completely as possible (with large amounts of related information split to separate/related articles if necessary) while avoiding too much technical jargon and without assuming expert knowledge on the part of readers, so that, while we can and should present complex information, it should be done in such a way that a non-specialist native English speaker can understand it. I deal with highly complex academic writing every day, yet there are portions of the existing and proposed content for this article I don't understand at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this too. The only thing I'm looking for is translation. The article Kinetic energy is a perfect example of what a technical article should look like. It starts off with an excellent description in the lede, and by the time I've finished reading it, I feel that I understand what kinetic energy means. The introduction goes into greater depth, but is still written in plain, casual, everyday language and has explanations to the jargon. After reading that, I can feel that I fully understand. Further in the article is found much more comprehensive statements backed up with the math and the jargon, (the technician's version of "legalese"). While I think the "technic-ese" is still valuable and should not be removed, I would still like to see it comprehensively translated. The great thing in English is that the same idea can be conveyed in a thousand different ways and still have the same meaning. Zaereth (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in disagreement with you, Exploding Boy. As I stated before, the article needs to be "dumbed down". But I don't think that logger should just be turned away because what he's contributing is "too technical". Even if he doesn't "dumb it down" himself, the content should remain so that others can. Isn't that the point of having an open encyclopedia? I don't have to write the perfect article, we all just have to contribute what we can. Also see WP:PRESERVE. Wizard191 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection removed[edit]

I am removing protection of this article a day early per my comments here. All editors are now free to edit the article, but I will continue to watch it and will block anyone who engages in excessive reverting or other edit warring. I encourage everyone to discuss changes on the talk page and edit by consensus. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

The lead (the section that comes before the table of contents) is far too long and complicated. It needs to be considerably shorter, and far less jargon-filled and complex. The first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of the subject, which it currently is. The following paragraphs should give an easy to understand summary of the article: an overview of the main points of the article including the primary reason(s) the subject matter is interesting or notable. The entire lead section should be no longer than 3 or 4 paragraphs. A large number of citations is not generally needed in the lead. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A minor add: WP norms are not to put references in the lead (yes, there are exceptions), but to the expansion of the lead in the body. Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I also question the lead image; it doesn't seem to illustrate the subject. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't, but. I usually wait for the text to settle and then quickly spread the images (technical matter - amount of text often decides how and where to place images). Materialscientist (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I added an image of glassblowing, but then found that there already exists an article Vitrification, which has explanations at a suitable level. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking these two articles are about the same thing? If that's the case, then there needs to be a merge discussion. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

They are. The recent situation with glass articles is not healthy at all (several articles on same topics, close to fork, is only one of problems), but I feel improvement in editors' attitude and see work going (for me all those articles, except for glass should have "work in progress" tag). I myself am awaiting for things to settle more to start fixing. Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging vitrification into glass transition[edit]

If vitrification and glass transition are actually the same thing (and the lead section of this article suggests they are), then they need to be merged unless there's a good reason for having two separate articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I took liberty to move your note here and to add the tags. Materialscientist (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Vitrification is a much more familiar term for me, but maybe that's just me. Anyway, thanks and let's see what comes of the tags. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand vitrification mainly as the technical process of transforming a (granular) crystalline material into a homogeneous amorphous body (something akin to sintering), but the term seems to have wider usage. Maybe it is just because I am a physicist, but I would prefer glass transition for this complicated phase transition between liquid and solid. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
My personal observation (might be wrong though) is that english speakers, even non-scientists, all know "vitrification" and "glass", but "glass transition" sounds somewhat "scientific" to them. This is opposite for scientists, especially of foreign background. Anyway, I do believe that personal familiarity to certain terms should not be a reason for choosing direction of this merge. My favor to collapsing "vitrification" article is largely based on its less developed state. Materialscientist (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
But the article vitrification would by a much better starting point for an encyclopedic article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merge - vitrification and glass transition are synonymous. Polyamorph (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    Comment When I supported the merge, I meant vitrification should be merged into glass transition not the other way round. Vitrification is simply a dictionary definition of a substance being formed into a glass, where as the glass transition actually describes the physical processes involved. Scientifically, Glass transition is the prefered title. Polyamorph (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • DOUBLE DITTO on that action. -- logger9 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Regarding the article title, WP:TITLE tells us that "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature . . . The names of . . . articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." As a non-scientist, I easily recognize that "vitrification" has something to do with substances becoming glass or glass-like, while "glass transition" meant nothing to me before I became involved in this article. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merge and glass transition title. I fully understand the argument by Exploding Boy, but support the idea of Jdrewitt - IMO, vitrification is a rare term in scientific and technical literature, and "glass transition" is indeed more comprehensive; it is also not limited to crystal->glass transition, but is rather bidirectional. After all, we can (and should) add "vitrification" to the lead, thus those terms will go together. Materialscientist (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing a 4:0 vote, I have incorporated the text of vitrification into various sections of glass transition. Please check if I missed something important before I (or someone) blanks vitrification into a redirect. Materialscientist (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Materialscientist[edit]

I've quickly brushed the text. Lead is still unshaped, and many claims do require referencing (new car smell, etc., etc). I rounded table values - they can not be accurate to 1 °C. References are also needed there. Ironing did not belong to the rubber subsection and thus moved to the polymers. The "amorphous metal" section incorrectly accentuates "millions of degrees per second" - cooling rate depends on the metal (which must be specified there) and does not have to be that high. These minor comments will keep coming. What really needed is to rewrite the whole text into a language understood by wider audience. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have moved Kauzmann's paradox down and see it as an inevitable move. That subsection is much too specific to stay in front of "easy to understand" glass materials examples.Materialscientist (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lede section[edit]

This is the current version of the lede:

Glass transition or vitrification refer to the transformation of a glass-forming liquid into a glass, which usually occurs upon rapid cooling. It is a dynamic phenomenon occurring between two distinct states of matter (liquid and glass), each with different physical properties. Upon cooling through the temperature range of glass transition (a "glass transformation range"), without forming any long-range order or significant symmetry of atomic arrangement, the liquid contracts more continuously at about the same rate as above the melting point until there is a decrease in the expansion coefficient.

The glass transition temperature Tg is lower than melting temperature, Tm, due to supercooling; it depends on the time scale of observation which must be defined by convention. One approach is to agree on a standard cooling rate of 10 K/min. Another approach is by requiring a viscosity of 1013 poise. Otherwise, one can only talk about a glass transformation range.

The lede should define the glass transition in its simplest terms, but should not get into how and why. This should be a sort of 6th grade level doorway into the 10th grade level introduction. I'm wondering if the second paragraph, about the glass transition temperature, should be included in the lede, as it seems to be rather the cause than the effect. (I can see how the two are closely intermingled, so it might also be impossible to define one without the other.) Any thoughts?

Concentrating on just the first paragraph, here is a possible change:

Glass transition or vitrification refer to the transformation of a glass-forming liquid into a glass, which usually occurs upon rapid cooling. It is a dynamic phenomenon occurring between two distinct states of matter (liquid and glass), each with different physical properties. Cooling a liquid through the temperature range of the glass transition, (a "glass transformation range"), prevents crystalizing, (forming any long-range order or significant symmetry of atomic arrangement), and the liquid contracts more continuously at about the same rate as it does above the melting point, instead of going through a sudden expansion upon crystalizing, such as water does when it turns into ice. Upon cooling, the rate of contraction remains stable until there is a decrease in the thermal expansion coefficient.

Provided my understanding is correct, I think this might provide a little more info to the common reader. Should it be mentioned here that glass, once cooled, if not a solid it at least acts like one, or is glass a different state of matter altogether? Zaereth (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, glass is a solid in the sense that it is elastic (it has a shear modulus). Talk about "different physical properties" is too vague. Actually, it does not explain anything at all. The difference with a liquid is the viscosity. Of course nothing is absolute - ice in a glacier also flows, as do the continental plates on geological timescales. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that glass is a solid in that it it self contained, where as a liquid needs a container. Even a large enough piece of steel will deform under its own weight, (and they do, this has been measured), in a manner that resembles flow. This may or may not happen with a large enough piece of glass, or under a long enough time scale, but is this actual flow? Would it be safe to say that, depending on hardness, at the right scale (glaciers for ice, continents for rock) any solid would show the behavior of a fluid, (not necessarily a liquid)? I've always thought of a liquid as always being a fluid, but the term fluid can be applied to a solid, liquid, or gas. Clay has always been a good example, to me. At some point, by adding more water, clay will no longer stand under its own weight. At some point (scale) the substance goes from a solid that behaves as a fluid to a liquid that behaves as a fluid. This idea would seem to require a standardized scale for proper definition, which I believe is what the second paragraph is referring to. (But I'm just focusing on the first paragraph right now.)
Other than the line, "two distinct states of matter (liquid and glass), each with different physical properties", does the suggested paragraph look OK? Zaereth (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I would not mention the water-ice transition. Its expansion on freezing is anomalous, which makes the comparison confusing. Actually, I do not know for certain if solid glass would sink in the melt, but my gut feeling is that it does. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so how does this sound:
Glass transition or vitrification refer to the transformation of a glass-forming liquid into a glass, which usually occurs upon rapid cooling. It is a dynamic phenomenon occurring between two distinct states of matter, (liquid and solid). Cooling a liquid through the temperature range of the glass transition, (a "glass transformation range"), prevents crystalizing, (forming any long-range order or significant symmetry of atomic arrangement), and the liquid contracts more continuously at about the same rate as it does above the melting point, instead of going through a sudden expansion upon crystalizing. Upon cooling, the rate of contraction remains stable until there is a decrease in the thermal expansion coefficient.
? Zaereth (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"Glass transition" does not refer to the transformation of a glass-forming liquid into a solid glass, but rather to the temperature at which this happens. The transformation itself might be termed "vitrification" or "freezing-in" or something similar. I think I need to find some references to be more convincing. Please give me a little time.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 22:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Please re-read and reconsider. "Transition" is akin to "transformation" (phenomenon), but "glass transition temperature (range)" might refer to "the temperature at which this happens".Materialscientist (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, your help in clearing this up is very much appreciated. It seems to me that it would be called the "Glass transition temperature", but I defer to you as an expert on the matter. No hurry. Zaereth (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If it helps, the definition of transition is: "The act of changing from one state to the next." So maybe there is some misinterpretation between the word and its use in the scientific community. Anyway, thank you both for your help. Zaereth (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think such a misinterpretation exists. I see the article as dedicated to the phenomenon and its physics. "Temperature" is merely a parameter; it should not be a focus per se. Materialscientist (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I still did not get to the references. But one thing seems clear after thinking the whole thing overnight: "transition" is in itself not very clear because, as Zaereth already said, it is simply the process of change from one state to the other. Concerning glass transition, this could mean: 1) liquid-solid transition, which is a phenomenon according to Materialscientist, 2) glass transition range with the glass transition temperature at about the lower end, which is a temperature range where the cited phenomenon occurs, 3) or some kind of other transition concerning glass, such as the melting or fining processes, or phase separation, or color changes, oxidation state changes, etc. The first two meanings are the most popular, they are related, and can be in one article. However, for making it more clear, I still would recommend defining the kind of transition in the article name itself, e.g., "Glass liquid-solid transition" or "Glass transition range" or similar. I agree with Materialscientist that the article should better be named after the phenomenon. - Still, the technical meaning of Vitrification (e.g. waste vitrification) needs to stay in a separate article.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No apology needed. I am in no hurry for you to complete your research, as I prefer accuracy over speed. I agree, to define the article we first must agree upon what it's about. I am happy to wait for you to help find sources, and hope MaterialScientist and Logger9 can help. Zaereth (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So far I found 2 references, but I will continue looking for more:

  • Werner Vogel: "Glass Chemistry", 1994: Tg is defined dilatometrically as described in the present article; vitrification and glass transition are not mentioned.
  • Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry: The glass transition temperature is defined as "the temperature above which structural elements in the glass are sufficiently mobile to rearrange themselves according to their equilibrium configuration". Vitrification and glass transition are not mentioned.

--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 06:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

* That is instinctively the best defintition I have ever heard. -- logger9 (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is another reference, Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology:

  • Tg is the point below which the viscoelastic melt loses its liquid properties and the material behaves as a solid.
  • Vitrification is being used to immobilize high level nuclear waste (HLW) in a stable, chemically durable borosilicate glass (261–266). In the waste vitrification process, the glass melt is contained in a refractory-lined furnace. The high-temperature melt dissolves the HLW but also corrodes the refractory. Knowledge of the corrosion resistance of refractories to melts containing HLW is of considerable importance to the vitrification technology (267). The borosilicate glass is being used to vitrify HLW at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C., and by West Valley Nuclear Services at West Valley, N.Y. (268,269). Borosilicate glasses have a good chemical durability, but may not be suitable for all HLW compositions, such as, wastes containing phosphates, halides and heavy metals (Bi, U, Pu). Many phosphate glasses have a chemical durability that is usually inferior to that of most silicate and borosilicate glasses, but iron phosphate glasses are an exception (270). In addition to their generally excellent chemical durability, iron phosphate glasses have low melting temperature, typically between 950 and 1150 deg C (271). Investigations of iron phosphate wasteforms obtained by adding different amounts of various simulated nuclear wastes to a base iron phosphate glass, whose composition is 40Fe2O3–60P2O5 (mol %) showed that these glassy wasteforms have a corrosion rate up to 1000 times lower than that of a comparable borosilicate glass (272–274). Generally, iron phosphate glasses can contain up to 40 wt% of certain simulated waste. Because of their unusually high chemical durability and other properties, ironphosphate glasses, zinc–iron phosphate glasses (275), and lead–iron phosphate glasses are of interest for nuclear waste immobilization. The composition of high level nuclear wastes (HLW) at Hanford from tank B-110 is shown in Table 18. The B-110 waste comes from different steps in the bismuth phosphate process which accounts for the high concentration of Bi2O3 (276).
  • "Glass transition" is not mentioned.

I will look for more references.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 07:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Afluegel brings up a valid point. If the term "glass transition" is not a common scientific term, should this be the name of the article? We shouldn't coin phrases ourselves, so, are there sources that exist which mention specificly the glass transition?
I disagree. Glass transition IS a common scientific term -- although I notice that Zarzycki refers to it as the "vitreous transition" in his text "Glasses and the Vitreous State" (French translation, Cambridge Solid State Series, 1991) -- logger9 (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Great! This is good discussion. Personally, as a layman, it seems to me that causality would be involved here, temperature/cooling-rate being the cause, and transition being the effect. I do find multiple sites at just a quick glance at google that define the term glass transition, such as ,, and . And others that define the glass transition temperature separately.
I am still trying to focus on the lede section, and don't have much to offer on vitrification, so I will let the scientists work that out together.
One main problem I see with the first paragraph is that we are listing glass as another state of matter altogether. While the line between soild and liquid may not be so clear, I have never heard of glass being used in this context before. Zaereth (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As I promised, here is another reference (H. Scholze: "Glass - Nature, Structure, and Properties"; Springer, 1991):

  • ...the attainment of equilibrium of the liquid structure corresponding to every temperature occurs increasingly slowly, until finally the viscosity has become so high that with continual cooling the reaching of equilibrium is no longer possible. At this point, the liquid has become a solid. It follows from this consideration that this occurs independent of the composition at a uniform viscosity, namely at about 10^13 dPa*s (= Poise). It has become common to designate the temperature corresponding to this viscosity as the transformation temperature Tg. Since, however, the transition continually ensues, it is better to speak of a transformation range. Even more appropriately, Simeon (ref.) calls this phenomenon the freezing-in process. If we still want to characterize the intent of the definition, then we have: In the physicochemical sense, glass is a frozen-in undercooled liquid. More recent developments of natural science have shown that the boundaries between different areas are increasingly disappearing. That is also true for glass. Thus, it is not justified on the basis of borderline cases to cast doubt on an otherwise valid definition. Rather it is desirable - at least in scientific language - that one clearly disinguishes between glass as a solid (below Tg) and as a melt (above Tg).
  • Vitrification and glass transition are not discussed.

The last reference I would like to cite here is from my former adviser: A. Varshneya: "Fundamentals of inorganic glasses"; Academic Press, 1994

  • The term "glass transition temperature, Tg" is avoided in favor of "glass transition region" or "glass transformation range" because Tg is not very exact. The glass transition region is defined dilatometrically.
  • Vitrification and glass transition are not discussed.

Concerning my suggestions for the article I would wait for some feedback first.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 07:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

start, copy from my talk page--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 04:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are two small problems:

  • The term "vitrification" could theoretically be used for the glass liquid-solid transition, so in principle you are right, but in practice it is used for nuclear waste vitrification. Therefore, I would redirect "vitrification" to the waste disposal article (see Radioactive_waste#Vitrification) and take the waste vitrification out of the glass transition article. It really does not belong here.
  • The term "glass transition" is often used among glass scientists in private conversation, because out of the context the meaning is clear. However, officially and also in all the references I cited it is "glass transition range" or similar, with range meaning a temperature range. This term is the most correct and most widely used. I also would agree with Materialscientist to call the article after a phenomenon, which then would be "glass liquid-solid transition". In any case, the article needs to treat both. If the title is just "glass transition", it is not clear from where to where the transition is supposed to occur.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 04:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that makes perfect sense to me. I was hoping Logger9 or Materialscientist would be able to show that this term is one that has been defined in something more scientific than a google search, but since none have been produced, I must agree with your assessment. The article should be renamed to be as clear and accurate as possible, so that the reader knows exactly what he's getting into. Perhaps Glass liquid to solid transition would help clarify it a little more.
I'm hoping that my questions have helped demonstrate what may be unclear, at least to those of us who need to understand things from a purely mechanical point of view. (For instance, electronics was a complete mystery to me, until someone explained it with an analogy to hydraulics. ie: diode = check valve, transistor = pilot operated valve, etc...) Now that the fighting has stopped over there, I think I'll wait a while to see what others have to say, but I'm glad to say that my own knowledge has increased by helping out. Zaereth (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
One thing that is unclear about the article is the statement that glass contracts at a constant rate. How does that differ from crystalizing? Do all liquids that crystalize go through a sudden expansion, the way that water does? If not, then how does this constant contraction rate differ? Zaereth (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Nearly all substances contract suddenly during crystallization, with water being the exception. Glasses do not crystallize; just around Tg they start to contract less quickly than above Tg, which can be seen in the fourth figure in the glass transition article (see the red lines).--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 13:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I think that an explanation such as that would really help out in the lede. Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
end, copy from my talk page--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 04:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will wait a little to see if somebody else has a comment.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 04:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging vitrification and glass transition[edit]

I think not all is going into the right direction. The glass transition is a temperature at which the glass solidifies. Vitrification has a slightly different meaning; it is referring to a technique of turning something into glass or melting something into glass, e.g., radioactive waste (see Radioactive_waste#Vitrification). The process of becoming rigid at the glass transition temperature might also be termed as vitrification, but as far as I know in my career, it is not common in the field of glass science. Hence, not all of the article Vitrification should be merged here, and the article Vitrification should be corrected accordingly.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 21:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I support these theses wholeheartedly. -- logger9 (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Silicate co-ordination[edit]

I'm only a first year undergraduate materials scientist so I don't feel confident enough to amend what I think is an error in the logic of determining the co-ordination or rather, Q species of SiO2. The logic is that since the stoichiometry is 2 oxygen atoms to every silicon, only 2 of the tetrahedral oxygens are shared. However, since a bonding oxygen atom would be shared between two silicon atoms, it would only count as 1/2 of an atom, in the stoichiometry. Therefore in SiO2, on average, all of the tetrahedral oxygen vertices must be shared Si + 4*0.5 O = SiO2.

hai2410, 15/01/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What is an encyclopedia?[edit]

An encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference for the intelligent lay reader.

I know that many people have put work into this page. However, it is just way to complicated and technical for the average reader. If it doesn't look too technical to you, that means that you are a professional in this field. But professionals in a field don't read encyclopedias. They don't need to. Encyclopedias are written for the intelligent lay reader. And this article is too technical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinjefferson (talkcontribs) 03:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Everybody has their own vision and definition of an encyclopedia. Materialscientist (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I tend to disagree. While that may be true here on Wikipedia, the definition of an encyclopedia has been around since the ancient Greeks first coined the term enkuklios paideia which quite literally translates into "general education." The methods of creating an encyclopedia, in a way which even complex subjects can be understood by a majority of readers, also goes way back. Much of encyclopedic style and format can be traced back to Gaius Plinius Secundus. A good book on the subject is, On writing well: The classical guide to writing non-fiction and the book Reference Service and Sources give some good details on evaluating encyclopedias. If I understood this subject better, I may be able to help work it into some more readable prose. Zaereth (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Blanket deletions or "transfers"[edit]

The blanket deletion or "transfer" of nearly half of this longstanding article has not been made clear by editors with drastic tactics and methods. This particular author is unaware of any section entitled "edit history" as suggested by the editor in question. Thus, they have been restored. logger9 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I was undoing your edit, but Marie Poise was just half a minute earlier. Please read WP:OWN. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You might discuss paragraph by paragraph what you think should be removed (or "transferred") -- but please do not assume that you can blanket delete (or "transfer") the bulk of this well-written article without providing some form of coherent rationale. logger9 (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
In the last blanket deletion, it is stated in a warning style tone that: "...when 3 editors support the changes, it would be wise to reach consensus before reverting." Unfortunately, since I am the only one currently posting to the Discussion for this article, there can be no concensus reached. logger9 (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Please be patient. There were numerous problems under that "blanket", and your rushing and reverting are not helping anything. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If you have new objections to the text (w/ the aggressive return of "blanket editor" Marie Poise) then they should addressed step-by-step in the Discussion. Your blanket editing (along with hers) is not helping matters. Unfortunately, your collective approaches do not lend themselves to open discussion as desired here @ Wikipedia.logger9 (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Writing a thesis is one thing, an encyclopedia article is something different. Marie Poise is doing her best to make this accessible to a more general audience. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing at all a wrong with the level at which the article is written, as with many scientific articles on Wikipedia. An approach which is more useful to the layman could easily easily be included in sections such as the introduciotn. Eliminating large portions of the article at one time is far from necessary, and very destructive overall. logger9 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

To give just one example what we are talking about: in the text preferred by Logger9, there is a section about "Fluoride glasses". The only connection to our topic is that "it is very difficult to completely avoid the occurrence of any crystallization while processing it through the glass transition". The reminder of the section is about a specific glass, not about the glass transition. Therefore I merged the entire section into the article fluoride glass, and I took care that glass links there. Most of my other "deletions" have similar explanations. -- Marie Poise (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the example of the fluoride glass transition belongs in this article (along with other excellent examples) is clearly arguable. Whether or not you wish to slash and burn your way through many articles on the Wikipedia is clear from your past performance. Now, since you could not get it done by yourself, you have found support elsewhere within your own community, and even managed to get MS to send me a formal warning about the 3R rule.
Once again, you are allowed to slash and burn as many times as you like in one day -- but I (the bad guy, once again) am limited in the number of times I am allowed to restore the work -- and warned fomally about my conduct .
Nothing seems to change.
I have spent months of my life defending my work and my position previously. I know your tactics well. I do not plan to ever do that again. Life is far too precious. logger9 (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Logger9, I might suggest trying not to be so dramatic. One thing that any person writing on Wikipedia must get used to is that articles are always in a constant state of change. Defending this article as "your work" will not win you any points, nor will portraying yourself as "the bad guy." What needs to be done in an environment such as this is a collaborative effort between interested parties. Realistically, this is not much different from getting something published in the real world, where you would have to deal with multiple editors and much more stringent rules. The main exception is that, here, a person can publish work that falls well below good writing standards, knowing that someone will eventually come along to fix the problems. In the real world, a writer must usually be well within the realm of good writing standards if they ever want a publisher to even look at their work. Once someone reaches these impossibly high standards they'll have to deal with editors, and any good editor at a publishing company will usually do a multitude of cuts on the basis of relevance.
There is nothing wrong with deep scientific explanations, but as I stated before, it is possible to modify one's linguistic structure and style to make a complex subject understandable to a majority of readers, and not just to other scientists. There are an infinite number of ways to convey any single idea, but some are definitely better than others. I'm confused as hell by this article, and I consider myself to be quite well read on a wide variety of scientific subjects. I'd like to try to work this article into some readable prose, but I'm not sure I can do that without the collaborative assistance of people like yourself, Materialscientist and, yes, even Marie Poise.
I'll try starting the process. The lede could use some touch-up, but is fairly understandable, so I'll start with the intro. The first paragraph of the intro reads as follows:
"The glassy or vitreous state of matter is typically formed by rapid cooling and solidification from the molten (or liquid) state. If the liquid were allowed to crystallize on cooling, then according to the Ehrenfest classification of first-order phase transitions, there would be a discontinuous change in volume (and thus a discontinuity in the slope or first derivative with respect to temperature, dV/dT) at the melting point. Below the transition temperature range, the glassy structure does not relax in accordance with the cooling rate used. The expansion coefficient for the glassy state is roughly equivalent to that of the crystalline solid. If slower cooling rates are used, the increased time for structural relaxation (or intermolecular rearrangement) to occur may result in a higher density glass product. Similarly, by annealing (and thus allowing for slow structural relaxation) the glass structure in time approaches an equilibrium density corresponding to the supercooled liquid at this same temperature. Tg is located at the intersection between the cooling curve (volume versus temperature) for the glassy state and the supercooled liquid.[2][3][4][5][6]"
The first line makes quite a bit of sense, but I can't make out what the second line is suppose to mean. There is a lot of jargon there which needs to be spelled out here. In example, what does it mean by "discontinuous change in volume" and what is the "slope" or "first derivitive" suppose to refer to? What the heck is dV/dT?
Writing is a very difficult process; one that takes years to master. One problem that many people encounter is that, because what they write makes perfect sense to them, they often feel that it should to everyone else as well. It's very difficult to bring oneself "out of their own head" and into the minds of the average reader who doesn't have the required background knowledge. I'd like to help, but, as already stated, I will reqire assistance. Zaereth (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

new article viscous liquid[edit]

I created a new article viscous liquid. Supercooled liquid and glassforming liquid will redirect there. The article deals with physics and technology between Tg and Tm. Some text from the present article is likely to go there: let's keep different things separate, and create proper liking between all pertinent articles. -- Marie Poise (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"see also" section[edit]

From Wikipedia:See_also#See_also_section:

Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links.

-- Marie Poise (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Consequently, I removed the "see also" section. -- Marie Poise (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Mechanics of vitrification"[edit]

"These predictions were confirmed by experiments on commercial glasses and glass ceramics, where mean free paths were apparently limited by "internal boundary scattering" to length scales of 10 - 100 micrometers."

Sorry, Logger9, I don't find these "10-100 micrometers" in the references.
Kittel (1949) rather speaks of 7 Angstroem. Could you please provide an exact page reference that supports your statement? -- Marie Poise (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
No need to be sorry. The references (by Chang and Jones) were actually given in centimeters in their original work.. They specify that mean free path measurements appear to be limited by internal boundary scattering to length scales of 10(-2) to 10(-3) cm. This translates to those quoted in micrometers (or microns) in the article -- which is the unit more typicaly used to describe microstructural flaws or defects in crystalline solids, as well as corresponding scales of atomic or molecular disorder in amorphous or non-crystalline solids. logger9 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The Chang and Jones reference I deleted because it is about measurements at 4 K. I never heard of a 10-100 micrometers free path being relevant to the glass transition. If you maintain that claim, please provide a more pertinent reference. -- Marie Poise (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Thus, thermal motion in liquids can be decomposed into elementary longitudinal vibrations (or acoustic phonons) while transverse vibrations (or shear waves) were originally described only in elastic solids exhibiting the highly ordered crystalline state of matter. This is the fundamental reason why simple liquids cannot support a shearing stress, but rather yield via macroscopic plastic deformation (or viscous flow)."

The fact that something was "originally described" in some way cannot be "the fundamental reason" of a physical phenomenon. Could you please clarify the logic? -- Marie Poise (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This one is simple. The fact that shear waves will not propagate in simple liquids has been used as a "litmus test" for whether or not a particular substance exhibits solid-like or liquid-like behaviour. But I can see your problem with it being presented as a statement of logic. Thus, I will rephrase. logger9 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Lindemann's theory of melting is referenced"

Who is referencing? -- Marie Poise (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sir Neville Mott (See Mott & Jones, Theory of the Properties of Metals and Alloys). logger9 (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
N referenced L: Such name dropping is of little use for the reader who needs to understand things before eventually he might get interested in the history of ideas. -- Marie Poise (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
An online citation has been included in the article for those (such as yourself) who may be less aware of some of the more fundamental work that has been done long ago in this field by solid state physicists. logger9 (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

More importantly: I challenge the entire section "Mechanics of vitrification" because its relevance for today's understanding of the glass transition is not made clear. Most references are old to very old. If they are still relevant, they should have made it into review articles and textbooks. Compiling an arbitrary selection out of tons of orginal research amounts to theory finding - nice work of yours, but not admissible here. -- Marie Poise (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely, and firmly resent your tones and sense of your judgment of any of my contributions to this organization. You ask me for references -- and the more legitimate they are, the more you refuse to accept them. In your world, if something is too old, then is is no longer valid ! If something has become a classical work, then it should no longer be discussed !
I work hard to provide you with completely rational answers to all your queries. Yet it always ends up being a total waste of my time, as your attitudes towards me and my work continue to be filled with an irrational obsession and total lack of compromise. I.E. You simply REFUSE to work with me at any level. Have you seriously ever asked yourself why it is that you feel that way ?
For you to judge the work of a select group of solid and liquid state physicists based on a lack of some review text is utterely absurd at best. This is not theory finding. This is literature review, paid for by years of graduate study and funded by some of the most well-respected and well proven scientific institutions in the U.S. If you cannot find it within yourself to work within those parameters, then perhaps you should be looking somehwere else to cause so much trouble, and incessant harrassment and conflict. I for one do not welcome it here. logger9 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I cannot believe that: you are funded for wasting your literature review results by inserting them at this disreputable site instead of publishing them in citeable journals ??? -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

To give a flagrant example of your theory finding: You reference

W. Gudat, E. Kisker, E. Kuhlmann, M. Campagna (1980). "Strong itinerant ferromagnetism in Ni: Spin polarization of photoelectrons from the (110) surface". Phys. Rev. B 22: 3283. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.22.3282

According to the Phys. Rev. web site, this paper has been cited no more than 7 times in 30 years. This can hardly be called a "classical work". Neither the paper itself, nor any of the citing papers is about glasses or liquids, let alone the glass transition.

That is an erroneous reference, and should never have been included in this article. I have no record of it in my original material on this subject, and therefore have little or no idea why it has been included here. logger9 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the passive voice tends to blur responsablities, let me make clear that the Gudat reference has been introduced by you in your edit of 8nov, 18h35: [1] -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In this way, it is possible by a merely formal analysis to demonstrate that your text on "Electronic structure", in the context of a "glass transition" article, is hopeless blunder. I will therefore delete it. -- Marie Poise (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is far from rational (although certainly obsessive). The reference has been appropriately deleted, and the article restored. logger9 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not true. You restored the text without deleting the erroneous reference. As for being obsessive, I am hardly the only one. -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Erroneous reference is now removed. My continuing goal here is to work together with other trained and capable professionals in order to create and publish top quality work for Wikipedia. I am a very firm believer in the existence of this educational insitution, and feel quite strongly that Wikipedia will play a key role in the education of generations to come. I am very sorry if you do not share those same sentiments (as per your User page). logger9 (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

New Car smell and phthalate plasticisers[edit]

The new car smell isn't predominantly polymer plasticisers, of which phthalates are a class. It is thought to be connected with aldehydes and ketones. These are often produced by side reactions between amine accelerators, silicone surfactants and polyols during commercial polyurethane foaming reactions. Polyurethane is widely used within the automotive interiors for seating and most of the soft-touch elements such as dash boards, roof liners and carpet backing will contain polyurethane. The new car smell is a mixture of formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, styrene, acetaldehyde and acrolein all usually present at low concentrations. The automotive industry is working to produce a global standard on interior for air automotive air quality. one of the most widely used is a German standard which originated at VW VDA278.

Plasticisers may be used in PVC slush moulded dash surfaces, but they would contribute to FOG and not VOC.

There's much more here from conference held in Amsterdam in 2017 Biofuelsimon (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Biofuelsimon (talkcontribs) 15:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And here I thought it was just a spray... (which auto dealers actually do use to imitate the smell).
I agree, the smell is likely not due to the phthalate, per se, although I'm not sure that phthalates are odorless in themselves. Nearly all plastics and polymers experience "outgassing" of VOCs and other compounds. This becomes very evident if you've ever tried to make a hermetic vacuum-seal using them, say, for example, sealing the electrodes into the ends of a flashtube with o-rings. (In fact, the only two polymers I could find that do not outgas are Teflon and Viton; both fluoropolymers.) It's the reason a tire shop has that distinctive rubber smell or a toy store has that strong plastic smell; the Toys-R-Us smell as I like to call it. According Popular Science (2002) the "new car smell" typically consists of a combination of over 200 VOCs, ranging from xylene to ethylacetate, and without proper ventilation can cause dizziness, headaches, or other health problems. Zaereth (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
On that note, it may be worth mentioning that VOCs (although we humans like to lump everything under one, scary acronym) are responsible for many of the other smells we encounter everyday, including but not limited to: leather, upholstery, wax, sealants, air fresheners (including new-car smell spray), perfumes, flowers, essential oils, ripening or rotting fruit, etc... VOCs are everywhere, but a good example of "too much of anything is a bad idea". Zaereth (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)