Talk:Boiling point/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>Milton Beychok m (→Comments: Agreed to suggestion by Peter Schmitt and it has been done.) |
imported>Peter Schmitt (→Comments: a reference needs updating) |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
:::Good idea, Peter. I have now expanded the lede to include the discussion of infinite boiling points as you suggested. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC) | :::Good idea, Peter. I have now expanded the lede to include the discussion of infinite boiling points as you suggested. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
Reference 1 needs updating. (This shows the limited value of references to web resources -- they are quite volatile.) --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 11:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:40, 30 December 2011
NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page. | |
I released this article to Wikipedia. In particular, the identical text that appears there is of my sole authorship. Therefore, no credit for Wikipedia content on the Citizendium applies. | |
Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice. |
Wikipedia has article with same title
I was one of the major contributors to the WP article. However, I have completely revised and reformatted the article in my sandbox before I created this CZ version. - Milton Beychok 23:11, 9 June 2008 (CDT)
Really ready for approval
Just one thing occurred to me, and it may not be worth mentioning.
Should any reference be made to sublimation/sublimation point? It's related, but not strictly part of an article dealing with liquids boiling. IIRC, some substances that sublime under standard pressure will boil under higher pressure.
It's your call if that's too minor a point; I'm otherwise ready to recommend approval. I hadn't realized you had so many articles at that point.
Howard C. Berkowitz 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Howard: If you will look at the Vapor pressure article I created some time ago, you will see that the sublimation point is defined and discussed in the section entitled "Vapor pressure of solids". I really don't think that discussion needs to be repeated in this article. However, a Sublimation point that redirects to the Vapor pressure article should help readers navigate to where sublimation points are discussed ... so I will create that redirect in the next few minutes. Happy New Year! Milton Beychok 21:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Howard, as for how many articles I've written, just checkout my user page. Milton Beychok 21:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL...occasionally, I have put a list on my userpage, but don't keep it updated. How's that for going from the sublimation to the ridiculous? I'll go ahead with the approval on BP.Howard C. Berkowitz 22:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Approved Version 1.0
Congratulations, there falling like cards! This is the version approved. D. Matt Innis 00:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Approval Notice
Hi all, I am here to perform the approval tasks and noticed that Joe has added a copyedit that might be perceived as a content edit, depending how it is read. I am actually only able to approve to the date that Howard placed on the template which is December 27, 2008 anyway, but if you would like me to include that change,let me know and I can do it later. Meanwhile I will approve without that change. D. Matt Innis 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's truly a copy edit. Go ahead and approve.
Fillet of a fenny snake, In the cauldron at BOILING POINT and bake; Eye of newt, and toe of frog, Wool of bat, and tongue of dog, Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting, Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing,— For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble. ALL. Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
Howard C. Berkowitz 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just a couple of very minor grammar edits. I can add them into the Draft article after you finish the approval. I agree with Howard ... go ahead and approve. Milton Beychok 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. I just couldn't make that decision because they could potentially changed the meaning and needed your okay. Howard is cooking up something sinister for sure ;-) D. Matt Innis 00:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Approval Process: Review period
Call for review: Milton Beychok 21:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Call for Approval: Peter Schmitt 01:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Approval Notice:
Certification of Approval:
Please discuss the article below, Boiling point/Approval is for brief official referee's only!
Comments
I think the lede has it backwards. It defines boiling point in terms of vapour pressure, then says it may also be defined as the temperature at which the phase change happens. No. It is by definition the temperature at which the liquid boils. Several more precise definitions are possible, either in terms of phase change or vapour pressure.
There's a general principle here, Progressing from simple to complex is better style and makes for easier reading. Sandy Harris 01:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sandy, your statement "It is by definition the temperature at which the liquid boils" leads one to believe that a liquid has one single boiling point. However, there is no single temperature at which a liquid boils. There are an infinite number of boiling points since the boiling point changes with the surrounding environmental pressure. That is why it is more accurate to define the boiling point in terms of the liquid's vapor pressure being equal to the surrounding environmental pressure.
- The only single boiling point of note is the "normal boiling point" which is the special case at which the boiling point occurs when the liquid's vapor pressure equals a surrounding environmental pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.325 kilopascals). That is the boiling point that most lay people think of as being "the" boiling point ... but that is not correct, since a liquid has an infinite number of boiling points. Milton Beychok 18:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see. But this leads to another suggestion: Your explanation why the "naive" definition is not good enough should be added to the article. (I could try, but it is probably better that you do it?) --Peter Schmitt 22:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea, Peter. I have now expanded the lede to include the discussion of infinite boiling points as you suggested. Milton Beychok 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Reference 1 needs updating. (This shows the limited value of references to web resources -- they are quite volatile.) --Peter Schmitt 11:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Article with Definition
- Nonstub Articles
- Advanced Articles
- Internal Articles
- Engineering Nonstub Articles
- Engineering Advanced Articles
- Engineering Internal Articles
- Chemistry Nonstub Articles
- Chemistry Advanced Articles
- Chemistry Internal Articles
- Physics Nonstub Articles
- Physics Advanced Articles
- Physics Internal Articles
- Chemical Engineering tag
- ApprovalReview