Talk:Sol–gel process

message: Over blown. Far too much use of buzz words and technical jargon and far too little straight forward explanation. Needs a good edit by someone in the know to make it much more succinct. And to bring it to the target level for wikipedia science articles. This means it should be understandable to any reasonably intelligent person with a high school science background. I find this article extremely difficult to read. Much harder than the subject warrants. And I had two years of undergraduate chemistry experience before I changed my major to computer science. I changed majors because my colour blindness (John Dalton not withstanding) meant an inability to determine titration endpoints accurately, coloured indicators still being à la mode. A good start on cleaning up this article would be to bring the introduction down to one or two paragraphs that précis the whole process. Like say a sort of introduction to the subject. Not five windy paragraphs each the size of a Russian literary classic. 124.254.99.129 (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  B Class? 

message: *http://www.bell-labs.com/org/physicalsciences/projects/solgel/solgel.html
--10:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied?

message: I'm trying to reconcile this edit, by an anon with no other edits, with the historical information that was already there.  Where did Geffcken study or work?  This is an earlier date than what was there previously, but I'm inclined to revert.  Any ideas?  I'm not even sure if 1939 is the earliest date.  I seem to recall papers from early 1920s being cited, but I'll have to verify that.  Ufwuct 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This might contain the answers, but I don't have access to it right now. This article suggests that sol-gel processing occurred much earlier.  However, I can't verify the sources to see what links these references have to sol-gels.  Is anybody at a library at a large university right now who can access these articles?  Thanks. Ufwuct 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geffcken at ...

message: Regarding the comment "The sol-gel process involves the transition of a system from a liquid (the colloidal “sol") into a solid (the "gel") phase."
I'm only guessing, but wouldn't the liquid phase be "gel", and the solid phase be "sol".
HexAmp 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solid / Gel ?? 

message: "including a form superior to teflon" has no meaning because:
# teflon is NOT a metal oxide and is NOT obtained by sol-gel
# superior as to what? mechanical properties, physicochemical properties...
# a reference should be included (journal article or book)
So I'm removing this part because it simply does not fit in the scope of the article.
--Ste nohype 08:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sol-gel vs. teflon 

message: Second section (after Introduction):
* Silicon alkoxides
* Metal alkoxides: hydrolysis and condensation
* Recent development by Kessler et al.
* Metal chlorides
Ste nohype 12:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sol-gel properties 

message: Hello, I think "sol-gel" (with a dash) is more appropriate than "sol gel", therefore I suggest this page should be renamed "Sol-Gel". 
Also, he "sol-gel" page (with a dash) already exists, it is just a redirect to "sol gel"... so there should be no problem in renaming.
Ste nohype 10:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page, per the request and the apparent commonness of the hyphenated spelling. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: In the sentence (fragment?): "it has been observed that the total volume fraction of these nanoscale pores (both intergranular and intragranular porosity) must be less than 1% for high-quality optical transmission. I.E. The density has to be 99.99% of the theoretical crystalline density.", should that be less than 0.01%?
I have not checked the references (currently 37 and 38), nor do I know enough to be sure, but it just seems that, for the density to be 99.99% of the theoretical density, there must be no more than 0.01% pores.
On the other hand, because volume is a cubic function, maybe 1% (0.01 fraction) in pores translates to 0.00001 (0.001%) volume, but then I'd guess the other number (the density) should be 99.999%?
Rhkramer (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning some of the math 

message: There are probably medical applications, however shouldn't there be a mix of references and not just from people with the last name Vinogradov? Sources seem to be only from a single researcher, group, ...family?
63.125.136.110 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Medicine Section