Talk:Vitrification

message: :Vitrification is being researched as a technique to improve the disposal and long term storage of nuclear waste
They were cheerfully vitrifying nuclear waste when I visited Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant about 15 years ago. Thus the phrasing "is being researched" seems a little behind-the-times.
--221.249.13.34 07:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The current description is not quite correct. Quote "Vitrification is a process of converting a material into a glass-like amorphous solid which is free of any crystalline structure", however ceramics articles are said to be vitreous when they are no longer permeable to water, under specified conditions. However the microstructure of many, many vitreous ceramics are composed of a glassy matrix interspersed with crystalline material. Before I change the article accordingly I thought I post something on the discussions page. Anybody anything to say?Theriac 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If what you say is true, it would indicate that a different terminology is being used for ceramics than is used for glass. A glass by definition is completely amorphous -- without any crystal structure. Glasses are a subset of ceramics, so if the terminology you say is true for ceramics, it would only be true for ceramics which are not glasses. Thanks for raising this issue on the discussion page before making the change. --Ben Best 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ben Best,Thank you for the reply. The classification of glass as being a ceramic material is arguable, with this being more popular in the US than say Europe. However this article is about vitrification rather than defining materials themselves, and there would seem to be wider agreement regarding what it means in relation to ceramics and glass. To help give some credibility to a slight modification I had a quick scan through my library, but to date the best I could find is: ‘Vitreous – as applied to ceramics, means glassy. Having extremely low or no porosity.’ Cooksons Ceramists Handbook. 1990 I not tremendously happy with either the definition, permeability rather than porosity would be better, and there is no ISBN so I search a little moreTheriac 18:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Theriac. Your quotation seems to confuse matters even more. If vitreous for ceramics means glassy, then vitreous would mean containing no crystals -- as opposed to simply not being permeable to water while containing interspersed crystalline material. Presumably the "glassy matrix" does not contain crystalline material. I think if the terminology that you indicate is valid and you want to make the change you should indicate that it is a special use of the term applying to non-glass ceramics and that the definition of vitreous/vitrification for glass requires that it be entirely amorphoous (non-crystalline). If there are differences in terminology associated with geography, that should be noted as well. --Ben Best 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben Best, I said I wasn't happy with that definition! It was however what I could find after only a short search. In ceramics, or at least whiteware ceramics, the decription of a body as being 'glassy' does not mean no crystals, rather it means a relative high proportion of glass in the body which also contains some crystalline material. And for clarification, and I hope not confusion, for glazes (a coating of a specialised glasses used on the surface of the body) the 'glass' definition is recognised, and hence 'devitrification' means the formation of crystals in the glaze.Theriac 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ceramics

message: The disambiguation page leads to three different articles or article sections. However, all three of them at some point have the link Vitrification which leads back to the disambiguation. Someone needs to do a serious editing of all three articles and the disambig. I don't know enough nor have the time to do this; but, it needs to be done. Spartan S58 (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is science fiction, wikipedia deals with factual knowledge. The linking error is due to the articles having been wikilinked to Vitrification before the article was turned into a disambiguation page. Polyamorph (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: I think this needs to be a couple of sentences meatier....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Under the applications header, the first sentence says "When sucrose is cooled slowly it results in crystal sugar (or rock candy), but when cooled rapidly it can form syrupy cotton candy (candyfloss)." I presume the first instance is vitrification and the second is not, but it seems like that should be stated explicitly. Without such a link, it isn't clear whether this claim has anything to do with vitrification or not. — Salton Finneger (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple paragraphs later, it says "Ordinary soda-lime glass, used in windows and drinking containers, is created by the addition of sodium carbonate and lime (calcium oxide) to silicon dioxide. Without these additives, silicon dioxide would require very high temperature to obtain a melt, and subsequently (with slow cooling) a glass", which also says nothing explicit as to whether this is vitrification or not. — Salton Finneger (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sucrose