Talk:Nucleation

message: Can anyone provide some cites and some discussion of nucleation in cosmology?  Nucleation is a key concept in false vacuum inflation, it would be nice to get some treatment of that. --Keflavich 19:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to ask a similar question! What about gravitational nucleation? when the universe was finding its feet, it was a uniform cloud, no? What caused it to form nebulae, stars, and planets? - jak (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fix it. DCDuring 16:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cosmological confusion

message: I noticed that this page has an external link to a page about the coke and mentos experience. I created a page about the mentos eruption phenomenon (Mentos eruption). But I'm not a scientist so any help you could provide editing it (especially the scientific explanation section) would be great. I'm sure that you would do much better at it than me. (Toritaiyo 17:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help Request

message: I get a different result for the form factor relating the free energy for heterogeneous nucleation as a proportion of the free energy of homogeneous nucleation. Can anyone add a source to confirm?
f( \theta ) = \frac{1}{4} \left ( 2 - \cos \theta + \cos^3 \theta \right )
Grunkhead (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heterogeneous nucleation form factor 

message: "Most nucleation processes are physical, rather than chemical, but a few exceptions do exist (e.g. electrochemical nucleation) . A good example would be the famous Diet Coke and Mentos eruption". First of all, is electrochemical nucleation the only exception, the only form of chemical nucleation, or there are more? If it is the only one, then it's supposed to be "i.e." ("id est", "that is"), not "e.g." (example gratia). Secondly, is the diet(?)-coke-and-menthos case a sort of electrochemical nucleation, or is it just other sort of chemical nucleation, but not electrochemical? --Extremophile (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity regarding the example of chemical nucleation 

message: The interfacial energy + the volume free energy should add up to give the free energy of the system (line in the middle). I understand that it's a sketch but you can see clearly that this line is in the wrong place and therefore may cause confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.86.255 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  free energy vs radius graph jpg needs redrawing. 

message: Is "ΔG" vs "Δs" in this example correct from gibbs free energy equation? Can one substitute "s" here? This does not look correct.
::\Delta G\ =\ (4 \pi r^2 - s) \sigma - (n - 1)k_BT \ln S
Where:
:*Δs is critical free energy needed.
:*kB is the Boltzmann constant
:*S=pv/po is the supersaturation
:*s is the surface area of a monomer
Sativarg (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Theory equation documentation error? 

message: The snap disk in warming packs apparently nucleates solidification by exposing microcrystals in small cracks in the metal surface, according to Rogerson, Mansel A, and Silvana S. S Cardoso. 2003. Solidification in heat packs: III. Metallic trigger. AIChE Journal 49(2):522-529. This is according to the abstract, I don't have access to the full paper.  This should also be clarified in the article sodium acetate. Robert Hiller (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sodium acetate nucleation with snapping disk