Talk:Hygroscopy

message: is cotton Hygroscopic because each fibre aborbs water or because the cotton fibres trap air, and in this trapped air water exists as water vapor ? Teeteetee 10:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cotton fibre

message: Even if they're technically different, they are so similar that they would be better presented as one article. —Keenan Pepper 03:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Let's merge them and add an explanation of that. —Keenan Pepper 02:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Deliquescence]] 

message: I agree with the notion of merging this with Deliquescence, but why not merge both with Dessication.  Given the relative (small) size of this article, or even the combined articles, and the close relationship of hygroscopic substances - even those so hygroscopic as to be deliquescent - wouldn't the reader be better served by being redirected to that article, and add the appropriate stubs there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KnockNrod (talk • contribs) .
:Hmm.. I guess that could work. Make an omnibus article, Dessication, hygroscopy, and deliquescence? —Keenan Pepper 20:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that desiccant/Desiccation should be merged into hygroscopy, as desiccation is a technical term for drying, which is not always accomplished via the use of hygroscopic materials. Argyriou 00:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the last comment -- dessicants should be treated in a separate article from the merged article on hygroscopy & deliquescence. Cgingold 14:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Dessication 

message: Seeing as how many people mistake hydroscopy with hygroscopy, it would be useful to have the etymology for both words available here. Can someone supply?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.208.14 (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Does "It's possible to split a rock by inserting a piece of wood into a fissure and adding water. As it absorbs water the wood's volume increases and pushes the sections of rock apart, increasing the fissure." really belong in this article?  It seems off-topic, as it involves pouring water onto wood (as opposed to general absorption from the air), and more anecdotal than informative.
208.67.176.98 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting rocks? 

message: I don't think that the one-liner in the article sufficiently covers the misuse of the two words: "The similar sounding but unrelated word hydroscopic is sometimes used in error for hygroscopic."  I'm no chemist, and I'm trying to learn the differences between the two words so could someone that knows please flesh that out a bit more? Thanks.  Also, is 'hydroscopic' even the correct word? Shouldn't it be 'hydrophilic'? --TheJalAbides (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hy''d''roscopic vs Hy''g''roscopic 

message: I am having a problem with the statement that NaCl is NOT hygroscopic. The Sodium Chloride article specifically states otherwise, and i am sure most of our actual experience with NaCl dictates otherwise (think using Kosher Salt to pull moisture out of meat or vegetables, Kosher salt generally not having any adulterants like salts of magnesium, etc.)
Rather than editing first and asking questions later, i thought i would give this about a week of comment before i take out that statement.TheBigZzz (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sodium Chloride 

message: Seems like "hygroscopicity" is used >10x more often (according to Google) than "hygroscopy". Perhaps "Hygroscopicity" should be the main headline for this article, and "Hygroscopy" referred to the former? Any thoughts?
Hits on google.com: hygroscopicity - 85800, hygroscopy - 6280
I also checked the German equivalents on google.de. Hygroskopizität - 5660, Hygroskopie - 2910. So, same tendency as in English. 
148.188.17.56 (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hygroscopy vs Hygroscopicity 

message: Hygroscopy is (i)"the act of sorption of water vapor by a body" and/or (ii) "the measurement of hygroscopicity" (c.f. microscopy); hygroscopicity is the (quantitative) measure of a bodies ability to sorb water vapor, the "hygroscopicness" if you like.  Subtle but meaningful differences. To open with "Hygroscopy is the ability of a substance to attract water..." is a bit of both! Softwarestorage (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you find these definitions? Dethlock99 (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These definitions make sense, but we need a source. Either way, Hygroscopicity definitely needs a mention. Gul e (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hygroscopy vs Hygroscopicity II 

message: What's the intent of the huge red link at the beginning of the article?
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red text? 

message: What? No mention of the polar nature of water or the intermolecular attraction of water to charged forces in salts or polar groups   in hydrocarbons?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.130.206 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intermolecular forces 

message: There MIGHT be a difference, but the cover bends because the lamination is very rigid. It might look flexible but consider it's VERY thin! If if was the thickness of the cover, the lamination would be almost bulletproof.
The pulp in the cover's cardboard expands and the lamination doesn't. It's clear that example is a good example of the evidence Hygroscopy, but NOT a good example of DIFFERENCE of it. At most it could be an example where hygroscopy is revealed by the expansion of the material, but NOT the cause of the book bending. If the lamination was flexible and still without any hygroscopy, the book cover would not bend. Would that mean that there is no hygroscopy?
A better example would be two materials with the same grade of expansion/elasticity, while still having different Hygroscopy  levels. i.e. one where the fibers are same elastic/flexible, but doesn't absorb the water molecules between its own.
If the intention was just to demostrate hygroscopy (and not the difference), there are more common examples (nobody has books anymore). Paper towels rolls are a better example, sucking the water level in a flat pan, or exploding pieces furniture feet when wet. Bathroom doors getting stuck when long showers condensation reach them… etc.
Pre-press expert since 1990 Sergiozambrano (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The book cover doesn't bend because of the difference of Hygroscopy 

message: Need home for new subject, Hygromorphic structures or Hygroscopic structures.  Does this topic fit under Hygroscopy#Biology, or should it be standalone?  Example usage is describing plants that move with humidity, e.g., ferns activated by springtime humidity to release spores- Onoclea sensibilis#Morphology.  Plant structures may be dead or alive at seed release time, thus the two suggested subject names. ???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStonehunter (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hygroscopic structures (botany)