Talk:Supercooling

message: I doubt whether supercooled compounds solidify into amorphous solids in general. Water in any case will always freeze to the Ih phase under atmospheric pressure, though the crystals will be quite small after such a rapid freezing process. -- Hankwang 19:48, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Amorphous?

message: In the temperature interval from -39 C to -120 C water freezes almost instantaneously. However in the temperature interval between -120C and -138C it is possible to have a stable supercooled phase. Below -138C the water becomes solid again. Many researchers believe that this is a glass transition. I have heard people claim that recent neutron scattering experiments  suggest that there is a real phase transition at -138C (rather than a glass transition), but I know too little about that. (AC)
www.digibio.com/archive/RedHerring_com-Why_water_is_weird.htm
I wish people would check the quality of their comments, like using real words and spaces n' stuff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.79.74 (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Supercooled Water

message: From the article:
:Its glass transition temperature is much colder and harder to determine, but studies estimate it at about 165 K (−108°C).[2] Glassy water can be heated up to approximately 150 K (−123°C).
How can glassy water only be heated up to 150 K if it can form at the higher temperature of 165 K?--kenb215 01:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It still says that - is it right? And if so what does it mean (as Ken's question above)? Thanks. Naomhain (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: Despite the reference, the application listed in the article is an example of exothermic crystalization from supersaturated solution, not supercooling.  Supercooling is defined as cooling a fluid below its freezing point.  This example is cooling a liquid below the crystalization point of a solute, not below the solution's freezing point.  
The reference is filled with inaccurate uses of terminology.  The reference confuses being liquid with being in solution. The heat of crystalization of NaAc is what causes the jump in temperature.  Given a crystalization seed, the solution in the heat bags would begin to crystalize at 130F (it doesn't freeze at 130).Dusty78 20:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The application 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfkHS_58yvs
"Hulk looks at beer...
Hulk thinks really cool...
Hulk wants beer NOW!"
This could be a very nice wedding prank. lol --Wxyrty 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One application of supercooling 

message: This is really fast - I expect the article meant to say "milli-kelvin", but i'm not sure so I didnt change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.227.168 (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If cooled at a rate of the order of 1 million kelvins per second 

message: The first line says "Supercooling is the process of chilling a liquid below its melting point..." but the next line says "A liquid below its freezing point will crystallize ...". IMHO for a liquid, the 'freezing point' is applicable. If there are no objections, I'll change the 'melting point' to 'freezing point' -- WikiCheng | Talk 04:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect--the melting point and freezing point can happen at different temperatures.  See for instance Figure 8 in Zachariassen and Kristiansen 2004 Cryobiology--pure water will melt at 0 degrees and freeze at -17 C or so. Kemarshall (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melting point or freezing point ? 

message: Why is a citation needed in the part about superheating (under "Description" at the end) when there is a link to another adequately cited Wikipedia page describing the phenomenon itself? Or is the missing citation referring to another part of the paragraph? --The Sphinx (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superheating citation 

message: There is an unclarity both in this article and in Water about the definition of freezing point for water, and also a misunderstanding regarding melting/freezing point.
# What IS the freezing point for water? what are the 'certain conditions' in which water can supercool, besides the lack of nucleation points? Aren't these conditions more accurate for defining that the freezing point of water is indeed minus 42 degrees celcius?
# As we can see in water, the freezing point isn't always the melting point. In Wikipedia, Freezing point refers to Melting point which seems incorrect.
I'm not a chemistry guy and want to know whether these can be corrected in Wikipedia. Gil_mo (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Melting and freezing point are statistically defined. That is, they refer to the phase transition between most probable macrostates in a thermodynamically random sample. Mathematically, they occur at the same temperature due to thermodynamic laws. If you control the randomness (by cooling really fast), you can achieve less-likely macrostates, and I believe supercooling is an example of this phenomenon. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm. I dunno. We got taught that although melting point is well defined, because of the above couple of points,  "freezing point" is in fact not well defined, period. Gzuckier (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Can be supercooled" 

message: I'm no expert; this is all new information to me.  It all makes sense to me up the point where it says "because they must come into contact with ice nuclei (otherwise they would freeze immediately , since they are only supercooled.)".  It seems to me that if these fish were to come into contact with ice nuclei, they would freeze immediateley.  The above statement in the article sounds (to me) like it is saying that if these fish _don't_ come into contact with ice nuclei, they will freeze.  If I'm correct then the above should probably read something like this: "These fish must stay far below the water's surface because if they come into contact with ice nuclei (which are found closer to the surface of the water) they will freeze immediately."  SCooley138 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Fish 

message: Ok, I know the subject line is a little sensational, but when I found out about supercooling I found a contradiction in my understanding of how water becomes a solid.  I thought that water became ice when the temperature was so low that the molecules didn't wiggle enough to break hydrogen bonding.  But, that doesn't make sense when you think about supercooling because the supercooled water must be cold enough to form hydrogen bonds, therefore making it technically ice by my previous definition.  Obviously supercooled water is not ice.
Also, I thought ice had more volume than water because the lattice structure formed when the H2O molecules are hydrogen bonded has more empty space than if the molecules were not hydrogen bonded.  Does supercooled water have the same level of hydrogen bonding as ice?  Would that mean that supercooled water has greater volume than non-supercooled liquid water?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.163.4 (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  supercooling contradicts hydrogen bonding 

message: Interesting...I had speculated that it was because popping the top dropped the pressure, which cooled it slightly by decompression, which brought it below its freezing point. I did think it suspicious that the beer should so often happen to be exactly just above freezing temperature, and the way it rapidly turned to slush didn't quite seem to be the way it ought to behave just from dropping suddenly below freezing. Too consistent and homogeneous. Also, the fact that if it was really cold, even jostling or  shaking it would cause it to freeze even when still sealed. Other times, I open it, and  it wouldn't freeze for several minutes. I take a few sips, and suddenly on the next sip, I'd find "beer slushy"! This explanation makes much more sense...I assume that it's like superheating, and the liquid remains until something disturbs it, causing tiny seed ice crystals to form, which initiate a chain reaction which freezes the liquid?.45Colt 07:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, this is why when I leave beer in the freezer too long, it instantly turns to slush once I pop the top? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Supercooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090301174525/http://www.chillchamber.hussmann.com:80/ to http://www.chillchamber.hussmann.com
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100123161644/http://www.slush-it.com:80/? to http://www.slush-it.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article should note the terms "solid" and also "freezing", as these are also "crystalline states". (noting not all substances are considered crystalline when solid, says wikipedia)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.204.96 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article now mentions both solid and freezing point (which leads to freezing) in the introduction.--RainerBlome (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocabulary

message: The heat of fusion article calls super-cooling "more random and less related so not listed".
It seems to me that super-cooling is a more pure measurement.  In adding a "seed" one does not know the value or nature of that's seed's creation or how to "add it in".  Knowing that standard lab measurements are tainted by impure circumstances leads me to beleive wikipedia (see heat of fusion article) should not be saying it is "less related fusion and less used" a property: it's probably a more important property (excepting for material science applied science).  And it makes one wonder percentage wise what seeding impurity steals from the measurement / process, the adding what has already overcome latent heats and how much.
One would wonder if heat of fusion is also commonly / likewise tainted by having "a seed in the sample never crystalized which begins fusion early" (i know compounds under microscopes are often very hap-hazardously arranged)
I would think crystaline struture may be related should be mentioned as effect on "super cooling" (also atomic arrangement, radii, electro negativity) .
I'll now think of "super cooling value" as "true heat of crystallization" and the other as a "tainted value".  Although am less sure using the value would be useful to determine other values or properties, since so much data exists upon what causes the phenomena already.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.204.96 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: about Wikipedia calling super-cooling "less related 

message: First the articles says cuper cooling is a property of total and homogenous atomic crystallization without aid of pre-seeding; by laboratory purity.
The article then says that "cell protection" is a form of super-cooling and related it to nearly un-describable impurity rather than purity - which if you don't mind my saying: appears to be lowering of freezing point (which is Absolutely unrelated with super-cooling, and so does not belong in the article or topic)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.204.96 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article contradicts itself - Anima 

message: Are different isotopes of the same substance also super-cooling?  The CRC book says differnt isotopes of the same element may have very different properties from the "stable isotope (assumed if not mentioned)".  I think crystalline structure (or at least fine angles) and other properties are not predictable when not "the stable most used isotope".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.204.96 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that different isotopes of the same chemical element have the same properties when it comes to super-cooling. Which "CRC book" are you referring to? I do not understand "assume if not mentioned", can you please be clearer? Isotopes do not differ in electron configuration. Since electron configuration is what determines crystal structure, different isotopes have the same crystal structure. Regarding differences in "fine angles", the nature of crystals is that precise discrete angles are maintained regardless. For an ordinary crystal, there is no such thing as a "slightly differing angle". The possible angles are effectively determined by the mathematics of periodic 3D structures. Yes, quasicrystals exist, which may allow for more variation, but my guess is that they are not relevant for supercooling. Which "other properties" are you referring to?--RainerBlome (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: isotope Question

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Supercooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130729120202/http://chem.wzu.edu.cn/UploadFile/20094315104316.pdf to http://chem.wzu.edu.cn/UploadFile/20094315104316.pdf#page=99
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This revision by an anonymous user on 2017-03-25 placed a paragraph into the "In animals" section that is unacceptable for a Wikipedia article. I don't know if he is right or wrong, I'm just a passing editor, but at the very least he could have used a dubious template instead. EpsilonCarinae (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the commentary. It definitely doesn't belong in the article itself. As far as their objection, I don't think they're correct. The Antifreeze proteins article states that these don't simply depress the freezing point like antifreeze for your car, but actually inhibit the growth of nucleation sites, which is consistent with achieving a supercooled state. dimhue (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

text: I also reworded the first line in that section, which someone changed the references to freezing point depression. Based on the description of the processes, I am certain it's describing a supercooled state and not freezing-point depression, because the liquid is clearly below its freezing point if ice crystals start to form.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimhue (talk • contribs) 06:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In animals" section 

message: Supercooling or super-chilling is also mentioned in spaceflight applications, although there it simply means "cooling down fuel to just above the freezing point" (as opposed to cooling it down just below the vaporisation point.) Should this find mention here? Here are some uses of the terms: https://qz.com/627430/the-super-chill-reason-spacex-keeps-aborting-launches/ https://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/tb/pub/techbriefs/machinery-and-automation/30024 --Syzygy (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercooling in spaceflight