Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Ice/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial text

-- Ice made from demineralized water is much harder than ice made from mineralized water, because the minerals in water cause stresses and various imperfections in the crystal structure, which will produce dislocations that are weak compared to the structure of pure ice. The presence of dissolved air has a similar effect. ( http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00616.htm )

-- pressure-melting point of the ice is lower, eg -2.67o C

The pressure doesn't melt the ice but it does lower the melting temperature making it easier to melt the ice.

(Hardness)

Ice near its melting point has a hardness of about 1.5 on the Mohs scale. This is about as hard as talc. At much lower temperatures ice becomes much harder. At -70 oC ice has the hardness of quartz (about 6-7 on the Mohs scale). The importance of this is that ice generally is not hard enough to abrade rock by itself. It usually needs tools in the ice to abrade and erode bedrock.


( http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:2Gq3NERDu8oJ:www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/department/staff/colgan/class_notes/1444/iceprops.htm+%22hardness+of+ice%22+-cream+site:edu&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 )

-- Under relatively low pressure ice behaves as a plastic material.

At 0°C, ice has a hardness of 1.5 on the Mohs scale; at -70°C the hardness is 6 (Nesje and Dahl 2000).

Ice is subject to pressure melting. In other words, ice can be melted at temperatures below 0°C by application of pressure.

( http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:0W9MwCSBgWEJ:academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec02/lec2.htm+%22hardness+of+ice%22+-cream+site:edu&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 )

-- The indentation hardness of ice [1] is extremely dependent on the load duration and ice temperature. For instance, at load durations of the order of 1, 10, and 100 s and an ice temperature of -2.5°C, the associated hardnesses of fine-grained polycrystalline ice are given by 30, 15, and 7 MPa. The load duration depends onthe ice velocity, but not in a simple manner, as it depends on the contact conditions at the interface (simultaneous or non-simultaneous contact, correlated or non-correlated spatial density of high pressurezones, ice thickness, degree of stable cracking). At the ice temperature just quoted, the pressure melting hardnesses are just a boundary layer away. If one were to assume associated secant moduli of 8, 6 and 4GPa, then the cleavage fractures would size as c ~ 6h, 7h and 8h, respectively.

( http://www.clarkson.edu/~john/pdf_files/efm_jpd_acp_dss_2001.pdf )

-- ice has both brittle and plastic properties. When subjected to sudden stress, ice Fractures;,when the stress is even and constant, it can bend

ice melts faster under pressure. It will even melt under pressure at subzero temperatures.

ice has the ability to be broken up or melted by pressure and then refreeze.

( http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:wWfwJSLAfzoJ:www.utmsi.utexas.edu/people/staff/dunton/k12/Physical%2520Prop%2520of%2520Ice.htm+%22brittleness+of+ice%22+site:edu&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 )

-- ductility of ice allow it to flow on flat surface

( http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:Ewh2POuOy4gJ:ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/02FallClass/geo100/Lectures/100_T29_Glaciers.html+%22ductility+of+ice%22+site:edu&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 )

-- Ice deforms under an applied stress, much like a very viscous fluid, leading to the macroscopic phenomenon of glacier flow. Velocities in glaciers and ice sheets range from a few centimetres per year to a few kilometres per year. Where ice deformation is very rapid, fracture can occur that yields crevasses. Glacier ice appears blue because pure ice has a greater absorption of Light at the red end of the visible spectrum. [A.J.]

(ice. The Encyclopedia of Ecology and Environmental Management, Blackwell Science. Retrieved 13 June 2003, from xreferplus. http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/1380036 )

-- Ice has a very low coefficient of Friction. (See also Frost; Glacier; Hail; Ice ages; Iceberg; Icebreaker; Snow.) mp 0°C, bp 100°C, rd 0.92 (0°C).

(Illustrated Dictionary of Science, © Andromeda 1988)

-- The specific latent heat of fusion is 0.3337 MJ kg-1. Its density at 0 °C is 916.0 kg m-3, compared to water at 0 °C with a density of 999.8 kg m-3. There are several allotropic forms of ice, mostly stable only under high pressure.

(ice. The Penguin Dictionary of Physics. Retrieved 13 June 2003, from xreferplus. http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/1429291 )

-- Regelation:
The refreezing of ice that has melted under pressure alone, once the pressure is released. Ice skating depends on regelation, but as ice melts readily under pressure only while its temperature is near its Freezing point, skating may not be feasible in very cold weather.

( Regelation. Illustrated Dictionary of Science, Andromeda. Retrieved 13 June 2003, from xreferplus. http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/1063556 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.49.161 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2003 (UTC)

Is Ice a fluid?

Is or isn't ice a fluid? My science teacher seems to think so, but my other teachers disagree.

The page answers that, although not in so many words. Most forms of ice, including ice I sub h, the form we are familiar with, are crystalline, and therefore not a fluid (unlike, say, glass), but it is possible to create amorphous ice by very rapidly cooling water, something like they way they make Liquidmetal brand golf clubs. Quadibloc (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ice is always solid, as is regular glass (no, windows are not slow moving liquids; old glass is misshaped because the technology for making glass was less advanced). Amorphous ice is still solid, just not crystalline. Ice, by definition, is always a solid. If it's anything else, it's not ice. - Alltat (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Freezing Ice

Water with fewer minerals freezes''''' faster''''' than water with more minerals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.122.145 (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I wanna know what kind of ice the ice cubes u make in your fridge are: frazil, nilas, grease, slush pancake, young, grey, grey white, snow, transition or congelation??!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.125.205 (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


ice is a solid not a liquid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.244.1 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

i agree ice is solid but it is a form of the liquid water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussyoceans (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the solid form of water, which is liquid at room temperature. Water isn't "inherently" liquid. It just happens to be liquid at room temperature. Most of the water in the universe isn't. - Alltat (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

'Upside-down growing icicles'?

I saw an incredible image on newspaper today(I live in South Korea). This is the link to the article. Below is the traslation of this article:

The icicles shooting up from the earth' are growing in front of disused tunnel's entrance at Sinseo myeon, Yeoncheon gun, Gyeonggi do. The reason why this 'upside-down icicles' 5~120㎝ in height that looks like standing candles are formed is not known yet. Reporter Young-cheol Cho <youngcho@joongang.co.kr>'

Does anybody know the reason of this phenomenon?

  • it is possible that warm air is exiting the tunnel with a lot of moisture in it, hitting cold air at the tunnel's exit. cold air holds less moisture than warm air, so the water might percipitate out and freeze. a thought, no idea if it's right

New York Times

Ice!

Strength

How strong is ice? That is, in regards to like concrete and stuff? How cold must it be for a certain volume of ice to be structurally sound if one were to make an ice hotel or something? Does anybody know this?

I think this would be a good place to look: [1]--Thorseth (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

a while ago i think i saw an article in a magazine about a hotel made of ice but i'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussyoceans (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It exists. It's more of a tourist gimmick than an actually useful building material, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alltat (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

There're waaaaaaaay too many pictures. We need to clean the page up a bit. Isopropyl 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to post that, I mean seriously, there's like 3 pictures of icicles, 2 pictures of feather ice, and other copies! We only need 1 example per ice variance! Abcw12 (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I took out some pictures that I felt were either copied or completely unneeded, but feel free to take out more pictures. Abcw12 (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proton conductor?

See Talk:proton conductor. The Internet says in a few places that ice is a good proton conductor, but it's disputed. I found this hint that maybe it's only certain phases of ice? Can one of you ice experts comment over there and give better references and more specific details? — Omegatron 23:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Iam testing which type of ice is colder ice or dry ice if youknow email me at Maya8907@sbcglobal.net I doubt ice is a proton conductor. Protons are H+ ions, found in particular in liquid water. Yet [ionic] [solids] do not conduct ions or even electrons, why should ice be any different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.234.24 (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Icicles

I think icicles certainly deserve a separate article, not just a redirect here. --Paul Pogonyshev 23:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Types of Ice:

The article currently states, "As well as crystalline forms solid water can exist in amorphous states as amorphous solid water (ASW), low density amorphous ice (LDA), high density amorphous ice (HDA), very high density amorphous ice (VHDA) and hyperquenched glassy water (HGW)." However, according to the article at amorphous ice, ASW, LDA, and HGW are all different names for the same form. I'd like to prune this list down to remove the redundant entries, but wanted to verify first that my understanding is correct. -- Heath 66.32.117.111 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

It's wayyy too hard to figure out the simple physics of how much heat ice needs at 0C or 32F to melt, and how much must be subtracted for it to freeze, under normal conditions. We've over-answered the question. Please put yourself in the boots of a first year college student trying to look up the answer to this question, and read the page. I think you'll go, "huh?", along with me.

Phase diagram

How about somebody conjures up a nice phase diagram of ice for inclusion here? ʍαμ$ʏ5043 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pancake Ice circular redirect

I saw a link to Pancake Ice in the article, but upon clicking it, I was redirected to the Ice article itself. Couldn't we at least get a stub? Or rewrite the section and remove the link. 69.118.138.25 06:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

I tried to add some information, but all I could think of was that Ice played a part in global warming. However, I think maybe what I wrote can be improved on and put somewhere else instead of 'Uses of Ice'. Littleghostboo[ talk ] (Win an argument and leave your mark in history.) 07:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Freezing Point of Water

I have a question, I have pulled bottles of water out of the freezer that were liquid. When I opened the cap the water then began to freeze into a slush. I have never seen this before. The only things that I can think of that could cause this would be the environment that I am in. It is over 100 degrees F and very dusty (Iraq). IS it the pressure change, the introduction of nuclei, or the combination of both?

This article is gross

The writing is very staccatoed and doesn't flow well at all, there are too many irrelevant pictures, and there are are not enough citations. I came to this article from the "freezing point" section of water, expecting to find out exotic facts about phases of ice, and I think the article is thoroughly uninteresting to that end. This could use some work before inclusion in anything. Hjfreyer 11:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ground ice

Hey, I took some pictures of some weird looking ice that grew from the ground. These ice-crystal strucutres were like pasta that come out an extruder, but there is no extruder, it's from the ground. I figure, the ground was wet, and since the temperature was just below freezing, as the water was draining from the ground, it froze, only to be pushed further by more excess water. The pieces I saw were about 2 inches in length and were bunched together in strings about as wide as a pencil lead, and in bunches about the diameter of a little finger.

How the heck do I post a picture?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.201.252 (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Moleculestructure

I miss pictures of the moleculestructure of ice. It would be more clear why ice is less dense than water Compufreak (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Would be good for our readers if this article explained why ice is less dense than water.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

From reading several web pages I gather that ice is 9% less dense because it has hydrogen bonds where as water has the stronger covalent bonds.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. Difference in density is a matter of molecular packing. Both in water and in ice molecules are interacting through hydrogen (not covalent) bonds. Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Walking on water?

Recently in my biology class, me and a few other students argued about whether or not walking on ice counts as walking on water. Most of us agree that it does count, as ice is simply a form of frozen water. However, one kid (David) will not agree with us and repeatedly argues that it won't count. He claims "when you think of water, you think of a liquid". What do you guys all think about this? AquaStreak (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a right or wrong. In everyday speech, water refers to the liquid. In everyday terms, David is right. This is also how the water is usually used in science. But of course since ice is a form of water, you're right too. Saros136 (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think David is right...if I were to ask for some ice cubes in my hot tea, I wouldn't say "pass the water", I would say "pass the ice cubes". Walking on water refers ONLY to liquid water. If you wanted to specify a different form of water, you can't just call it water, you have to specify it as something else. That is, you have to specify: "I'm walking on frozen water", otherwise its misleading. You aren't walking on water, because even scientifically, ice has a different molecular configuration than water (in terms of spacing, and probably the influence of hydrogen bonding in solid structure). Yes they are obviously made of the same substance, but solids and gases are clearly different than liquids, and need to be specified as such. So both colliquially and scientifically, I firmly agree with David. Fascinating discussion by the way!24.141.47.62 (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it most definitely is walking on water when you walk on ice, though the above person is right that it could very easily be intentionally misleading. However, only the implication (that you're talking about liquid water) is wrong, but the actual sentence (supposing you are arguing about saying "I can walk on water", or something similar) contains no false information. It's like saying you have wood in your room, but it turns out to be a bookcase. Yes, you were being misleading, but also yes, your sentence was completely true (unless the bookcase isn't made of wood, but that's not the point at all). Aeonoris(talk) 05:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that is walking on water in technical terms but not really. Aussyoceans(talk) 05:34, 3 February 2011

If walking on ice is walking on water, then walking on rock is walking on lava. 62.172.108.23 (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the adjective

that means "of or pertaining to ice"? Serendipodous 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say, 'icy'. --DaGeekyNerd (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

history of ice making

I came to this site trying to find gathering ice, I saw nothing on the history of making ice. (And there is no link. When I tried typing "ice machine," I just got directed to te things in fridges.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.30.91 (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slipperiness Theory

I thought ice become slippery because the thin layer of water on top of the ice is trying to bond with the ice beneath it, due to the water having to expand slightly it makes it more slippery. Elantrix (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Typo alert: at the end of thus section, "vehcile tires" should be "vehicle". In any case, this final sentence doesnt seem to fit after the preceding, more technical and better-sourced, sentences. So i would propose deletion of the sentence.

Rotten ice

Article should not be merged into this one. There are other articles such as Candle Ice and Black ice and Verglas describing ice states. If all such articles were merged into this, it would make the length unwieldy. Also the rotten ice article should be expanded -- I just didn't have access, for example to photographs. Also rotten ice may in some cases be caused by biological processes, or may shelter special biological forms (I don't have access to the scientific papers regarding this, and it isn't my field). Piano non troppo (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ice and volatiles

I think some part of this diff with planetary science info should be merged back into "non-water ice" -- thoughts? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the extraction of the Ice in transportation chapter

I would like to ask the community, if we should move the chapter Ice in transportation to an article called Ice in transportation or similar.

We already have Category:Ice in transportation. We need an admin who recalls the authors, too. --Scriberius (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics (dubious tag)

Do we have a cite for this? What about the thermal/volcanic vents on the ocean floor maintaining a "bubble" of meltwater where life could survive? Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Any body of water would have frozen from the bottom to the surface?

The statement, "if ice had sunk instead of floating, any body of water would have frozen from the bottom to the surface" is not at all obvious. Although other people have made this or similar statements, that doesn't prove that it is true. An insulator between water and the atmosphere can slow the rate of heat flow from water to the atmosphere; however, unless there is a source of heat input to the water, the water will approach the same temperature as the atmosphere. However, according to selected properties of fresh water, ice has a higher thermal conductivity. This means ice will conduct heat from the water to the atmosphere faster than if there was no ice cover. PE RHB100 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If ice had sunk and melted then doesn't matter, we are talking about equilibrium. If (significant amount of) ice had sunk and didn't melt then water had to freeze because of thermal balance. Am I missing something? Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I assume that when you mention equilibrium you are talking about thermal equilibrium between the water ice mixture and the air above it. This occurs when the water ice mixture is at the same temperature as the air above it. But i don't see anything you have said that in anyway implies that "if ice had sunk instead of floating, any body of water would have frozen from the bottom to the surface". Are you able to provide a rigorous proof using standards of rigor typical of a book on advanced calculus. If you could do this I might be able to understand you but I just don't follow your logic in the above paragraph at all, Professional Engineer RHB100 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I ignore air, but water and ice should reach equilibrium temperature - either ice melts or water freezes. I might be completely wrong in here because ice formation usually needs undercooling. If so then probably you're right that sinking ice would not freeze water (well, you can just fill it up with sinking ice if there is endless supply from top :-) Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is your argument that if ice sinks then warmer water at the surface would cause more heat flow to the atmosphere than if ice were at the surface? PE RHB100 (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if contact with ice alone is not enough to freeze the bottom of the pool then sinking ice would push water up to the cooling source (to the top, where the ice had formed in the first place). I guess one could experiment on that, making ice around metal bars and submerging it. Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the way this problem should be analyzed is by looking at the total heat flow out of the water ice mixture, completing ignoring what takes place internally. There is heat flow at the surface and heat flow at the bottom and sides where the water ice mixture meets the earth. Probably the earth, atmosphere and water ice mixture never reach the same temperature. This brings up the question, is a condition in which the net heat flow is zero ever reached? And if so, is this a condition in which there is freezing from bottom to top of thw water? PE RHB100 (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Essential is not equilibrium but dynamics, i.e. if the convection is such that warmer water is pushed up to the cooling air then the pool will freeze regardless any equilibrium. As to "zero", it doesn't exist. You'll need to specify max. variations and look for the climate where this might occur. Some pools freeze to the bottom, i.e. icecap slows but doesn't stop the freezing. Freezing from bottom up? I imagine a river in a very cold place. Somehow its top layers move quickly enough to avoid freezing, but the stale bottom slowly cools through the ground. Hardly possible. Materialscientist (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardness, anyone?

What is the hardness for each form of Ice? Accepting that water, as a whole, has a very low hardness, what is the hardness of a molecule of water in directed spray form for the following nozzle pressures at an object at standard 1 Atm pressure at a certain distance removed: 

           KE(Nozzle) 1"  2"  6"
    10 psi
   100 psi
 1,000 psi
10,000 psi

(Fractalhints (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Ice phases merge

Could all the ice phase articles ( Ice II, Ice III, and so on) be merged into this one? They don't give any information that isn't already in this article, and I think they'd be more coherent as part of one article rather than 15 different one-liner single-paragraph articles that lack introductions and context. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The summary table in this article is good enough, merging would swell it too much as some of those sub-articles are more elaborated than to lines. Merging in a separate article is possible though. Those stubs clearly need expansion. Materialscientist (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


Here's what I found:

  • Amorphous ice - long article, 7 kb 7 ref
  • Ice Ih long article, 7 kb 2 ref
  • Ice IcA - one liner, duplicated in table, 4 ref.
  • Ice II - 2 lines, 1 ref
  • Ice III 1 line, 1 ref
  • Ice IV 1 line, 1 ref
  • Ice V 1 line 1 ref
  • Ice VI 1 line 1 ref
  • Ice VII 5 paragraphs 9 references 5 kb diagram
  • Ice VIII 1 liner diagram 1 ref
  • Ice IX 1 liner 2 refs "in fiction" section for Vonnegut book
  • Ice X 1 liner 1 ref
  • Ice XI 2 paragraphs 1 ref 1 kb
  • Ice XII 3 paragraphs 2 refs 2 kb
  • Ice XIII 1 liner 1 ref
  • Ice XIV 1 liner 1 ref
  • Ice XV 2 short paragraphs "in fiction" section 4 refs


The "1-liner" articles are flagged as needing more context. Many of the references are to one web site and are not necessarily unique to that phase (some references describe two phases). All the "1-liner" articles contain the same sentence about the Bridgman nomenclature. Most of the actual data given in the single line in these articles is already in the summary table , althoguh I've already noticed some discrepancies in numerical values between the table and the articles. There were a couple of diagrams and the ever-popular "in fiction" section for two items.

I think the unique information (mostly the references if not already present) in at least 12 of these articles can be clearly be merged into the main article, with only the long-ish articles left. I always feel a little disappointed when I click on a link and get no new information. It will take a little more than cut'n'paste to merge the 12 or 13, but it would get rid of 12 or 13 "needs context" flags. This article is hovering around 31 kB which is no longer considered extraordinarily long; the additions would probably be two diagrams and a few references that may not already be here. The numbers should be checked for consistency with the original sources since there seem to be some discrepancies.

More comments? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Update 2010 01 31 . --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger of meteorological information

I added the formation of natural ice as precipitation from the precipitation (meteorology) articles into this one. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Positive/Negative Charged water

A new study found that ice freezes at different places when it is positively or negatively charged: WIRED article -Kylelovesyou (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

this article refers to the charge of metallic surface that a water drop and eventual ice forms upon Niluop (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Slipperiness explanation missing something

The article as of this writing states that the "pressure melt" idea is no longer considered to be the cause of slipperiness, yet there are two things that must be then explained away:

Is ice sports truly needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.64.214 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lay readers

This article is clearly not written with the lay reader in mind. It's arrogant to have a sentence like this in the lead:

The preceding paragraph was posted by me yesterday and apparently quickly reverted, with no explanation whatsoever. Look, whatever your reason for reverting me, short of vandalism, I think I deserve an explanation in your edit summary.
Now to the point. As I mentioned above, this article is not written with the average reader in mind. The current opening is meaningless to most people. What the heck is Ih? Sure, you can click on the link, but here we have an article about one of the most common substances on earth, and the average person gets through the first 33 words in near-total confusion. Someone less bright than average might literally get through the first paragraph and believe that he has arrived at the wrong article.
All I'm asking for is an article that meets our guidelines, including The first paragraph should define the topic without being overly specific . . . It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. It is my opinion (although it's an apparently worthless opinion), that someone who understands these technical terms well (I certainly don't) should try to make this article's opening more accessible to the average reader. Is that so unreasonable to suggest that my idea deserves deletion? 98.82.22.154 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have modified the intro slightly to clarify that ice Ih is one of the solid phases and that the reader is not assumed to know that. As for the deletion of your comment, I assume that Material Scientist found (as I did) that the your first version was rather rude and therefore bordered on vandalism despite its intended constructive content. Your second version is improved. Dirac66 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Lay readers would also be impressed by the ability of a block of ice to permit the passage of a metallic loop to be suspended

around it and then watching it pass through the block of ice by melting underneath it and refreezing above it such as to be able to pass through the block of ice and then drop to the floor. That's the only experiment I remember about ice that I had in Physics class.WFPM (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

changing density of ice

Early on in the article on ice the statement is made that ice is the only non metal that expands when freezing. i.e. the density of the solid is less than the liquid. This contradicts information in the main wikipedia where this characteristic is shared by Silicon and Bismuth. And a couple of metals also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suma rongi (talk • contribs) 08:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that because the exceptions you mention are metalloids they still have metallic properties and are not classified as non-metals. Niluop (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Silicon is a semiconductor, not a metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.170.21 (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Flexibility of ice.

In the section dealing with Phases, mention is made that the melting of ice under high pressure is part of the reasons for movement of Glaciers. But ice is quite flexible and can flow - rather a high viscosity perhaps, but it does deform. This is the main process of glacier ice flowing under the influence of gravity. It may even (aided by abrasives) deepen an inland lake significantly below sea level. Most large natural lakes in the South Island of New Zealand exhibit this behaviour. Suma rongi (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ice is slippery

Wouldn't ice be slippery because of low friction? Thomasbum98 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98

Phases

"Consequently, water also remains frozen at a temperature above 0 °C under a pressure lower than 1 atm."

looking at the graph I see something else. Should it not be:

"Consequently, water also remains frozen at a temperature above 0 °C under a pressure higher than 1 atm." ?

--Luke, 24.07.2012

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sleet

I've added a bit to the "Ice pellets" section to note that "sleet = ice pellets" is a US term, and in Commonwealt English, sleet means rain and snow mixed. However, reading the Sleet article and talk page indicates it is a bit more complex than this (many Americans seem to use the "Commonwealth" version, parts of Canada apparently use teh US version, and non-Commonwealth English-speakign countries also use the Commonwealth version. I'm not sure the best way to sum this up in the article. 62.172.108.23 (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Phase table for XI

There seems to be some question about the temperature listed for XI ice formation. A few sources states that the temperature listed in this table for XI be the transition temperature, not the initial formation temperature according to the linked article that is the transition temperature between XI and Ih, as long is there are still XI micro seeds left which are reported to fully dissipate at 111K, So should this be listed as a transition point not the temperature at which it starts to form? According to other linked articles it starts to form around 72K with the assistance of a catalyst which then theoretically could be used to seed crystals at higher temperatures given time. This would closer match the phase diagrams at http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html and article at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128274.400-electric-ice-a-shock-to-the-solar-system.html which both indicate that the temperature is not 237K. 237K has only been claimed in the 1998 paper, and unobtainable by other researchers, unless I'm missing a paper that also backs that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanctuarysmiles (talk • contribs) 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ice formation

Ice is known to expand when frozen. It thus can exert a force related to the process of expansion. However, if a strong enough chamber were filled with water and then cooled, (with a coefficient of expansion lass than that of ice), what would be the result of the water's inability to expand on its freezing process?WFPM (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your question is answered on the Ice page itself; take a look at the phase diagram to see how water behaves at various temperatures and pressures. From the table, you can see that the ice would have to be quite compressed before it would exhibit a form different from regular ice. HMman (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC).
Very good!! And almost understandable. Except that I keep looking at a PV diagram and wondering how a liquid can keep increasing both its pressure and volume at the same time while undergoing a cooling process.WFPM (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't quite understand. Hypothetically, if you have a strong enough container, the volume will stay the same (as the water is completely contained by the container) and the pressure will increase (as the ice is held back by the container). Or, you could have a semi-elastic container, where the volume increases slightly, while still not increasing enough to compensate for the expansion of the ice. Either way, the amount of compression will be relatively small, nowhere near the amounts of compression required to create a different form of ice near usual freezing temperatures. Of course, this is armchair theorizing on my part, as I've never experimentally tested this. HMman (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC).
You and I must be both confusing cause and effect. After something cools while under pressure it reaches some point of latent heat change and guess some of the latent heat content must be used to allow it to expand against the pressure while it changes its molecular structure. They don't go much into detail in some of these situation explanations. So we have to guess.WFPM (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Incidentally, I once failed a test question WFPM (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)(IQ test) because I wasn't supposed to know that water was compressible.WFPM (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
After doing some research into this, it appears my assumptions were incorrect. The pressure produced by the freezing ice is quite large, which makes freezing improbable above temperatures of -109°C (the point at which the critical radius tends to infinity). HMman (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC).
It's hard to figure that out from the phase diagram since the liquid phase phase is shown as only extending down to 251 degrees Kelvin. And at a high pressure, so it must be running up the pressure value rather than expanding. But what about the flow work (PV/J) increase of the liquid when it freezes? It must get that from somewhere.WFPM (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know; the subject matter is beyond my expertise. From the result obtained by the experiment I linked to, I would suspect the phase diagram only applies for isobaric scenarios, not isochoric. The graph of the critical nucleus radius vs temperature suggests the isochoric ice could be potentially be supercooled even further, perhaps to about -120°C, which further conflicts with the phase diagram. Can you access the report? If not, I could send you a copy of you'd like, as you might find it easier to read it yourself; it's possible your question is answered there. HMman (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC).

Well it's not critical information to me so I guess that I pass. I also know that water expands with temperature. Because I had an experience where water samples that I collected in a glass container were breaking before they could be delivered to the laboratory. So the minimum volume is at 4 degrees C. So you have to be careful about what you read about things.WFPM (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
What would happen, under cooling to below 0°C at a defined volume, that at first you'd create supercooled liquid water, and once the pressure is high enough to form other crystal modifications those would form alongside of normal ice to give a combined density of close to one. (Ice I close to 0,92 g/cm³ and Ice XII for example 1,3 g/cm³.)--188.103.229.169 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Communication by snowflake

Does anyone know the mechanism by which snowflakes tend to grow identically along all three axes? In other words, how can one axis 'know' what the others are doing?--DStanB (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Real snowflakes do not tend to grow identically along all three axes, at least not anymore alike with-in one snowflake as commared to between snowflakes. tahc chat 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Densities

Is it not possible to give density ranges, or at least representative densities, for different phases of ice? — kwami (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

superionic water and superionic ice

This seems to need to be updated to include the (bcc) superionic ice and (fcc) superionic water. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Phase diagram and table have minor inconsistencies?

To a casual visitor there appear to be two different types of Ice XI but only orthorhombic is discussed, and I can't see Ice IV or XIV on the diagram. Also "Proton-ordered" may merit a brief explanation or article. Servalo (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Number of solid phases

I noticed a recent edit changing the number of solid phases of water from 15 to 16. But the table seems to list 17 - amorphous, Ic, Ih, and II through XV. Does that sound right? -- Beland (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, on the advice of a chemist I said "16 known solid crystalline phases of water, or in an amorphous solid state at various densities". -- Beland (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Water to Ice expansion volume

I came to the article for some basic info but couldn't find it. I wanted to know by what percentage volume the water expands to ice. For example, if I put a litre bottle of water into the freezer, how much should I allow for expansion so that the bottle doesn't burst? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.61.161 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

9% volume expansion when water freezes to ice -73.61.15.87 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Traces of water

Are there traces of water on ice surface?--86.125.163.64 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ice is not always made of water

I find it perplexing why ice is narrowly defined as a phase of water (H2O) only. Nitrogen ice, methane ice, CO2 ice and so on are also ice. Somehow this article meeds to deal with this ambiguity. Either by broadening the definition of ice in the lede and including descriptions of ice from other materials or creating new pages on ice of individual materials.

@Phoebe: mentioned the same issue up above on 3 April 2009 (UTC).

RhinoMind (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2015

The third figure in the article, File:Hex ice.GIF under Characteristics, should be replaced by File:Ice Ih Crystal Lattice.png to provide more information on the crystal basis, the molecular structure of H2O in ice, and the crystal structure (as opposed to only the structure as is the case with File:Hex ice.GIF). Dbuckingham42 (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done by you, yourself - I assume you did not realize your account was now autoconfirmed, so you could do this yourself.
However, I'm not sure this 2D image is better than the 3D image - I've added links to both files in your post, so others can compare. - Arjayay (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2015

Add {{pp-vandal}} 115.188.198.32 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: Please improve reference 13 (request date: 2015-10-17)

Reference #13 (Makkonen et al.) is lacking a DOI.

Please replace the current version...
<ref>Makkonen, L., Tikanmäki, M. (2014). Modelling the friction of ice. ''Cold Regions Science and Technology'' 102: 84-93.</ref>

... by:
<ref name="Makkonen2014">{{Cite journal |first=Lasse |first2=Maria |last=Makkonen |last2=Tikanmäki |title=Modelling the friction of ice |journal=Cold Regions Science and Technology |volume=102 |pages=84–93 |date=June 2014 |accessdate=17 October 2015|doi=10.1016/j.coldregions.2014.03.002 |issn=0165-232X }}</ref>

Thanks! Michelsberg (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Partial vapor pressure of triple point of water: 611.73 Pa or 611.657 Pa?

The value 611.73 Pa is cited here as well as in all related artciles in Wikipedia. But the source is not provided! The most recent reference which I could find on this, Murphy and Koop (QJRMS, 2005) gives 611.657 +/- 0.01 Pa and this is also the value used by the International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam (Wagner et al., J.Phys.Chem.Ref.Data,1994). Unless the value 611.73Pa can be referenced properly, Wikipedia should use the internationally recommended value. Simon Chabrillat (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This has been fixed by changing the value to 611.657 Pa, following discussion at Talk:Triple point. Dirac66 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

ice melting

heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.160.189 (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

See ablation section Lydia Van Dyke (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible disagreements

I linked through this article to "www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ice_phases.html#br" and its related pages. Some of the data seem, to my incredibly uneducated eye, to contradict. I'm a lazy student of the densities of hyper-ices, so discovering anomalies is disheartening, but could grow from my ignorance rather than from flaws attributable to the wikipedia sources or the LSBU sources. FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 333steve (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding a section that covers ice ablation

Please add the following inbetween the section natural formation and production because ice ablation is so far not covered by the article.

Done You may want to consider additional references, however. Both of the ones you've provided seem to have some sort of login barrier which would prevent most from reading their full contents. Pishcal (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you There are free mirrors for the articles. E.g. I just did a quick web search for > filetype:pdf "Impact of Thermally Driven Turbulence on the Bottom Melting of Ice" Lydia Van Dyke (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ablation

Ablation of ice refers to both its melting and its dissolution.

In fresh ambient melting describes a phase transition from solid to liquid. To melt ice means breaking the hydrogen bonds between the water molecules. The ordering of the molecules in the solid breaks down to a less ordered state and the solid melts to become a liquid. This is achieved by increasing the internal energy of the ice beyond the melting point. When ice melts it absorbs as much energy as would be required to heat an equivalent amount of water by 80°C. While melting, the temperature of the ice surface remains constant at 0°C. The velocity of the melting process depends on the efficiency of the energy exchange process. An ice surface in fresh water melts solely by free convection with a velocity that depends as (T∞ - 4 °C)4/3 on the water temperature,T∞, for intermediate temperatures.[1]

In salty ambient dissolution rather than melting often causes the ablation of ice. Eg. the temperature of the arctic ocean is generally below the melting point of ablating sea ice. The phase transition from solid to liquid is achieved by mixing salt and water molecules, similar to the dissolution of sugar in water, even though the water temperature is far below the melting point of the sugar. Hence dissolution is rate limited by salt transport whereas melting can occur at much higher rates that are characteristic for heat transport.[2] Lydia Van Dyke (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Keitzl, Thomas; Mellado, Juan Pedro; Notz, Dirk. "Impact of Thermally Driven Turbulence on the Bottom Melting of Ice". J. Phys. Ocean. 46(4): 1171–1187. doi:10.1175/JPO-D-15-0126.1. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  2. ^ Woods, Andrew W. "Melting and dissolving". J. Fluid Mech. 239: 429–448. doi:10.1017/S0022112092004476. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2017

ایده شو (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

pressure lowers freezing point of water a slight amount

  • www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/density_anomalies.html Explanation of the Density Anomalies of Water
"Pressure reduces ice's melting point (13.35 MPa gives a melting point of -1 °C)"
"In water, this line is backward sloping with slope 13.46 MPa ˣ K-1 at 0 °C, 101.325 kPa."

Many people want to know if the pressure in water pipes lowers the freezing point. Almost all Internet info including WP is not helpful: science phase diagrams in unfamiliar units that do not show appropriate detail, only that the melt temp does not vary much with pressure under common water pipe conditions.

It would be great to have a graph of temp in C and F (not K) vs pressure in PSI for 0-10,000 PSI for inclusion in WP articles. Until then, 13.35 MPa converts to 1936.25 psi (pounds per sq. inch). We could say something like:

  • Pressure in water pipes reduces the freezing point slightly: a pressure of 1936 psi lowers the freezing point to -1 °C.

The graph in the good Martin Chaplin LSBU article appears to show that 100 MPa (14,500 psi) would lower the melt temp by about 10 °C.

Typical water pipe pressures are usually around 100 psi, which apparently would lower the freezing point by a small fraction of a degree. If the slope at zero is 13.46 MPa per degC, that works out to 0.051 °C (0.092 °F) for 100 psi. Or maybe a more useful rule-of-thumb to remember would be 1000 psi lowers melt point by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F). It would be a relevant factoid to include in some articles, if we could be sure of the science/physics facts.-73.61.15.87 (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


Recent edits

I have been re-organizing this article with recent edits—each with an explanation, all of which were rolled back were rolled back by an IP editor without comment. This is to request that editor to explain the issues that he/she may have had with the recent material here, so that it may be subject to discussion and consensus. HopsonRoad (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Enumeration of structures

@Cherkash: Thank you for your concern about fidelity to reliable sources in your revert of my edit. My edit was intended to reflect the enumeration of structures, described in Ice#Phases, which are not all crystalline, stable or formed without another material present. The previous iteration made it seem that all phases were crystalline. I was trying to use numbers that reflected crystalline, stable structures and distinguish them from other structures—amorphous, unstable or formed in the presence of another material. Perhaps you can look at what I was trying to do and achieve something that is satisfactory to us both. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Having seen no response to the above, here's my enumeration of the types of ice described in the table in Ice#Phases before I restore my edit:
  • Total: 19 (Amorphous ice through Square ice)
  • Total crystalline: 18 (Ice Ih through Square ice)
  • Total crystalline that form without the presence of another substance: 17 (Ice Ih through Ice XVI)
  • Total stable crystalline phases that form without the presence of another substance: 16 (Ice Ih through Ice XVI minus Ice Ic)
Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
My concern with this classification of yours is that it's not supported by sources (or at least you didn't provide any). Specifically, such properties as stability and conditions of formation are not well-defined without some extended clarifications: e.g. if something is "formed under pressure when confined to a limited space" – is this considered forming with or without presence of other materials? (I.e., how do you provide such confined space, and how do you create extra pressure?) Could it be formed without such presence of other materials in principle (even if it was formed in such presence in specific lab experiments)? Which materials are acceptable and which aren't (for the purpose of clarifying what "other"/"another" materials are)? Etc. I appreciate that you tried to summarize the properties and classify them according to your understanding, but without any sources that support this, I'm afraid this would be considered an example of original research. cherkash (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging here, cherkash. If we accept that the table in Ice#Phases correctly reflects reliable sources, then all I am doing is summarizing what is stated in the table, not making a new or different classification. If you are concerned about how I've counted things above, because the details in the table may be not correctly reflect sources given, let's fix the table contents first to properly reflect RSs.
As far as my enumeration is concerned, the only phrases that reflect that enumeration in my edit are: "stable phases—16 of them crystalline and independent of other substances". This sets "square ice" aside, because it is dependent on another substance, and "amorphous" aside, because it's not crystalline. 16 is the traditionally understood array of phases of crystalline ice, so this acknowledges that in the introductory material. The only other change in my edit is: "18 known stable, solid phases of water, either crystalline or in an amorphous solid state at various densities", which excludes Ice Ic—characterized as "metastable".
Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I already wrote above why I think the terms “stable” and “independent of other substances” are far from unambiguous. So using these terms in your attempted summary is controversial. Perhaps you could attempt re-phrasing if you still insist on necessity of such a summary – which (the necessity), quite frankly, escapes me. cherkash (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I will attempt to do so. Thanks for your clarification. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I can live with the notion that the complexity of my proposed summary language doesn't add value, since the complexity of the phases of ice is explained soon thereafter. Thank you for bearing with me on this one, cherkash. I have restored the language that you prefer. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The Young's modulus doesn't seem to be correct?

Right now, the Young's Modulus is listed in units of kg/cm^3. I think Young's Modulus is supposed to have units of Pascal, or kg m^−1 s^−2. I do not know what the correct value is supposed to be. I think the other mechanical properties have the same issue.

The value currently displayed seems to match the citation's ("The mechanical properties of ice") value of "elastic modulus" on page 25, but I guess this must be something different than the modern definition of Young's modulus?

Tjhance7 (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point, Tjhance7. I note another passage in the work cited that conflates mass with force, in reference to air pressure. It's time to find a better reference. It would be wrong for us to attempt conversions with the gravitational constant! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The alleged confusion of mass with force is actually non-controversial, as it used to be (and still is) quite common to express force in units of kg-force and then shorten the units to just kg. Same is also true in the context of pressures (with force-over-area dimensionality), where it could be expressed in units of kgf/cm^2, often shortened to kg/cm^2. One of the reason being that 1 atm is approximately equal to 1 kgf/cm^2, and so it’s convenient to refer to forces in such context using kgf, or simply kg, as a unit. Without carefully reviewing the source, this is my best guess of the context in which you encountered it in the text. If you think this is not the case, perhaps you care to give a page number at least so we can look into it together? cherkash (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cherkash and Tjhance7: Cherkash's observation is consistent with other sources that I have encountered. So, perhaps we should let the numbers stand, as cited. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the units in question to kg-force. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

kgf has never been sanctioned, despite being common, and should be avoided in a modern publication (such as Wikipedia). Instead, these measurements should be given in Newtons (per cm²), and assuming 1kgf=10N is sufficiently precise given the rather wide ranges of values involved. But even better would be conversion to kPa or MPa. Martin Kealey (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

And kgf/cm³ is wrong Martin Kealey (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

see page 28 of the cited document, which makes it clear that the instantaneous value is 300~340 N/cm² while the "slow" value is 150 N/cm²; giving 15-34 is actively misleading by oversimplifying. Martin Kealey (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge Ice cube here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Because:

  • I can’t see any reason why every other kind of ice that humans interact with is detailed here but not the one that is most common.
  • The ice cube article is... not very good and could and should be trimmed down to the point where it would not be a big deal to merge its content here.
  • I would suggest that when it is done the page be deleted and the already-created Ice cube (disambiguation) be moved over in its place.

Beeblebrox (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Non-concur This is an article about the material, whereas ice cubes are a product. The other article has too many details about history and paraphernalia to comfortably fit here. This article should certainly mention and link to the other article, as it already is in the "Other uses" section. HopsonRoad (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    You may note that in my proposal I explicitly said that it should be greatly reduced in size when being merged. Large portions of it are unsourced and/or of marginal relevance. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you, Beeblebrox, I did note that and concurred that it was poorly sourced. Accordingly, I supplied sources that I feel help the article stand on its own. I feel that with those sources, it should remain apart. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Apparently I forgot to add it to my watchlist so I didn’t notice your changes. Any idea what’s going on in the references section? It’s rendering all wrong for me and I can’t figure out why. Beeblebrox (talk)
    @Beeblebrox: I just tried to clean up the references there. Some were bare links. Please let me know if the problem remains. Also the ref template was below a navbox. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Looks  Fixed to me. It seems like the spoken version was causing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The ice cube article is quite big and its content wouldn't fit nicely in this article. --Jon Sega (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Superionic ice aka Ice XVIII aka Superionic water

We should add a mention of Superionic ice aka Ice XVIII aka Superionic water (a phase of water that exists at extremely high temperatures and pressures) to this article.

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superionic_water ]

- 189.122.248.181 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done HopsonRoad (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remove square ice or mark it doubtful

The original article about square ice has been challenged: Zhou et al. Nature 528, E1–E2 (2015). The structure shown is believed to be a common water contaminant, salt.

The original author's answer to this reads: "... further experiments are needed to rule out the contamination hypothesis." and "With reference to the previous Comment and Brief Communication arising, we feel it is necessary to inform the readers that our further efforts to prepare and visualize square ice have been unsuccessful." This group indeed continued the search but did not find any hints towards square ice (for side-products, see Lehnert et al. ACS Nano 118, 7967-7973, 2017).

Nowadays, the community agrees that square ice has not been observed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.108.69.30 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Hopefully someone will review these articles and make the right edits. As you seem to be knowledgeable about this, please consider creating an account and contributing this. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

Source - Professional experience - I'm a propulsion engineer for Boeing.

Section 4.2.3: change "Jet engines do not experience carb icing, but recent evidence indicates that they can be slowed, stopped, or damaged by internal icing in certain types of atmospheric conditions much more easily than previously believed. In most cases, the engines can be quickly restarted and flights are not endangered, but research continues to determine the exact conditions which produce this type of icing, and find the best methods to prevent, or reverse it, in flight."

to: "Jet engines do not experience carb icing, however the same process that can accrete ice on the leading edge of the wing can cause ice to accrete on the leading edge of the fan inlet nacelle. If allowed to accrete, pieces of ice can be shed (either by aerodynamic loads or due to flying into warmer air), and ingested by the engine. This can cause damage to the rotating machinery (e.g. fan blades and/or compressor blades), up to the point of causing the engine to fail and require replacement. Jet engine inlets on aircraft that are certified for operation in known icing will therefore include an engine anti-ice feature (note that de-icing methods are not appropriate as they lead to intentional ice sheds which can be ingested). Modern engines generally route warm air bled from the compressor to warm the leading edge of the inlet, preventing ice from accreting in the first place, although electrically heating the nacelle lip skin is also a viable method.

Modern very-high-bypass turbofan engines may also experience ice accretion on internal stator sections within the core turbo-machinery, which can similarly cause damage to downstream stages of that turbo-machinery if/when shed. This phenomenon is sometimes called "ice crystal icing" as it theorized that the accretion is due to tiny airborne ice crystals which "stick" to internal stages of the engine as the air passes through the engine core. This tends to be a high-altitude phenomenon (e.g. at cruise altitudes for commercial passenger aircraft), as opposed to inlet icing, which tends to occur at lower altitudes where there can be significantly higher water content in the air. Various methods are used to prevent and/or shed ice crystal icing, and can involve subtle manipulations of internal engine actuators to encourage any accreted ice to shed, be extracted from the engine core and exhausted overboard via the fan bypass duct." WikiJonman (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiJonman, could you point to published sources that verify this information (preferably full citations with page numbers)? We can't cite personal knowledge. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 18:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ice XVII draft

I see a draft article about Draft:Ice XVII. Is this ready to have its own article? Can some of regular Ice editors confirm? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Change the image

The image shown in the top of the article gives the perception that ice is an exotic substance. Most people will never be able to see an ice core in Antarctica. I would recommend changing the image to something more commonly seen in everyday life, such as an ice cube or frozen lake. I accidentally removed the image when I edited it last time. Sanjay7373 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point! I agree. For an article that is layman as it comes, the picture is not layman friendly. I recommend a switch, but not to a picture of an icicle, but perhaps a block of extracted ice, cut from a frozen lake or something of that nature. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Your image is good too, and high-quality. Thank you very much. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Nah, don't thank me, thank the person who uploaded it to wikicommons. You're suggestion is great - this is an encyclopedia after all. The entry point to any article should be at ground level where everyone can see and understand what you're talking about. Only once that is established, may you expand the article into the intricate details. A picture of Antarctic ice with ancient bubbles is cool, but better off used later in the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization after colons

Mike Mounier while I agree with your correction of the use of capitals after colons in this article. Colon (punctuation)#Use of capitals suggests that authorities disagree about when it is permissible—it is not categorically incorrect. MOS:COLON is mute on the subject. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:SENTENCECAPS says, "When an independent clause ends with a dash or semicolon, the first letter of the following word should not be capitalized, even if it begins a new independent clause that could be a grammatically separate sentence: Cheese is a dairy product; bacon is not. The same usually applies after colons, although sometimes the word following a colon is capitalized, if that word effectively begins a new grammatical sentence, and especially if the colon serves to introduce more than one sentence. See WP:Manual of Style § Colons." Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

two Ice XI phases?

According to the phase diagram, there's orthorhombic Ice XI, at low temps and pressure, and hexagonal Ice XI, at high pressures. However, the table only mentions the former, and same with the article Ice XI. Is the diagram wrong, or is our coverage incomplete? — kwami (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

details

hydrogen bonding should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.148.143.149 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

Macon Ice Factory in Macon, Georgia 1877
Macon Ice Factory in Macon, Georgia 1877

The addition of the following pictures of Macon Ice Factory in Macon, Georgia under the Role in Human Activities section.Edwardsn09 (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. They're cool pictures, but the ice is not visible enough. We already have a diagram of an ice factory. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Ice Factory, Macon, GA, circa 1877

Comment on request, below

I oppose the addition of this image for three reasons:

  1. It is a stereoscopic image, so its content is diminished in order to display the same information, twice, and further diminished by the colored border around the images.
  2. It conveys little about ice or its manufacture beyond that there was once machinery to do this.
  3. WP:IMAGELOCATION favors the right side.

HopsonRoad (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Add image of ice factory on left side of Mechanical Production section. Ma'amBushey (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's a bit hard to make out what's going on in that picture, and I don't think it tells you much. If you place it on the left, you'll be creating a MOS:SANDWICH, and if you place it on the right, you'd be replacing the diagram we already have of an an ice factory there, which I disagree would be an improvement. Given the editor above seems to agree with me (and does the result of the last edit request), I think I'll just close this. Interesting picture though. Volteer1 (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Density of phases

I was interested in how dense the different phases of ice were and didn't find it in the article or external links. Google found me this link https://ergodic.ugr.es/termo/lecciones/water1.html but I haven't added it to the external links yet because I'm not sure how RS it is. RJFJR (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That looks to be material from a thermodynamics course taught at the University of Granada by Pedro L. Garcia. In my understanding that should be fine as an external link RS wise, though maybe a better solution would be to flesh out details of the existing table at Ice#Phases? For that, a better source would be needed though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

“Velocity of melting”

Velocity is a very specific thing. It is a speed and direction. As far as I know, especially in the context used here, velocity is the wrong term. It should be “speed” or even better, “rate”. Using “velocity” just sounds like trying to be scientific while being wrong.

I am going to make the edit. But I welcome discussion Jwink3101 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

missing unit of the thermal expansion coefficient

Dear friends,

The linear thermal expansion coefficient in the right panel has missing unit. The unit should be K^-1 (html: K−1). It looks like I cannot fix it.

Thanks, Jiri https://ufch.vscht.cz/research/researchgroups/statistical_thermodynamics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolafaj (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate references

Reference 15:

<ref>{{cite news |last1=Metcalfe |first1=Tom |title=Exotic crystals of 'ice 19' discovered |url=https://www.livescience.com/exotic-ice-19-discovered.html |work=Live Science |date=9 March 2021 |language=en}}</ref>

and reference 45:

<ref>Metcalfe, Tom. Exotic crystals of 'ice 19' discovered. https://www.livescience.com/exotic-ice-19-discovered.html</ref>

are duplicates.

 Done Duplicate supplanted with original. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

Change Reference #27 from "Laurua" to "Laura". The referenced author name is incorrect at present. 

Sanders, Laurua (11 September 2009). "A Very Special Snowball". Science News. Archived from the original on 14 September 2009. Retrieved 11 September 2009.

Thank you! Dripdry42 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

infobox correction

Please check the empirical thermal conductivity formula in the top infobox. In the (archived) reference given https://web.archive.org/web/20170210002542/http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/284777.pdf, page 13, the empirical formula is (lambda)Ice = 0. 0053 (1 + 0.0015 T) cal/cm sec degree, where T is in degrees C. The factor in front of T in the infobox is 0.105, not 0.0015. Thanks. 165.89.114.111 (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the advice! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ice XVII

Why don't we have ice XVII (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13394) in the list of ice phases in the "Phases" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khsacc (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Safe crossing on foot

Ice#Land travel
How thick does ice have to be for it to be savely crossed on foot? Peter Horn User talk 19:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I found this: https://windy.app/blog/safe-ice-thickness.html Peter Horn User talk 03:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Golf balls

"Stones just larger than golf ball-sized are one of the most frequently reported hail sizes.[64] "

The reference refers to severe storms in Alberta.

Plainly, much smaller hail is more commonly encountered around the world; most hail events are nothing like severe Great Plains storms.

This claim should be removed or replaced with a more representative example. 109.144.211.194 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this observation. See if this edit addresses your concern. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox changes?

There's a pretty standard infobox for minerals (see Template:Infobox mineral), which technically should probably be used here. That said, I think that getting rid of a lot of the technical information that exists in the ice infobox would probably be doing the article a substantial disservice. Would anyone object horribly to me attempting to add mineralogical properties to the infobox? I don't want to simply cram the two together as it'd end up overly long, but that would probably mean information needs to be cut from both, likely with a note that we're talking about Ice Ih. I'd at least like to add the "general" section from the mineral infobox, probably as "mineral properties", for the most part. Warrenmck (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2023

The first word of the "Physical Properties" section is currently "Salt." It should be changed to "Ice." Ccaalliimmaann (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Good eye. Closetside (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ice strength at low temperatures

The page discusses the hardness of ice at low temperatures, as seen in the quoted paragraph, but AFAICT not its mechanical strength at low temperatures:

"Because ice in natural environments is usually close to its melting temperature, its hardness shows pronounced temperature variations. At its melting point, ice has a Mohs hardness of 2 or less, but the hardness increases to about 4 at a temperature of −44 °C (−47 °F) and to 6 at a temperature of −78.5 °C (−109.3 °F), the vaporization point of solid carbon dioxide (dry ice)."

Should something about ice strength be added? If it is added to the page, I found this article, [2] ("Dynamic compressive behavior of ice at cryogenic temperatures"), which states the maximum uniaxial compressive strength as ~110-120 MPa at -125 degrees C and below compared to 32 MPa at -15 degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedantic Speaker (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

ice is not frozen water, it is a frozen liquid 109.76.98.82 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

At the top of the article it says "This article is about water ice." RudolfRed (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
sorry, didnt see that 109.76.98.82 (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Dielectric constant

We now list the dielectric constant of ice as ~3.15, with a footnote cautioning that this only applies to 1 MHz - 300 GHz. I would list the static value instead, which is around 100, depending on temperature. A huge difference!

The highly polar nature of ice is one of its distinctive features. "The" dielectric constant of a material is usually understood to be the static relative permittivity, and introductory texts rarely even mention that permittivity is frequency-dependent. Thus, many readers will gloss over or not understand the footnote, and come away thinking ice is much less polarizable than liquid water.

Details are in Relative_permittivity, especially Relative_permittivity#cite_note-21. In particular, the cited article reads: "there is an increase in the low frequency or static value, from 92 to 103, in polycrystalline ice as the temperature is reduced from 0°C. to −45°C."

Thus I would change this:

| dielectric_constant = ~3.15<ref>This applies in a range only, roughly 1 MHz to 300 GHz</ref>

to:

| dielectric_constant = ~95<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.3189/S0022143000018840|title=Dielectric Properties of Ice and Snow–a Review |year=1965 |last1=Evans |first1=S. |journal=Journal of Glaciology |volume=5 |issue=42 |pages=773–792 |s2cid=227325642 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

The next line already says that ice's properties vary substantially with temperature. As an alternative, we might consider listing both permittivity values; the high-frequency value is relevant for radioglaciology. 44a58 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Antrotherkus Talk to me! 23:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ice/Archive_1&oldid=1226614278"