Talk:Liesegang rings

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

From the article, it does not become clear whether the Liesegang rings are in fact really rings or just layers. If a layer is formed in a test tube, it looks like a ring. If a similar experiment is performed in a wide container or cup, would you really see rings or just thin layers?

That seems like an important difference to me. Johan Lont 11:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You get rings in a wide container. Think of it as a periodic function on the distance to the introduced reactant. It's not always rings,however, in some experiments spirals or, in the case of test-tubes, helixes have formed. --Gmaxwell 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The effect was named "Liesegang rings" or Liesegang's rings" after the experiments of Liesegang in the 1890s, in which a drop of silver nitrate solution was dropped onto a thin layer of gelatine containing potassium chromate on a glass plate, producing rings. The layers-in-a-test-tube manifestation of the effect was noticed later but the underlying mechanism is probably the same. Longitude2 (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ending of the article appear to be biased in favour of pushing the IDNB model as a scientifically accepted fact. Is this apparent to anyone else? Tubafil (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the web site has some older published works (in legit reviewed journals) which outline models for Liesegang pattern formation, but I cannot tell if any are the IDNB model since there isn't any detail of the model on the website. If the model is not one of the published works, perhaps it should not be referred to in the wiki article, and the link removed. There are some very nice pictures on that website, however. If the IDNB model is the same as the published works, I do not see a scientific consensus for it being the best model.134.129.87.43 (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chromate or dichromate?

Some textbooks state that Liesegang's experiments used potassium chromate, not dichromate ^[1]. Longitude2 (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Philbrick and Holmyard (1949). A Textbook of Theoretical and Inorganic Chemistry (Revised edition ed.). J. M Dent & Sons Ltd. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

[1] Philbrick and Holmyard (1949). A Textbook of Theoretical and Inorganic Chemistry (Revised edition ed.). J. M Dent & Sons Ltd. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

[1]