Talk:Liquid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Robinh

The opening paragraph defining liquid cannot be right as it would admit a gas as being a liquid (by Boyle's law).

I expect that the definition of liquid is ultimately subjective, but I would suggest, as a first draft, the following:

"a liquid is a fluid whose density is approximately independent of no compression"

This definition is not very good, because it does not define what it"approximately" means, and it does not define what pressure range should be considered (water doubles its density under a pressure of about 20000 atmosphere's). Robinh 22:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When I was young, a liquid was defined as "taking the shape of it's container but not neccessarily filling it". Looking at the web, I found this definition: "The liquid state of a material has a definite volume, but it does not have a definite shape and takes the shape of the container, unlike that of the solid state. Unlike the gas state, a liquid does not occupy the entire volume of the container if its volume is larger than the volume of the liquid." Am I too old, and the definition has changed? Esben (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrase you remember from your youth is quite good, and definitely better then the loquacious text you found right now. Your suggestion should be taken into account as soon as this page is unblocked. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is very misleading

A liquid is far more akin to a solid than to the gas that this suggests. The diagram shows the molecules of a liquid as being separate. They actually hold together at much the same separation as in a solid, and spend much of the time bound to adjacent molecules just as they would in a solid. Thermal energy breaks these bonds, and the molecules then slide past each-other until tow molecules of suitable energy and orientation rejoin. This process is at the heart of liquid viscosity. PhysicistQuery 12:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Above comment is about Image:solid liquid gas.svg, which used to be included in the article. I agree with these comments and so have removed the diagram from the article. – b_jonas 18:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Glass is supercooled

The sentence on supercooling is misleading. The following is correct.

• Glass is supercooled (At least window glass is, but some atactic polymers are not)
• Glass is not a liquid

You can combine the two above sentences to get "glass is not a supercooled liquid". However I beleive that most readers will misread it and and conclude the following "Glass is not supercooled". This conclusion is wrong

Anyway the difference between liquid and solid is in the section about the glass transition temperature.

- Yes I have a Ph.D. in glass physics.

Contributed by:Patrick Louie E.Reyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.221.142 (talk • contribs)

Please someone fix the opening paras

Opening paras have been changed recently and it doesn't read well and its full of typos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.73.186 (talk • contribs)

I did a quick sweep through, though in general I agree with the person who rated this article as "atrocious" (even though I reverted it for the bot's sake!). We'll have to give this article some serious attention, there's so much more to be covered. Thanks, Walkerma 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Image requests

The following illustrations would be helpful to illustrate some of the points made:

• A diagram of how the configuration of molecules/atoms differs for the solid, liquid, and gas phases. See Elastic collision for an animated (!) example.

made this one, contact me if it isnt correct Yupi666 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't, contacted and removed the image, see above. – b_jonas 18:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• A similar diagram could show how e.g. evaporation and freezing work (or could be added to those articles).
• A diagram showing how pressure changes with depth would be enlightening.

-- Beland 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to top. ffm ✎talk 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Expansion requests

• An explanation of what makes a fluid and a liquid different would be helpful.
• An "examples" section would be quite educational for basic readers.
• An "applications" section would be interesting, mentioning things like solvents, coolants, and lubricants.
• Solutions and colloids should be mentioned.

-- Beland 07:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to top. ffm ✎talk 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• A description of the nature of the forces between molecules in a liquid would be good. --cfp 11:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Any addition on solutions could usefully describe or explain the effects on the solvent - eg change of volume. Walter (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Editwar

I reverted user:Marie Poise, who blanked most of this article. I was patrolling recent changes and thought her(?) edits doubtful at least: a new user more or less breaching the 3RR and blanking most of the article without explanation. She has now reverted me again. Browsing through the history I find that some sort of editwar has been going on for some days now. I haven't got the time to look into the content in more detail, but it seems to me blanking most of the article can hardly be constructive. Also I see no discussion here or at the TPs of the involved users. Please give your arguments at this talk page instead of reverting each other. I have requested the intervention of an administrator [1]. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Woudloper, why do you think "blanking most of the article can hardly be constructive" ? An encyclopedia works by links. If I find long sections about colloids in an article about liquids, then I think it is indeed constructive to delete these sections, and to replace them by a link to colloid. Similarly for glass transition, and so on. A reason for not using the three-phases images was given on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Solid_liquid_gas.jpg. -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marie, thanks for your reply. I have -as of yet- no idea who is right and who is wrong here so I won't revert any further edits. When I saw your edit I couldn't discover any discussion about this disagreement. The usual places to look for it would be the talk pages of the involved users and the talk page of this article. The edit summary of the edit I reverted was empty too. There was, in general, a lack of communication, which leaves the impression of bad intent. In future, it is convenient to at least leave a message at the talk page when you discover another user doesn't agree with your edits.

I agree with you about the figure, from a chemist's point of view it is a bit misleading. However, you blanked 40 kb of information, which is quite a drastic thing to do. I would recommend you to give a point-for-point summary of what you removed and why below. In that way you give your opponent a clear overview why you disagree with his edits. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well: Old version was written like a historic review: Eyring considered, Lennard-Jones used, Mott criticised, and so on. While every single sentence may be correct, the narrative as a whole is theory finding: a historical theory about the evolution of ideas.

And I repeat: much of the material had only weak connection to the lemma "liquid". We have the wonderful tool called "link". Just put a link to colloid, to glass transition, and explain the connection in a few sentences; do not blow up contents by duplicating material that better fits elsewhere.

Finally: The length of the old material obscures the fact that the article still has huge gaps. For instance, under the heading "Structure of liquids" the old version talks about crystal defects, about phase transitions, about specific heat, but not about what you expect under the heading, namely static structure factor, coordination number, hydrogen bonding &c. Unless ill-placed material is kept away, there is little chance that anybody will provide the lacking content. -- Marie Poise (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to add your contributions to the section I have created on the structure of liquids, which is all based on classical well estblished literature and references by the most respected authors in the field. But to simply remove it all using a blanket revert simply because you feel that is incomplete is hardly what I would consider constructive -- especially with no suggestions of your thoughts or intentions on the discussion page. -- logger9 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No. You cannot build an encyclopedic text by just adding, adding, adding. Sometimes you also have to restructure, to sort, to sort out. That you are refering to classical authors is not to the point. Your chain of references effectively constructs a historical theory. We need not even discuss whether its right or wrong - there is a rule against theory finding.

And I did not say I removed it simply because of incompleteness. I gave several other reasons. Please be precise in your arguments. -- Marie Poise (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the micrographs of colloids are used here simply as an illustration. There is no discussion here of colloidal phenomena, and as such it is not practical to suggest that it be transferred to the Wiki page on colloids. -- logger9 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Illustrating liquids by colloids is at least misleading. -- Marie Poise (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally, the material on the liquid-glass transition is completely appropriate here, since glass is one of the basic states of condensed matter, and is considered by many to exist as a supercooled liquid. In this context, there is much to be learned about the fundamental physics of liquids by approaching the structure and dynamics from the standpoint of glass science. -- logger9 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Is considered by many" is an invalid argument. The glass state is separated from the supercooled liquid state by the glass transition. Hence a glass is not a liquid, and a liquid is not a glass. -- Marie Poise (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can see that there is little point of having a constructive discussion here. That was my suspicion with the blanket reverts. I have been through this drill before -- but this time I will opt out of the days (and even weeks) of endless pages of energy draining convincing. You know where I stand. -- logger9 (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean: you wait until the page is unblocked, you hope that I will have lost interest by then, and then you will calmly revert to your last version, destroying whatever I edited since then ? -- Moderators, please help: how to proceed in such a situation ?? -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All right then. Let's break this down section by section. There is no need for blanket reversions by either one of you. Let's start with this revision of the article. Marie, could you please explain what you feel is wrong with the Introduction section? I agree that it does need some rewording, but what specifically is so wrong with it that it needs to be removed in totality? NW (Talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"It may be helpful to note here ... " - the very first words are prime example for the overly verbous style that makes this text annoying to read.

"that the solid state of matter ... " - three sentences off topic before liquids reappear.

"... its ability to withstand a load without showing ..." - sentence 3 is just a rephrasing of sentence 1.

"This contrasts with liquids or fluids ... " Liquids or fluids ? I.e. excluding or including gases ? Don't leave the decision to the reader.

"zero static shear modulus due to their atomic and/or molecular mobility, and thus exhibit the capacity not only for microscopic rearrangements in structure, but for macroscopic viscous flow." - To summarize: atoms are mobile > zero static shear modulus > macroscopic viscous flow. Why not conclude directly: atoms are mobile > the liquid flows ? Elastic moduli are highly abstract concepts, unfamiliar to most readers - and at this point, you just don't need them.

"The branch of physics that deals with both liquids and solids is called condensed matter physics." - In my most recent version, this is said so: "Therefore, liquid and solid matter are jointly designated as condensed matter."

Well, that's basically my objections to paragraph 1. You cannot really expect me to analyse the remaining 39 k in the same way - the outcome would be similar: it is all an unstructured, loquacious, half-true narrative of the development of certain theoretical ideas at the fringe of liquid physics.

Now for something more fundamental. You are questioning me about my blanket removal. Why has nobody questioned my opponent about his blanket insertion ? Is it easier to get text into wikipedia than to get it out ? That would be a quite dangerous asymmetry. Wikipedia would soon become an unmanageable collection of personal essays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Poise (talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything you just mentioned is fixed by editing those specific phrases. You are quibbling about wording of a who phrases. Blanket removals are wholly unnecessary. Trim it down line by line by editing if you wish, but don't just remove it. WP:PRESERVE explains it far better than I can. NW (Talk) 20:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"wording of a who phrases" - sorry, I don't understand that dialect. Could you please restate your argument in plain simple English ? -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My mistake; I was a bit distracted while writing that. I have stricken that line, but the rest still applies. NW (Talk) 20:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would begin by referring to an above post which is quite pertinent to the current criticisms. Note that the author (a physicist) states that: "A liquid is far more akin to a solid than to the gas....The molecules of a liquid....actually hold together at much the same separation as in a solid, and spend much of the time bound to adjacent molecules just as they would in a solid. Thermal energy breaks these bonds, and the molecules then slide past each-other until two molecules of suitable energy and orientation rejoin. This process is at the heart of liquid viscosity." This is very similar to the arguments I present in terms of the elastic moduli, and lies at the very heart of much of the most well-respected and repeatedly cited literature on liquid physics. -- logger9 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You state very harshly that: "You cannot really expect me to analyse the remaining 39 k in the same way - the outcome would be similar: it is all an unstructured, loquacious, half-true narrative of the development of certain theoretical ideas at the fringe of liquid physics." Since it is all carefully referenced, the only practical conclusion I can draw from your statement is that you simply do not understand it. -- logger9 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NW and logger9, I looked a little bit into your edit history. Seems you are good friends, NW helping out whenever logger9's prosa is criticised. I am a little bit upset because my first impression had been that NW was introducing himself as a neutral moderator.

Well then, let me play a bit moderator myself and make you a proposal: why not move logger9's text to a more special article, say defect theory of liquid structure ? -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, there is no need to get personal. I assume both of you understand the subject well, better than I do. I do share Marie's opinion that Logger's version is rather verbous. It can be trimmed down imho, even without loosing meaning (as opposed to simply removing sections, which I find non-constructive). @logger9: it would be a good idea to place inline citations next time you add content, so that we can better appreciate the way your edits are referenced. To do so, try to place footnotes between <ref>...</ref>-tags. Kind regards, Woodwalker (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight; I just want to see core articles like this one improve. The reason I ran into this debate at all was because I had assisted logger9 with a fairly complicated copyright situation several months ago, and have kept an eye on his contributions. However, it is always best of a moderator is respected by both sides. I shall bow out for now and let Woudloper take over, but shall continue watching this page to see if there is anything I can do to help. NW (Talk) 20:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, just have a look at the references in [2]: it's not only largely off-topic, it's also hopelessly outdated: mostly from the 1930's to 50's. Nobody will be willing to go through that. If the defect theory has any relevance for our understanding of liquids, then it would be more convincing to cite just one contemporary review article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Poise (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to take a whack at it in order to trim it down a bit. Just put it back up, say the word, and I will begin. (This is a fairly good time for me w/r/to my teaching responsibilities). -- logger9 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Put it back up" ? You seriously propose to revert my edits - the concise opening paragraph, the sorting of mechanical and thermodynamic properties ? And you want to restore your 40 k before structuring and condensing them ? And what about the two figures: Solid_liquid_gas.jpg that gives a wrong idea of liquid density ? The colloid figure ? You are kidding, I hope ? -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Marie, quit taking things personally. All editors, please couch your comments of this article in terms of what reliable sources have to say, not basing things on your own knowledge. tedder (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, excusez-moi .. if I would write in my native language I would certainly express myself more politely .. please attribute it to the unidimensionality of my English - just good enough for scientific prose - that my comments sound so harsh. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I sound a bit that way too, because of my personality. Carry on, and couch your discussion about editing the article in terms of WP:V and WP:RS please. I'll go back to adminly lurking. tedder (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

@Marie Poise: Are you French? If I translate your last comment (20:53) into French, it sounds indeed ironic instead of aggressive to me. Please be aware that English doesn't work that way. ;-) It's better to remain as polite and non-personal as possible else you may attack or insult people without knowing. Woodwalker (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above, it seems to me as stupid as any troll forum discussion. We are generating entropy by talking about the way we are talking to each other, but we are not making the least progress in assessing whether or not the 40 k inserted by Logger9 are pertinent to the lemma 'liquid' or not. I once again appeal to experienced moderators: please do not try to resolve this case by purely formal means, invoking this or that policy. Please show us a way to obtain the advice of scientifically trained physicists and chemists who are willing to assess the contents, not the edit history. -- 129.187.179.90 (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC) [Marie Poise, currently visiting TU München]

Okay, let's start by discussing function and structure then, before we discuss exact content. When I compare the current version with that of logger9, the first difference I notice is the insertion of a section called "introduction". We should discuss the function of that section and its paragraphs and try to assess if this function is necessary to describe the subject "liquids". Perhaps logger9 can tell us the function/goals he had in mind for that section? Woodwalker (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Coureur des bois, before entering such a discussion we should talk about plan B: what if we fail once again to reach agreement ? Aren't there other ways of resolving such issues ? Couldn't we organise kind of a peer review, asking reputable physics and chemistry contributors to assess the figures and the text we are talking about ? -- 129.187.179.90 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC) [sorry, I won't log in here - Marie]

Peer review of Wikipedia articles by external reviewers has been done before and can be very useful, but such reviews were usually done when an article was undisputed by the community. Note however, that Wikipedia content cannot be based on personal communication with experts. With articles about natural sciences (like this one), it has to be referenced with neutral scientific literature and reflect the consensus in that literature (it should be balanced). If possible, primary sources should be used, and the sources should be as recent as possible to prevent the information from being outdated.

I haven't lost hope that we can reach some agreement. When no consensus exists for certain sections, I normally take the stance that the writer has to convince the community of the value of his contributions. However, at the moment it isn't clear to me (in detail) what is disputed and what isn't. So for now I would propose to wait for logger9 to react on my question above (12:50). Woodwalker (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Introduction

The first paragraph addresses the subject of atomic or molecular mobility. The second paragraph focuses on the subject of atomic vibrations, which is one degree of freedom shared only liquids and solids (both glassy and crystalline). This is the primary manifestation of thermal energy, or heat, in condensed matter. Since both liquids and gases behave as fluids, that characteristic is approached briefly in the third paragraph. Translational motion is described in the fourth paragraph, which could be shortened or condensed into the discussion in paragraph one if necessary. The glassy state of matter is introduced in paragraph five. And finally, the primary structural features of liquids are introduced in paragraph six, as observed in a number of cases experimentally, and described in detail in the literature by those subscribing to the defect theory of liquid structure. Within this context, ordered domains exhibiting a limited degree of short-range order (SRO) would appear to the be the primary substructural features of both liquids and solids -- both crystalline and glassy. -- logger9 (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

The main theme of logger9's proposed introduction is: microscopic explanation for certain physical properties of liquids. This should certainly be covererd in a 'liquid' article, but we must keep in mind that chemistry, hydrodynamics, thermodynamics (miscibility, phase transitions) are not less important aspects of liquids. Therefore

• the proposed text is not suitable as an introduction

No foul. I accept this suggestion, as long as the the bulk of the section is included elsewhere. -- logger9 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• the length of the proposed text is out of proportion

I have already agreed to combine two of the paragraphs into one. That should suffice. -- logger9 (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not in my view. Out of proportion means: text should be reduced by perhaps 80%, not by 10%. Which is easily possible by using the wunderful instrument of links. -- 89.55.218.130 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, your request is competely unreasonable. A reduction in length of ~ 20% should suffice in this case. This is valuable material which is totally applicable to the subject matter. If your concern is simply space saving, then it is not a valid Wiki request. -- logger9 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not just about length for length's sake. It's about keeping WP manageable and readable. It's better to explain the glass transition in one article than in two or three or more. Links are at the core of WP. And it's about editability and discussibility: by inserting 40k en bloc, you make it exceedingly difficult to collaborate. -- Marie Poise (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with collaboration -- with editors who are willing to collobarate constuctively. Unfortunaly, your particular style has been quite consistent -- blanket deletion. That is not conducive whatsoever to a joint effort. You must learn to work together. Try working with what is here already - and makaing contributions where needed -- rather than insisting that it all simply go away. -- logger9 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• the use of an unsuitable figure, that illustrates a solid by a single molecule and a liquid as a dense gas

While the limitations of this figure are quite clear, so are its merits. A picture speaks for a thousand words. When a better figure is proposed, then we shoud consider replacing the surrent version. Until then, it is QUITE valuable for all intents and purposes. -- logger9 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

available from WP:de http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Teilchenmodell_Fluessigkeit.svg&filetimestamp=20080420164027

That's a great figure for depicting the liquid state of matter. But I still don't see a good reason for eliminating the first figure. I would recommend that they both be included, with proper explanations. That would give the best "big picture". -- logger9 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What's this discussion good for if you don't enter my arguments? Two reasons for not using the three-states figure were given above. Contest them, if you want, but do not just say "I still don't see a good reason". -- Marie Poise (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And how shall we ever reach an agreement if you don't stand by your words. You said you would consider replacing the three-states figure by a better one if one were proposed. So I proposed one. Now you acknowledge that my proposal is good, and you still insist on the other figure. -- Marie Poise (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, my reasons are quite clear. The other figure provides extremely helpful information which is not provided by the figure which you propose.

And what is wrong with having more than one figure ? Why are you so insistent on deleting eveything ? It would be helpful for the reader to distinguish the liquid state from the gaseous or solid states-- at the molecular level. This is a key, which is amply described by the figure, and serves quite well to augment the arguments provided. -- logger9 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The solid part shows a single molecule. The liquid part shows a dense gas. The figure is just wrong. Not oversimplifying, but wrong. -- Marie Poise (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The only defect in the figure is that it does not show the bonds between the liquid molecules. That is an issue which could easily be resolved within the text of the article. Other than that small disrepancy, the figure has a GREAT DEAL to offer. -- logger9 (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore I object

• lengthy explanations of solid, glass, gas that should replaced by a link and a short statement of what is different in the liquid

• the summary logger9 has kindly provided above confirms my perception that the proposed text is missing a stringent line of argumentation.

The material could be rearranged e.g. as follows:

• delimitation liquid vs solid, vs gas -> to the top of the article, as in the present revision.
• delimitation liquid vs glass -> in thermodynamics section, when discussing supercooling. Plus a backreference when discussion the T dependence of viscosity.
• thermal vibrations -> explain only what is specific for liquids. Do so in a paragraph or a short subsection on the specific heat of liquids. When you want to expand on that, move the more specific material to an article specific heat of amorphous matter.
• short-range order -> move to section "microscopic structure of liquids". -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding

The remainder of the bulk of the article: We will take that one step at a time. -- logger9 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fluid particle model, I uploaded this picture to commons from wiki-de. It is now available here too. Woodwalker (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

@Marie Poise: can you agree if this introductory paragraph would be rewritten to/included in a paragraph "molecular background" (currently there is "Microscopic structure of liquids" - a bit long for a title imho)? For comparison, the differences with solids, glass, etc can perhaps be tackled - in a short way. Perhaps you can write a proposal along the lines you set out above? Woodwalker (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Waldlaufer, that's way too complicated, compared to normal editing in article space. We need to find a path back to normal operation. Which requires an agreement with logger9. Which we sooner or later need anyway.

In my view the problem is with bulk insertions of specialised material into a high-level-overview article. If 40k are inserted at once, it's almost impossible to discuss and edit them.

Woudloper, Logger9, I would like to suggest the following:

• All editors of this article agree to limit their insertions to, say, 1k per diem. This gives others time and opportunity to react, to comment, to improve.
• Specialised material of unlimited length may be inserted into sub-lemmas like Specific heat of liquids, Defect theory of liquids, ...

-- Marie Poise (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a decent proposal, but I personally don't intend to edit anyway. 1k is really little, about five consecutive sentences per day would be more workable. Woodwalker (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC) (PS: shouldn't that be "Waldläufer"?)

At a rate of 1 K per diem, with 40 K of material to get through, and all this time we spend arguing, we wil likely be here for the next 2 - 3 months. I personally do not have that kind of time to spend editing one single Wiki article. I think that intervals of 5 K would be far more practical.

Another option would be for me to re-open my version on a practice page and we could hack away at it from there until we approach some form of concensus. That's the way it has been handled (successfully) in the past. I have set up such a site at User:Logger9/Liquid. If you can unlock the article, then I will go ahead with a copy and paste, and start editing it down. -- logger9 (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Logger9, nice to see we are converging at least on the level of procedure. Could we possibly agree on no more than 5k addition or deletion per day and per party, restricted to Monday to Friday to leave us two days per week to take a little distance ? If you are ok, we should then ask our moderator to lift the edit ban. -- Marie Poise (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I will agree -- as long as we begin by posting the original version of October 22. I will also make it known upfront that I often do Wiki work on weekends. That being said, let the "liquid" games begin ! -- logger9 (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why go back to Oct 22 ? In what respect is that variant superior to the present one ? -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you do not see this as a two way street. You always feel that any and all of your edits simply go without saying. If none of my recent edits are to be be allowed upfront, than neither should yours. What makes you feel so incredibly special?

The only reason that the current version exists is because it just happened to be the one that you had reverted to when the block was enforced, and the warnings were issued. It in NO WAY represents any form of consensus -- as stated clearly in the Wiki tag. -- logger9 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"You always feel that any and all of your edits simply go without saying." - Plain wrong. I just invited you to say what does not go in my edits. -- Marie Poise (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I will edit yours, just as you will edit mine -- when we start from scratch. Or maybe we should simply start by posting my most recent version, eh ? -- logger9 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would not be a good idea to be working on two versions at the same time. Having a version in one's user space is better imho, because in that way the current article will never be a disputed version. Provided, of course, that both of you can edit at that place (but not more than about 5k per day). The version under work would, at first, best be logger9's disputed version. When agreement is reached on the version in logger9's user space, it can replace the article. Woodwalker (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this approach -- especially as it has worked well in the past, and seems to be the standard protocol and recommendation from more experienced Wiki editors. -- logger9 (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would place my most recent version at this site for me, then I will add the new figure, and try to start editing it down this weekend. Thanks ! -- logger9 (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No way. We have to start from a short version, whether the current one or the October 22 edition. If we start from a 50 k version, the 5k increment restriction won't help, we will be in the same mess as before. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But there is dispute - so why not let that become apparent in article space. That's our only chance to attract other editors, who hopefully will then help us to resolve whatever conflicts are still to arise. If we work on a user page, nobody will take notice of it, and nobody will help out.

So as a sign of good will, I agree with Logger9's request to start from the October 22 version, even though no material reason was given why that version is better than the present one. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We are now stuck for over a weak. Instead of responding here, Logger9 went on to work on other articles. Since he basically agreed that further editing should be made in manageable steps of no more than 5k/d, I suggest that this article should be unprotected. -- Marie Poise (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, logger9 reduced his own version in his user space as agreed above, see here. I believe it would be best if you now comment on his work constructively here or there. Having two versions under construction at the same time is probably not a good idea.

I like Logger9's idea to involve other users with expertise in physics/thermodynamics/physical chemistry in this discussion, and think now would be the time for doing so. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Logger9/Liquid is no good base for improving this article. I will not go into any detail because everything has been said before: unencyclopedic, verbous, condescending, giving unappropriate weight to fringe topics.

I recall that Logger9 has agreed to limit his contributions to this article to 5k/d. Arguments for this limitation have been given above. -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Towards unprotection

To get this article unprotected, we need to collect opinions: do you prefer the current version Liquid, or the sandbox version User:Logger9/Liquid as starting point for further editing ? -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no stake in this conflict, but from reading the entirety of the current version, and the first few section of logger9 (~ same amount of actual text), there is no doubt that the current version is much superior. Logger9's version is close to incomprehensible, and is much too long-winded and convoluted for its own good. The current version is a bit sketchy in places, though, so perhaps some of the details in logger9's article could be merged into the current version. (It might be good to know that I hold a very minor degree in chemistry, so I am not really a layman and certainly not an expert) Esben (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Esben. I don't think we need to choose immediately between the two versions. Wikipedia isn't written in a single day or even month. Imho there are now two ways to approach the situation: either Marie Poise and other interested users will try to get logger9's sandbox version better, or we have to identify which parts are superior in logger9's version and add these (one by one) to the current article. The second approach is more realistic, I believe. Woodwalker (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, going by the second method, I would incorporate the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the properties with perhaps a little cleanup using the same header. The 1st paragraph could be used as inspiration for the introduction paragraph, but is too confused as it stands. The rest of the article seems to be very hard to salvage, being more of a historic treatment of the ideas surrounding liquid than about liquids themselves. Same disclaimer as above applies to all of this. If the article is unlocked, I could take it upon me to do the merging I suggest above, being a somewhat neutral party. If you don't want me to, that's great too. Esben (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If the others agree, I'd naturally do so too. Woodwalker (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction. These ideas represent the development of the modern understanding of the liquid state. You cannot possibly discredit a work because it was completed before you were born. -- logger9 (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not discredit the history developments, I simply find them irrelevant, except to historians. The Wikipedia articles are not, in general, written for historians, but for people seeking current information about subject matters. I see now that the original, quite decent material has been overwritten by the much worse material from logger9. I have no personal stake in this, but I bemoan the fact that Wikipedia is now a little worse for it's intended purpose, and I bemoan the fact that despite apparent agreement on how to proceed, some hotshot just did the the opposite of what was agreed. Sad indeed. In any case, I will not have part in this massacre. Esben (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the unprotection came too early, and Logger9 abused of it in the worst possible way. This affair shows that Wikipedia has a deeply rooted quality problem. I foresee an endless repetition of talk page arguments; I foresee counterproductive interventions by complete outsiders who just get attracted by the smell of censorship; yet I will go through it. I owe so much to Wikipedia, it assisted me so well in recent health troubles, that I want to give something back. I am ready to through this even if it will cost me months. We finally need to find ways of stopping this kind of content insertion vandalism. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The current version should be expanded. The version of logger9 should not be used as it is poorly written and verbose. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

First off, I want to say that I am not taking sides here. I have read the entirity of the discussion about this article, as well as Logger9's sandbox version. I appreciate what Logger9 has done , creating a highly informational sandbox version of an article, but as it stands, it is incomprehensible to the average reader. An encyclopedia is meant to be a reference source that explains subjects in an effective but comprehensible manner. I give Logger9 credit for one of the two: effectiveness. If his version could be organized a bit better, and the technical terminology replaced with easier-to-comprehend vocabulary, I would support it. However, as the two versions stand, I prefer the article, not Logger9's version. Mego (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reprotected

Seeing as the edit war continued exactly where it was stopped with the previous protection, I have re-protected, this time indefinitely. I will not be unprotecting until there is a clear consensus on this page, or all editors agree to cease edit warring. Kevin (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Kevin, for intervening so quickly. Page protection was inevitable. It is, however, not a long-term solution, given the importance of the lemma. On the other hand, given past history, it is sure that there will be never agreement with Logger9. How shall we proceed ? -- Marie Poise (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As a start, do you see any parts of logger's version that you feel are useful? Kevin (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See above comment by Esben: very few parts, and not without reworking them.

But let me ask you back: As a start for what ? -- Marie Poise (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As a start to determining the best way to move forward. Kevin (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This determination should take into account past experiences with Logger9. Numerous friendly people have tried to help him to become a useful contributor, but he falls back again and again into his bad habits: unencyclopedic writing, ignoring discussions, bulk insertion of off-topic material, attacking opponents as ignorant &c. It feels like an endless loop. And of course, he has perfectly understood the weak points of WP, and he plays with it. When he gets too much opposition at one page, he moves to another one. Recently, for instance, he tried to insert material that had been rejected here into the article solution. -- Marie Poise (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, everybody. I just stumbled by this little edit war, and would like to make a few suggestions. As this article stands, it's a jumbled mess. I believe that Marie is correct, in that some semblance of encyclopedic structure needs to be used in this article. I have great respect for Logger9's expertize in these subjects that so greatly interest me, and his willingness to back everything up with a source. However, to Logger9, I think a liitle guidance may be helpful in composing a proper encyclopedia structure. Encyclopedic writing is not like scientific writing.

To make it simple, an encyclopedia needs to be written in a journalistic format. The most important information is delivered as quickly as possible, in the first few sentences. This is done using the fewest amount of words possible, and should written so even a child can make snese of it, (at a 6th grade level). We call this the "lede," and the only purpose of the lede is to answer the question, "What is a liquid?" It should be no more than a paragraph or two.

On a subject such as this, an "intro" section would be appropriate. This is just an expanded lede. This may seem a bit redundant, but is actually extremely useful. Some people coming to this article will know absolutely nothing about science, and don't want the feeling of being thrown into a college level class head first. The intro should be written at about a 10th grade level, explaining the scientific aspects in the simplest of terms. (Imagine you're teaching a 10th grade science class. How would you explain it to them?)

Then, the following sections should get into college level explanations. It is perfectly acceptable to describe well established theories, and the histories behind those theories, but be careful to make it brief. The article is meant to answer the question of what a liquid is, and should not stray into the History of liquid theory. Also, when giving theory, realize that a scientific theory is really just a very well thought opinion, and should be attributed to its source. Under no circumstances should we combine theories in a way that might lead the reader to a third conclusion, unintended by the original sources. Nor should we give the impression that any theory is somehow absolute truth.

Also, you will find that most readers want information to be in its correct place. I have seen instances in the past where information was copied and pasted directly from one article to the next. This sort of redundency is usually unnecessary. It's better to add a link to the article where the info is most relevant. And, it is also very distasteful in writing to copy, even from oneself. If it is absolutely necessary to have the same info in multiple articles, then the writing should still be original. The goal is to make articles succinct ... to fulfill the readers curiosity about a subject and only that subject, but to link to any related subject that may further the reader's knowledge. By using this format, it helps satisfy everyone's curiosity before they become bored and move on.

To Marie, I'm glad you explained that English is not your first language, because at first I did think the tone was a little harsh, but now it makes sense. I think Logger9 has some very useful contributions to make, so I'd love to see a discussion on how to incorporate them into appropriate places. I'm fascinated by the science, and would love it if we all could work together to make it understandable to all. (I'm sure you both are far more knowledible than I am.) To everybody, please use your edit summaries! There are many people watching, and edit summaries save us all alot of time. Zaereth (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The extensive, careful and conciliatory remarks above are commendable. I suggest that a way forward would be for logger9 to refrain from editing the article for, say, one month and Marie Poise and others improve the present version. At the end of that time the WP community can decide which, if any, version is preferable. This is first time that I have involved myself in logger9's editing activities but I have been observing them with concern for a while. This is not the first time that logger9 has been involved in edit wars and I endorse the concerns that Marie Poise expresses about his previous behaviour. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

After the editwar we just had, I agree with the protection. In favour of logger9, I have to say that he wrote me an email in which he asked me if he could restore his version yesterday. I wrote him that was not what we agreed, yet my email probably came too late. I don't want the role of an arbiter in this conflict and was just trying to help. The right place for his request would have been here, at the TP.

I'd like to recommend logger9 to read the clear explanation by Zaereth. Logger9s current version doesn't meet the rules for clear encyclopaedic writing imho. However, logger9s version doesn't meet the rules for scientific writing either. Unlike what Zaereth suggests, scientific writing requires also that the most important information is delivered as quickly as possible, in the first few sentences and that this is done using the fewest amount of words possible. If logger9 is doing research in real life, he should know the rules of scientific writing. Obviously he doesn't, which I find odd considering his expertise.

In contrast with some of the reactions above, I believe there could in theory be some room for historical information in this article too. However, it should be short and to the point. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to invite Logger9 on his talk page to respond to the above suggestions:

Logger9, after your last interventions the article Liquid had to be protected again. At Talk:Liquid, several users have expressed opinions on how to proceed. I would like to invite you to explain your view, not on the content of the article, but on possible ways to get it unprotected and to avoid further edit warring. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede

Just to get the ball rolling here, I'll start with the definition of aliquid: "The state of matter in which a substance exhibits a characteristic readiness to flow, little or no tendency to disperse, and relatively high incompressibility." That to me seems to readily cover it, but is still a little advanced for the lede. The lede we have reads as follows:

A liquid is one of three classical states of matter, the other two being solid and gas.

The density of a liquid is typically of the same order as of the corresponding solid, and much higher than in the gas. Therefore, liquid and solid matter are jointly designated as condensed matter. On the other hand, a liquid shares with a gas the ability to flow. Therefore, liquids and gases are also called fluids.

Now, our lede does not define liquid even as concisely as the dictionary, so I might recommend making some changes like:

Liquid is one of the four states of matter, which exhibits both the ability to flow, like a gas, and resistance to compression, like a solid. Unlike a gas, a liquid will not readily disperse, and maintains a fairly constant density. Unlike a solid, a liquid does not display rigidity. Of the four states of matter, a liquid is the only one that displays the property of wetness.

The density of a liquid is usually close to that of a solid, and much higher than in a gas. Therefore, liquid and solid matter are both condensed matter. On the other hand, a liquid shares with a gas the ability to flow. Therefore, liquids and gases are also called fluids.

To the best of my understanding, I believe that defines a liquid in sufficient detail for the lede. Does that look good to anyone else. Feel free to make correction if my understanding is faulty. Zaereth (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good proposal. I'd link "fluid" and replace "very" (2nd paragraph, first sentence) by "usually". Woodwalker (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good proposal. I would only insist on referring to the classical states of matter, because in the context of modern liquid physics many other interesting states appear (glass, liquid crystal, liquid membranes, emulsions, ...). -- Marie Poise (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

However, I find it highly inefficient to discuss such changes here. Would be much easier to edit the article. Note: we do not have a problem with the article. We have a problem with one disruptive editor, and to get the article unprotected, we need to find a way to deal with him. -- Marie Poise (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to throw mud or start a crusade. If logger9 keeps editwarring he will no doubt eventually be banned. There is no reason for haste either, Wikipedia isn't written in a day. The talk page is meant exactly for discussions like this. Woodwalker (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping to teach by example here, and in that way, to improve efficiency. If Logger9 is reading this, I'd like to show him how simplistic the lede should be, and I certainly would appreciate input from him. To Marie, by "classical states," do you mean we should omit plasma and only mention the other three? I have made the changes recommended by Woodwalker, but if you see something else, go ahead and change it. If we show that we can work together here it'll be a big step towards unblocking. Zaereth (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll better paste the next version here, in order to keep the discussion legible:

Liquid is one of the three classical states of matter. Like a gas, it is able to flow; like a solid, it resists to compression. Unlike a gas, a liquid will not readily disperse, and maintains a fairly constant density. Unlike a solid, a liquid does not display rigidity. The liquid state is the only one that displays the property of wetness.

The density of a liquid is usually close to that of a solid, and much higher than in a gas. Therefore, liquid and solid are both embraced by the term condensed matter. On the other hand, as liquids and gases share the ability to flow, they are both called fluids.

-- Marie Poise (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That mostly works for me, but there are a few grammatical errors. The second sentence has a bit of a choppy rhythm for English. Also, in English, it is incorrect to add the preposition "to" after the verb "resists." I would change it to "Like a gas, it is able to flow, but, like a solid, it resists compression." The word "but" helps denote to readers immediately that a difference exists, and helps eliminate the feel of a group of incomplete sentences. Zaereth (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While the above paragraph is very good, the link for flow is terrible.. it links to fluid dynamics, which is anything but brief or accessible, and perhaps not a very good target for that link. And the "resist compression" is also a bit hard to understand. Finally I find it a bit weird that one of the properties I find most defining for liquid, in that it doesn't fill a vessel though it does take its shape, is not mentioned. How about moving most the information to the introduction paragraph, and write something like

Liquid is one of the three classical states of matter. Like a gas, it takes the shape of it's container by flowing, but unlike a gas it does not always fill a container. Compared to a solid, it resists compression but unlike a solid it does not break.

Or something like that. The important bit is the "fits, but does not fill a container" and "resist compression but does not break". Feel free to ignore me if I am speaking nonsense. Esben (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we're heading in the right direction. While the lede should be as short as possible, it should be fairly comprehensive. I think properties such as wetness and resistance to dispersion (cohesion, I think) are also important. Plus, not all solids deform by fracture (breaking). Perhaps there is a way to combine these suggestions to give a very concise definition. Sorry about the links, for I really didn't check them thoroughly, as we're still constructing this on talk. Technically, the lede is not the best place for links. Zaereth (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am delighted to read your proposals and to learn some finer points of English style and grammar. In my view, no urgent need to say more about this lede, given the huge number of other physical chemistry articles that are in a much worse state. -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome. Ok, how about something like this:

Liquid is one of the three classical states of matter. Like a gas, it is able to flow and take the shape of a container, but, like a solid, it resists compression. Unlike a gas, a liquid does not always fill every space of a container, will not readily disperse, and maintains a fairly constant density. Unlike a solid, a liquid does not display rigidity. The liquid state is the only one that displays the property of wetness.

The density of a liquid is usually close to that of a solid, and much higher than in a gas. Therefore, liquid and solid are both termed condensed matter. On the other hand, as liquids and gases share the ability to flow, they are both called fluids.

Does that seem to cover it? Keep in mind that the intoduction section, which should be composed next, will cover all of this in much greater detail, and should really be the place where the links are included. Zaereth (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In Defense of the Realm

I would like to point out simply that Paula Pilcher or Maria Poise (or whatever name she chooses to be this month) had never even seen this article (nor any of the others she has tried to contribute to) until I tried to make something out of it by adding a fully referenced section on the Theory of the Liquid State.

Her pattern on Wikipedia is to follow me wherever I go, trash my work (which is largely acceptable to everyone until she shows up), using a blanket deletion mode, then try to make make something completely different out of the article while creating an edit war -- which attracts massive attention. And when I try to make sure that my work is included, I automatically become the bad guy.

She insults me continuously on all sorts of personal levels. Her attacks are continuously obssessive, aggressive, and highly destructive. None of her actions have been appropriate in this context. Just look at what she has published about me personally on Paula Pilcher user page. And somehow, still, she manages to gain the sympathy of those around her.

She knows no limits, and her technical experise is questionable at best. At one point, she was insisting in putting pictures of peanut butter on a page about the glass transition. I put up with the peanut butter for awhile (as did other polite editors) trying not to hurt her feelings, as she seems to be quite volatile. Her rude behavior has been dismised by others as being due the fact that she knows English only as a second language. What does htat have to do with anything ? A personal insult in exaclty that-- and it has no place in the educational arena -- anywhere.

I have never, ever, rejected ANY of her work. And yet her classcal motif is to simply blanket delete ALL of my work. She follows the blanket deletions up by bringing in a hoard of sympathetic administrators -- none of whom would ever be able to read the theoretical contributions without a sufficient background in the subject matter. Then she dismisses my work in its entirety as "scientific blunder" (amongst a text full of other insulting adjectives) and continues with the identical pattern of her "Anti-logger crusade" on the next page that I try to contribute to. I taught envrionemtal science recently. And to to be quite frank, she behaves as a parasite in the classical sense of the word.

I fully support what you are all doing here. But the simple fact is that this could have all been done without an edit war or any adnministrative intervention. All you have to do is come contribute. That's what this site is all about. My work could easily be included -- and edited-- below all the other material on a section for Theory of the Liquid State -- which by the way, is exactly what it is. It has nothing do do with history. Scientific advances are not classified historically. We don't look at a Periodic Table and talk about it as the history of chemistry. That is absurd.

When it is contually accepted and published, its history is assumed. Any real scientist would know that. Scientific theory becomes valid when it is supported by sufficient experimental evidence. If you read my work, will find the evidence there. If you wish to dismiss it beacause it is not accessible to an eight grader (or to Paula Pilcher, for that matter) then you had better go ahead and lay waste to the majority of your articles in science -- many of which I cannot even understand.

I am here to contribute on that level. And I have been happy to include readable introductory sections on all of the some 15 articles that I have been a major contributor on Wikipedia. My record stands for itself. And when are all are done here, I would like to add my work on the Theory of Liquids -- which by the way was not my idea. It was suggested me by readers of the articles on glass, who felt that the article on liquids desperately needed work the theoretecal side -- and I finally got around to it.

In the meantime, I wish you all the best -- and always have. I am a creator of ideas -- not a destroyer of them. I believe strongly in the concept of scientific education. In fact, I have dedicate my life to it. (See my educational website on my domwain @ www.wavewsignal.com). I have found Wikipedia to be an incredible resource on my classroom. Beginning this year, I have tried my hardest to make my most quality contributions on your webite. Please don't let Paula Pilcher destroy that.

You are all doing some excellent work here, and I strongly support anything that can be added constructively to the article. I never have never indicated anything different. -- logger9 (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that logger9 feels himself to be in the situation described above. Unfortunately the responsibility is his. It has been made clear to him by several editors before that many of his contributions fail to reach the standards acceptable for Wikipedia. The poorly written and spelt text above is indicative. Instead of learning from this disinterested advice he disregards it and attempts to get his way by gaming the system. My suggestion for logger9 is that before he edits in Wikipedia again he publish a dozen or so research papers on these subjects in the mainstream scientific literature. The experience gained by interacting with co-authors, referees and editors and the increased depth of knowledge that results should go far to making him a better editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Logger9, thank you very much for your response. I'd like to start by saying that I very much admire your expertize and desire to improve knowledge. I hope you realize that I do not wish to see your contributions removed, and would actually like to take some time to study them when things slow down here. Any criticisim I have offered was only meant to be constructive, in hopes that others will become less critical of your work and thereby make your Wikipedia experience more enjoyable. It may be helpful to work on a controversial subject in which you have very little interest. I cut my teeth here working on, of all things, a politcal bio. However, it was the whole glass/liquid-solid controversy that first got me to join Wikipedia.

Sockpuppetry is a serious charge, and if you believe you're being harassed in this manner, then there are certain forums where you should report your suspicions. I don't know where, but I'm sure some administrator can help you with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, hypothesis becomes theory when it is backed up with evidence, but can not be proved with that evidence. This differs from law, which has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt with evidence. If it answers the question "why," then it is theory.

Unfortunately, an encyclopedia is not a place for the creation or destruction of ideas. The purpose here is merely to report them. It is very, very appropriate to have liquid theory presented in this article, and I hope that you continue helping here. Forgive me if I seemed a little harsh before, for I have not gone back and read past versions of the article. I did begin reading the version on your user space, but it's a little advanced for me to make useful comments without extensive study. My main point is that we should build up to advanced info, so that I will be fully prepared for when I get past the introduction. (I really do envy your ability to understand physics so easily, and would really like your help so that others like me, without that talant, can also enjoy the benefits of your knowledge.)

I agree with you, that a reference source such as Wikipedia has the potential to be the most extensive source ever. When I first started building lasers, I wish I had an article such as flashtube which I could turn to. Unfortunately, I had to learn by talking to manufacturers like Advanced Radiation and experts such as Don Klipstein, and even by building flashtubes of my own. However related, though, the physics of plasma does not need to be described in great detail in that article, but would be best to link to the plasma article. It'd be nice if we could include circuit diagrams and everything, but an encyclopedia is a summary and just doesn't get that detailed. The great thing is that we provide references that others can look up, which we may never have found otherwise. Also, our articles provide an introduction to those sources, which readers also find beneficial. (This has no direct bearing on something you've done. My point is that sometimes it's necessary to divide to conquer.)

To sum it up, I really do value your contributions, and would like to do anything I can to help make them acceptable to everyone. Zaereth (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Right on, dude !! Let me get back to on some this real soon, OK ? P.S. Awesome photo of the Alaskan tundra ! -- logger9 (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Logger9, you are right in two points:

• Yes, in a previous life I was Paula Pilcher. At some moment, Paula got so desperate about your behaviour that she swore never to come back. She made her account unusable by setting her password to a random sequence. Yet, there are so many good things in Wikipedia that finally I decided to come back. This is explicitely permitted by WP:SOCK#LEGIT.
• Yes, I am using your contribution list as a guide to pages that might need closer examination.

Why me ? To what do I owe this honor ?? How did you choose me ?? Try to put yourself in my shoes for a moment. How would you deal with this subtle form of constant blanket deletion and harassment ?? And why on earth would you be expected to do so ?

I have worked very hard on those articles. Much of that work came from my most studious years in graduate school -- practically living in the physics library -- and supporting myself on a job I had for awhile working as research assistant @ IBM's biggest think tank. Why is it so hard for you to accept it ? -- logger9 (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why you ? Because I am interested in the physical chemistry of liquids and glasses, because I would like to improve articles in this field, because I found articles to which you had contributed were in particular need of improvement.

Then why don't you simply try to improve them, like everyone else does ??

There is a rule that says "be bold". You are very bold in inserting, so you have to accept that I am very bold in deleting.

Why do you completely trash everything I do ?

I haven't done yet. In articles like solid, kinetic theory of solids, physics of glass there is still major redundancies waiting for clean up.

How would you feel if someone treated your work like that ? Don't you think that it would bother you a little bit ?

Hopefully I would start to take the criticism serious, especially as it comes not only from Paula Pilcher / Marie Poise, but from many others. Let me just remind you recent comments by Esben, Xxanthippe, Bduke, V8rik, and also from Woodwalker and Zaereth who are very friendly in tone but also quite clear in their critique of your writing and past behaviour. I had no private contact with any of them; they all independently reached the conclusion that there is a serious problem with your editing.

Do you honestly believe that is an acceptable form of contribution ?? Why all the extra hooplah ??? -- logger9 (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not conscient of having violated any rule. As for my tone, I am sorry, I'd really like to be able to express myself in more diplomatic ways. -- Marie Poise (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we now come back to the topic of this discussion, please ? There is an important question awaiting your answer. -- Marie Poise (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

After this, could we please come back to the subject ? We still need to find a way to get this article unprotected. For which we need an agreement on how to proceed after. Let me therefore ask you one simple thing:

• How do you intend to contribute once this article is unprotected ?

-- Marie Poise (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear both, wow... this is tense, but maybe it's good to look each other right in the eyes. I hope the two of you realise that the other's actions are at least not personally meant. The problem with logger9's insertions is not their content (which is superb) but their form and I think it would be good if he'd read Zaereths critique above (00:48, 17 November 2009) and then tries to address it. Logger9 must understand that inserting good content alone isn't enough yet, Wikipedia also needs something like an encyclopaedic format (if you want to write courses or educational manuals, perhaps you should try wikiversity or wikibooks). Marie, on the other hand, should realise that her actions wouldn't cause so much tumult if she would try to mould logger9's language into a more encyclopaedic/reader-friendly format instead of simply deleting it. That could involve rewriting, scrapping or moving it to other articles. If there's one thing logger9 isn't guilty of, it's adding non-encyclopaedic content. Woodwalker (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The content added by Logger9 is not constantly superb, but at best of very mixed quality. Sometimes he is deeply in error, for instance when he insists that a glass is a liquid. Second, I disagree that the problem is merely one of language and format. The main problem is with behaviour: Logger9 inserts content at a speed that makes it impossible to keep up the nice way, improving, discussing, improving: while you are busy with one massacre (Esbens words, see above), he is already creating the next one. Third, I disagree that I there is anything bad about the current tumult: it is just the reflection of a real problem. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree, Marie. Logger9's contributions seem very well sourced, so it is not for us to determine that the conclusions are wrong. However, if you have access to these sources, and the ability to understand them, then you can verify the accuracy of his interpretation. (Personally, I'm of the opinion that glass is a solid, but where is the line between solid and liquid drawn?) Personally, I'd like an article to give me all theories about it. I wouldn't want Newton's theory wiped from the gravity article because someone believes that Einstein's theory now supercedes it. Since theories are really opinions, they are covered by the NPOV policy and should not be removed simply because someone disagrees with them.

However, I do think Logger9's contributions are sometimes misplaced. Einsteins theory in the gravity article is merely a summary of the General Relativity article. That sort of splitting is also very appropriate, and perhaps should be done with the various liquid theories. I think getting things organized is extremely helpful in making information more accessible. (I've said it before, if it's a shirt it should go in the shirt drawer, and a sock should go in the sock drawer.) I think, rather than deleting his contributions, it would be better if those with comparable expertize could improve them. The best I can really offer is advice on writing itself.

I do agree that Logger9 is often less than diplomatic, which can make helping difficult, but that doesn't mean that we should abandon diplomacy ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Zaereth: The liquid and the glass state are separated from each other by the glass transition. The glass transition temperature Tg depends on the time scale of observation tau. This dependence Tg(tau) usually follows a Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann-Law that extrapolates to tau=infinity for T_VFT, located perhaps 10 or 20% below Tg. For lower temperatures, there is no viscous flow at any time scale. Just one reference: http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/5_30_98/fob3.htm. -- [Marie Poise]

Some questions about removed content then

@Marie Poise: You are right, my last reply was probably to definite. I have only followed this particular article and cannot judge all of logger9s other contributions. But if I look at what you deleted from this article, there are a lot of things which could be explained better.

• Why is the bit of background on atomic theory completely removed except for the phase diagram? Not all readers know what the atomic background of the different phases is and I feel something like this could be appropriate in this article.
• The section logger9 calls 'introduction' is a somewhat verbose explanation of the atomic relationships inside a liquid. As I already mentioned above, it contains some additional information compared with the current version, as well as explaining more about the background at a level understandable for a general audience. So why did you totally remove it?
• Why did you remove the entire section 'dynamics', which was, as far as I can see, a good -though somewhat verbose- introduction to the subject? I have some expertise in this subject and I didn't discover any grave error yet, apart from style and spelling (both are not valid reasons to remove entire sections). I think the mechanics of the flow behaviour of liquids should be dealt with in this article, and logger9s contribution was certainly better than what we have now. You left no way for readers to find such information in other articles either by removing all blue links to such articles in the process.
• Same question for the section 'radial distribution'. Though this content might be better placed in another context or article (I'm not an expert), it is encyclopaedic information. Just deleting everything isn't the right approach imho.
• Why did you undo logger9s creation of a section on 'properties'? I think a small section on the macroscopic properties of liquids would be a clear way of presenting the reader with general subjects such as volume, density, viscosity etc and the way they are measured. And that at the level of an eight-grader.

I could go on and get into details, but some explanation from you about the larger scale would be fine for the moment. However, because you deleted logger9's references too, I would at the moment like to hear from you:

• What sources you would use when you were to write an article about liquids from scratch?
• I took the time to check out some of logger9s sources. They appear to be well-cited, even in recent scientific literature (>2000). Do you know if any of these have been refuted? When I deal with thermodynamics and mechanics for my own work, I often find that the basics, the classical papers, can indeed go back into the 1940s. As far as I can see, logger9s references may well include some sound original sources. Woodwalker (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Woodwalker, let us be precise, please. I did not delete from the 16:38, 16 November 2009 version; I reverted. I did so because Logger9 had not inserted; he had replaced the previous version by another one, overwriting text that had been improved recently.

Let me now try to answer your questions on the appropriate meta level.

This afternoon I worked on solution. At one point during the above debate, Logger9 had moved there, inserting a long section with general background on polar and nonpolar solvent. I concede that his contribution contained useful material - only it was diluted at ratio of at best 1:5 in lots of unnecessary explanations (what is a polar molecule) and repetitions. I did my very best not to delete whatever was nontrivial in the text; I just condensed it, I added points that were missing, and I provided proper linking.

Based on this experience, I agree that it is actually possible to deal constructively with Logger9's contributions. BUT: It requires very much time, a very good knowledge of the field, a very high level of self confidence, and readiness to spent days and weeks fighting on talk pages. There are extremely few editors who fulfill all four requirements. The community is not capable of keeping pace with Logger9's insertions.

There is an obvious solution: Logger9 should slow down to a decent insertion speed. It is damned easy to type as you think. It is infinitely harder to be concise. It requests much reading and much thought to integrate new sections in the link structure of existing articles.

Letting Logger9 type and type and type, and requesting that a critique does the hard work of removing redundancies, shuffling paragraphs, providing links, and justifying any single cut is not fair and not sustainable.

Therefore I refuse to answer the above battery of questions. Every single question is perfectly justified, but the procedure is not: we cannot discuss 40 k at once. We first need an agreement on procedure; then we can start discussing single paragraphs. That is: we could - if Logger9 were interested in such an exercice. In the past, whenever he faced determined opposition, he withdrew from the debate and moved to another article. -- Marie Poise 20:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

I had though that this discussion was moving in a positive direction, and was about to unprotect, but it seems to have degenerated into sniping at each other again. Marie, could you try to phrase your objections in a more diplomatic fashion?

Logger9, you need to acknowledge the criticisms of your writing style and start more actively collaborating on small improvements, rather than inserting large sections of text without any discussion.

Both of you need to agree on a method in which you will work together in future, preferably before either of you comment on the article content or past behavior again. Are you each able to do this? Kevin (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This brings us back to what we almost agreed on 5th / 6th of November: limit insertions to 5k per user and per day. -- Marie Poise (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

5K per day suits me fine. Even better would be for Marie to specifically answer the questions posed to her above by Woodwalker (thx!) on my Userpage Discussion section -- as instructed. That is why the work was placed on a Userpage -- as standard Wikipedia protocol. And yet the User Discussion page remains completely untouched. Why is that ?

I am willing to work with someone who can rationally discuss the work...in an intelligent fashion.....wiht an open mind. By refusing to answer, blanket deleting, and cursing, I sense none of that here.

What Marie does not understand is that I don't type and type and type. What I present here is scrutinizingly distilled down from closets full of literature on hardcopy from refereed scientific journals. I read. -- logger9 (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To expand an article on a basic lemma like liquid, we should not need any research literature. There are 10.000s of papers on liquid chemistry and physics. Citing some 10 of them is likely to introduce bias, and bordering original research. The work of reviewing, evaluating, summarizing the research literature has long been done by others. We should rely upon them, citing preferentially textbooks and maximally some review articles. Consulting the table of contents of some textbooks might also help to get a feeling for the relative importance of different aspects of liquid behaviour -- Marie Poise (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental diference between your approach and my own is that I do not choose to rely on others. I do my own work. (That's what it's all about). I would strongly recommend that you do the same. I wish you the best of luck with that. -- logger9 (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

On of the basic principles here is that Wikipedia only reports what has already been reliably published, and is not a suitable place for your own research. Or did I misconstrue what you have written here? Kevin (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I only print what I have found thru my own library research to be reliably published by refereed journals and texts. I also have a large collection of the most respected original texts in the field, many of which are easily accessible for a reasonable rate thru Amazon.com. Any texts which are cost prohibitive can easily be accessed thru Interlibrary Loan at any public library.

You will find that my work is totally and completely referenced. As I said before: I read. I don't do this because I have to. I do it because I want to. I love science :-) -- logger9 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I just needed to make sure we weren't going down the WP:OR path. Now I'm not sure what you meant though. Kevin (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake, you mean that now you are sure what I meant.... right ? -- logger9 (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you don't intend publishing any original research, but not sure of the difference between your approach and that of Marie. Kevin (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

@Marie - this method does seem to have a great deal of merit. Perhaps you could add the titles of some useful texts here? Kevin (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course:

• For thermodynamics of liquids: any textbook of physical chemistry, e.g. Aitkins.

Correction: P.W. Atkins -- logger9 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• For mechanics of liquids: any undergraduate physics textbook.
• For microscopic structure: Peter A. Egelstaff, An introduction to the liquid state, 1967.

See comments below -- logger9 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• For non-simple liquids: Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, Simple views on condensed matter, 2003

-- Marie Poise (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the newer 1994 edition of Egelstaff's text offers a much more updated verison of the available data obtained using various scattering techiniques (X-rays, neutrons, etc.). The text concentrates on the pair distribution and pair potential functions, illustrating how macroscopic thermodymic properties such as the internal energy, Gibbs free energy, and enthalpy can be calculated mathematically from first principles. Variuos distribution functions are evaluated, with emphasis on the mathematics of the radial distribution. Includes computer simulations and perurbation theory. Focus on pair correlation functions, velocity correlation functions, single particle diffusion and models of general transport coefficients, and collective modes of transport at low and high frequencies.

Lots of math and modeling with correlation functions -- mostly inaccessible to anyone without a background in physics and calculus.

Regarding "microscopic structure" ? Few, if any, of the primary structural details I have covered in my work will be covered here. The only real common ground lies in the description of the radial distribution funciotn, g(r). This is helpful to describe the average structure of nearest neighbors -- but still gives nothing beyond a gray zone of true structural detail and "hidden structure" (e.g. domains and defects, hexagonal symmetry) which has since been emphasized in the condensed matter physics literature.

-- logger9 (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't insist on Egelstaff. Most of his book is certainly too technical to be of much use for us.

Then why on earth did you suggest it to begin with ??? -- 24.113.151.15 (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

First, why so sharp ? I have the right to make errors and to correct myself. Second, my suggestions must be understood in context: we are discussing text contributions that deal at length with microscopic structure. I don't say: we should insert an elaborate text on microscopic theory. I only say: if we insert text on microscopic theory, then it should be based on standard literature, not on speculations from the 1930s. -- Marie Poise (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Same holds probably for Hansen/McDonald, even more for Balucani/Zoppi.

Then why on earth would you suggest them either ??? -- 24.113.151.15 (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet: the mere existence of these books indicates that the material they cover is relevant for an advanced treatment of liquids on a microscopic level.

So are you prepared to write the treatments of those theories in this context...and are we actually looking for the most advanced treatments for this audience ?? I mean, Chaos theory is also widely respected as an approach to fluid dynamics. Are we going to include a section on that math also ??

I'm not saying that these books shouldn't be mentioned as extra reading...or even referenced if YOU choose to write the sections on them. But to snub the work I have already done just because they exist? I don't think so. -- logger9 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Whereas the opposite holds for your favorite topics: if there aren't textbooks or review articles covering domains and defects or hexagonal symmetry in liquids, then that indicates that these theories have not been received in mainstream science. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental Approach

In cases like the liquid state, you will not find much of the work in a classical text. (The physics of glass is even more challenging). My approach is then to go to the original sources and compare their work as it was originally published. In the case of liquids, it has taken much searching to identify the most important points.

My original driving force, after forming colloidal crystals at UCLA, was to understand the process of nucleation and crystal growth in solids at the molecular level -- or possibly spinodal decomposition and other structural phase transformations in the case of solutions. But it soon became clear that you can't really understand how crystal structure is going to evolve from a liquid without having any prior understanding of the structure of the liquid itself. I soon discovered that this was very poorly understood, and have spent the last 25 years of my adult life researching this very topic.

My interests in nanotechnology and my own laboratory research in sol-gel methods of synthesizing high strength transparent ceramics and other transparent materials from liquid solutions has also been a significant factor in promoting my interests in the structure of liquids and their mechanisms of light scattering and and/or lightwave propagation in optical fiber.

It takes time with a subject like this to see the forest thru the trees. It takes time for things to sink in and (hopefully) become more clear. You don't just read an article on the radial distribution function and walk way with it clear in your head. You have to work it with for awhile, study the basic mathematics, meditate on it, compare a number of works, look at different graphical presentations, eat and sleep with it, and maybe even dream about it.

Then one day it finally hits you like a hammer over the head, and it all becomes very simple -- like most things in Nature. When this happens, then I try to present it to others as simply as possible. I feel much stronger about discussing it once I have seen all the work that has been done (or at least the most significant and respected work) and then summarizing it for myself.

That is why I am a teacher -- because that is what I do best. And believe it or not, I actually ENJOY it. I am giving you folks the best that I've got. What I can't understand is why she resents that so much. It's like I have this red target painted on my forehead. I really wish that she would contribute what she has to offer, and move on to something else besides what I am working on. It is something like being stalked -- literally.

The difference in approaches is that she is counting on having someone else do all that work for her. In fact, in this particular case, she is ASSUMING a priori that it has actually been done already by dependable authors in a comprehensive manner.

Like I said, I have spent a lifetime doing it for myself. I have been in the libraries and I have seen what texts there are. (Otherwise I wouldn't be doing this). If you don't want my work, all you have to is say so. I have told everyone here at Wikipedia that same thing from the very beginning. I'm not looking for a fight. I am offering you all I've got...at no charge. I just hope that the public will benefit from my lifetime of efforts. Isn't it worth even trying ? -- logger9 (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you believe you're being stalked, there are also places to have this investigated. See WP:STALK. I don't know if this falls under harassment, as editors are allowed to follow another's contributions for the purposes of correction, but Marie's tactics seem less constructive than they could be. I would prefer that well sourced information not simply be deleted, and feel there are far better ways to handle this. This is almost like a case of an unstoppable force meeting the imovable object. I think some level of compromise needs to be made on each side.

I'd like to see this stalled conversation moving toward improving this article. Logger9, do you have any comments on the lede which I proposed above? Does it seem to define liquid in sufficient detail for an elementary school child to use in a report? Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I can take a look at it over the weekend, eh ? -- logger9 (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Since we have no introduction here, I have started going through the intro at User talk:Logger9/Liquid, to see if we can help form Logger9's contributions into acceptable prose. Zaereth (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Attaboy :-) -- logger9 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Zaereth, you are free to work with Logger9 privately in his user space sandbox. From past experience, however, it is pretty clear what the consequence will be: Logger9 will consider you a spokesperson of the community at large; he will interpret any encouragment you give him as an official authorisation to re-transfer huge text blocks into the article, as soon as the latter is unprotected.

I would also like to discuss with you your statement I would prefer that well sourced information not simply be deleted, and feel there are far better ways to handle this. I would appreciate any new suggestion what these ways could be. As for the old suggestion of patiently improving Logger9's insertion, please see my answer above, section Some questions about removed content then. The essence:

I agree that it is actually possible to deal constructively with Logger9's contributions. BUT: It requires very much time, a very good knowledge of the field, a very high level of self confidence, and readiness to spent days and weeks fighting on talk pages. There are extremely few editors who fulfill all four requirements. The community is not capable of keeping pace with Logger9's insertions. There is an obvious solution. Logger9 should slow down to a decent insertion speed.

Upon which we basically have agreed: Logger9 has accepted a limit of 5k/d (see above: 23:33, 19 November 2009). I think we should try working on that base in article space, rather then repeating the same arguments over and over on this talk page.

As for the well sourced, see the above discussion about appropriate references:

There are 10.000s of papers on liquid chemistry and physics. Citing some 10 of them is likely to introduce bias, and bordering original research. We preferentially should use textbooks and maximally some review articles.

-- Marie Poise (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Far be it from us to site valuable works and significant contributions. We would never want to risk even a hint of favoritism. And why not pawn the readers off to mathematical models they will never understand? It saves us all the work of explaining it to them. I mean really, who needs an Internet encyclopedia anyway ?? We have published textbooks on the subject!

When questioned you state that : "You are very bold in inserting, so you have to accept that I am very bold in deleting."

We don't have to accept anything. Your behavior clearly violates Wikipedia protocol.

Regarding your blanket trashing of my work, you claim that "I haven't done yet."

Regarding a more specific discusion of my work, you state simply that "I refuse to answer the above battery of questions. Every single question is perfectly justified, but the procedure is not."

Should we reshape the world for your specific purpose ?

-- logger9 (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing

@ Kevin & Woodwalker:

Thanks to the encouragement of Zaereth, I have reduced the version @ User:Logger9/Liquid by 6K. Let's make some progress, shall we ? -- logger9 (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No way. Too much to object to discuss it at once. You agreed to a limit of 5k/d; there is no point in discussing an alternative text of 43 k. -- Marie Poise (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The version @ User:Logger9/Liquid is still significant step backwards from our current version. Esben (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a vote

I am getting tired of this farce; we are getting nowhere! Let's put it up for the vote: Do we want logger9's version or the current one? I believe there is a procedure for this, and a way to ask for input from more people Esben (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither version is satisfactory. The current version should stay until there's consensus on how to improve it. Woodwalker (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We all agree that the current version is not satisfactory. We already agreed on some changes: polished lede; figure from the German WP. What matters: the current version is easy to extend. Boiling down Logger9's text is infinitely more difficult. -- Marie Poise (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We had reached consensus that future editing should be at a moderate pace that allows others to participate.-- Marie Poise (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

When that consensus had been reached, discussion moved to the question which literature should be used. In my view, Logger9's insistence on research papers instead of textbooks and review articles is simply a violation of WP:OR. Please, those of you who still follow this debate: why don't you express a clear opinion about that question ? -- Marie Poise (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good internet sites, textbooks, research articles, in that order. The more accessible, the better. Surely there are good online resources for at least the basics of liquids? I dislike research articles, if for nothing else because they might be dead wrong, or even a joke (true story!). Citations don't even mean that much, as the citation might be "see how wrong this article is". (I thought that Woodwalker had declared himself partial in this case?!) Esben (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

@Marie Poise: I have been musing on that question for long. I don't agree with you for 100%. More importantly, I think neither does the guideline you cite, WP:OR:

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ([3])

A peer-reviewed scientific paper (per definition partly a primary source) can be a valuable reference if used well and in a balanced way. But Wikipedia content should reflect the balance in recent scientific literature. That isn't to say an old paper can't be used as reference - they can contain information that is still seen as correct by the current scientific consensus. In such cases the old paper, as a primary source, should be preferred above newer scientific papers which refer to it imho, because the latter are secondary sources for the same information.

I am not an expert in the physical chemistry of fluids, so I cannot judge weather logger9 uses his citations carefully enough to meet the requirement of balance. Yet I do have a strong personal preference to use multiple secondary sources (such as scientific educational textbooks) when I write about general scientific subjects. An example of my own work (still in progress) can be seen at sedimentary rock. In my additions to that article I tried to use only scientific textbooks and never refer to primary sources. However, if logger9 has been using his references with care I don't object and can only admire his knowledge. Woodwalker (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sedimentary rock" is a much more specialized lemma than "liquid". I have nothing against the use of recent research literature in something like defect theory of liquids. - Accumulated reading does not necessarily yield admirable knowledge. If you have no judgement about the subject matter, you should not in this conflict give one party unproportionate encouragement. - Outsider moderation is necessary and welcome, but should be restricted to procedural questions. It is not helpful that you comment on contents while admitting that you cannot judge. This conflict will not be solved by moderation; this has been tried before; Logger9 abuses whatever kind of friendly encouragement. Esben is completely right: let us clearly state what the conflict is about, and invite the physics and chemistry community at large to vote. -- Marie Poise (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read my last message again. I didn't encourage anyone nor should anyone feel more encouraged because of it. I only answered your general question about using sources. Woodwalker (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read your last message again. "can only admire his knowledge" isn't encouragement ? -- Marie Poise (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's only the second part of a sentence. If you read the entire thing and combine it with the rest of my comments you'll see it's not that encouraging. I expect logger9 to be perfectly able to read for himself. He's an adult person and can be held responsible for his own actions. I'm not going to treat him like a child because you think he's mentally incapable of understanding what others write. Besides, I think you're objecting to content but blaming the sources. Woodwalker (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC) PS I already gave my vote (09:52, 21 November 2009).

Yes, I object to the content. But as the content is defended by outsiders who are impressed by the well-sourced appearance I don't see how to avoid criticizing the biased choice of sources. -- Marie Poise (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose to prepare for a vote as follows:

• give both parties 10 days to prepare.
• vote between two versions in the user space of Logger9 and Marie Poise, respectively.
• move this entire discussion to the archive.
• give each party 5k to explain why its version should be preferred.

-- Marie Poise (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Woodwalker has the key here I think. He writes: "I think you're objecting to content but blaming the sources." Because she is is obsessively opposed to anything I write, she will do and say whatever she has to to get her way. I believe this is the case here. I have tried to give her what she wants, and she simply walks away from any from of compromise. The evidence lies in the fact that she absolutely refuses to discuss any of the actual work itself. When questioned by Woodwalker about the work itself, she openly refuses to respond in any form.

This is not editing. This is highly prejudiced censorship.

-- logger9 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Logger9, you delude yourself, you are not a victim of anything but your own actions. I have had no part in this conflict between you and Marie Poise, and yet I can plainly see that you are contributing negatively to this article. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent elsewhere? Esben (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that this is a particularly poor method of writing an article. What you would be better off doing is to all collaborate on writing the lead, or come up with an article structure, just the headings, and then work on a section at a time. If each camp go off and write their preferred text then we do not arrive at a version that everyone is happy with, and I would be reluctant to unprotect if you all persue this solution. A while ago I asked if you could agree on a method of collaboration. Perhaps you could sort this out first? Kevin (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I do know that I promised to stay out of this, but I would like to poke my head in here for this one. I would have to agree with Kevin here; writing two separate drafts is entirely the best way to go about it. In addition, Wikipedia is not a vote or a democracy. The best way to really go about it is to establish a set of sections that you think the article should be organized around. Once you have come to an agreement over that, the best thing to do would be to go section by section, one at a time and decide how they should be organized. Also, Esben, back off please. Your words are borderline harassment and are not serving to help this discussion. NW (Talk) 18:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My interest is only in not substantially worsening this article. But since so many of the editors are set on making Wikipedia worse, there is little I can do. So I have unsubscribed from this article, and will let you people on with it. I have not been close to harassing anyone, as obviously there is only one person here being harassed with one silly demand after another, and I resent the false accusation. But since the editors are both judge, prosecutor and executor, I do not care to try to fight it. Sad day, though. Esben (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Template

Kevin,

That sounds fine with me. We definitely need some kind of compromise here. I have tried to implement that attitude by cutting back my version by more than 10% recently. My version of the template is clearly indicated on my Userpage, which is where these problems are often worked out. -- logger9 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin: collaboration with Logger9 is impossible, unless some clear rules are established and enforced. Discussion with Logger9 has been fruitless, and is likely to remain so unless someone comes up with fresh ideas. Esben and I have proposed two possible solutions: either establish a rule that limits content insertion speed, or call in other wikipedians with a sound understanding of physical chemistry to judge the proposed contents.

Insistence upon peaceful collaboration is self-deception. It effectively means: prolongate this deadlock until one of the two parties gives up. This has happened several times in the past; Logger9 always was the more perseverant. This time, I will persevere too. Which will force you admins to find adequate ways to deal with such a conflict, not only here but for other important articles like solid as well. -- Marie Poise (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

@logger9: While I appreciate the work that has gone into your draft, this method is not going to work with the other editors here. I'm not talking about the actual content here, just the way to get an article that everyone is happy with. Are you able to work with these editors on either a small section such as the lead, or on an overall outline? Kevin (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. But I seriously doubt that this particular editor will allow me to suggest the inclusion of any of the sections which are included in my draft. I can virtually guaranteee that she will block them in totality. She does not negotiate. -- logger9 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want that your draft be seriously considered, you should at least remove the most flagrant typing errors. Then I will try to find something positive in it. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, I am surprised to see you unprotected the article. I use the occasion to do two changes resulting from the above discussion: new lead, basically Zaereth's last version, and figure from German WP. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Logger9, please let us start with sections where consensus seems reachable. I identified two topics in your draft that should be treated in the text: melting, and the radial distribution function. As for the larger part of your draft: it jumps between crystals, liquids, and special systems like liquid crystals, with figures showing colloids; please try to melt it down to what really concerns liquids before reproposing; and please, consider putting technical and special material into a separate article to which liquid eventually would link. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about melting, I have to correct myself. Melting and crystallization both belong as much to solid as to liquid. However, we don't want to duplicate large chunks of text, the less so if that text is controversial. There are already good starts at melting and crystallization, and that is exactly where the material belongs. In solid and liquid, we should basically provide links to these articles. -- Marie Poise (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't keep it protected forever, it's not fair to other editors. I also saw that there was some progress made, and I want that to continue. I'll deal with any problematic edits as they arise. Kevin (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Radial Distribution

Logger9, thank you for starting with just one section. I remove those paragraphs that talk more about crystal than about liquid, or explain the experimental method of x-ray diffraction - this should be done by linking. The picture is nice, but out of place: why don't you contribute it to the article x-ray diffraction ? Before doing so, however, you should complete the figure information on commons, saying what was the crystal that produced this diffraction pattern. -- Marie Poise (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Effects of Association Section

Marie Poise recently undid the addition of a section titled "Effects of Association" added by Logger9. I don't know why it was removed. It seemed like a perfectly good addition to me.Chhe (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, I accidentally undid unrelated edits in another section. I apologize for this. -- Marie Poise (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is growing consensus that there are at least two different transport mechanisms in liquids, with a crossover at a temperature Tc, about 20% above Tg. Transport above Tc is not solid-like at all. The current text does not apply to normal liquids. It discusses the divergence of viscosity with decreasing temperature. This belongs rather into glass transition than into liquid; liquid should just give a short summary on deep supercooling and the glass transition. The current text mixes facts and speculations. The relevance of free-volume theory, as this speculation is usually called, is far from clear; primary sources from 1923 and 1930 are no adequate support. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Next Insertion Proposals

I would like to add the following sections under the category of liquid dynamics. Please respond. -- logger9 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be offline for the next 7 days; please do not take silence for approval. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Structural relaxation

Frenkel identified the mean lifetime of an atom in its equilibrium position with the relaxation time originally described in Maxwell's kinetic theory of gases. The structural rearrangement necessary for the termination of the atom's residence in this position has resulted in an extension of the terminology to "structural relaxation" which was applied to non-equilibrium phenomena. In the simplest case of a monatomic liquid, the structural relaxation must reduce to a change of the degree of local order in the packing morphology of the particles, in the sense of a more compact arrangement of higher density when the liquid is compressed or a more open distribution of lower density when it is expanded.

This change of the degree of local order must in general lag with respect to the variation of the volume (or the pressure), since it is connected with a rearrangement of the particles or a redistribution of their mutual orientations — or with processes requiring a certain activation energy, and proceeding accordingly with a finite velocity. This is the origin of the viscous relaxation due to irreversible plastic deformation.

"Frenkel identified" is bad style. Describe facts, not history of discovery.

I guess it's possible to rewrite this text with half the number of words, improving clarity, and not loosing any information.

The last sentence sounds wrong: in liquid dynamics, nothing is irreversible.

It must be made clear that this is mostly relevant for deeply supercooled liquids. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

These are excellent points, Marie. Let me rephrase for you:

The mean lifetime of an atom in its equilibrium position has been identified as the relaxation time originally described in Maxwell's kinetic theory of gases. In the simplest case of a monatomic liquid, the structural relaxation must reduce to a change of the degree of local order, yielding a more compact arrangement of higher density when the liquid is compressed, or a lower density when expanded. This change in the degree of local order must in general lag with respect to the variation of the volume (or the pressure), since it is connected with a rearrangement and redistribution of mutual orientations. These processes require a certain activation energy, and thus proceeding with a finite velocity. This is the origin of the viscous relaxation due to irreversible plastic deformation in the case of supercooled liquids near the glass transition.

Viscoelastic behavior

Even most simple liquids will exhibit some elastic response at frequencies or shear rates exceeding 5 x 10⁶ Hz. Alternatively, if the vibrational period of the force is large (low frequency) compared with the relaxation time, then the vibrational motion of the body will partially degenerate into translational motion, and the resulting displacement will be evidenced by viscous flow. Materials which respond to mechanical disturbances by both viscous (or plastic/irreversible) and elastic (or reversible) behavior under distinct ranges of deformation (and rate deformation, or frequency) are referred to as viscoelastic.

Thus, when a mechanical force is applied suddenly to a fluid, the fluid responds elastically at first, just as if it were a solid body. Whether the rigidity or the fluidity predominates in a material under given conditions is therefore determined by the time scale of the experiment relative to the characteristic time of structural relaxation of the material. Zwanzig and Mountain calculated the high-frequency elastic moduli of simple fluids by considering the pressure and internal energy of the fluid. They concluded that the initial response to a sudden disturbance can be characterized by two quantities:

1. The high-frequency limit of the shear modulus G (or modulus of rigidity)

1. The high-frequency limit of the bulk modulus K (or modulus of compression).

The connection between a viscous and an elastic response is made by considering the stress for a disturbance varying periodically in time with a frequency, υ. For consideration of shear flow, it is supposed that the shear viscosity q(υ) is a function of the frequency, and is related to the relaxation time t, which is characteristic of the transition from elastic to viscous response. High-frequency disturbances are identified as those relating to elastic behavior, while low-frequency behavior is identified as ordinary viscous flow. Thus the frequency-dependent viscosity coefficient q(υ) is capable of describing both viscous and elastic phenomena, and can be related to the frequency-dependent elastic moduli, K(υ) and G(υ).

All this is highly special, technical material. What's the relevance outside the interpretation of light-scattering spectra ? Why not treat it in a more specialized article ? -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing special about this material, other then a brief description of the physical mechanisms responsible for vicsoelastic behavior at the molecular level. Most liquids will exhibit some degree of viscoelasticity on certain timescales. This describes that fundamental behavior.

Something more about the flow behaviour of liquids (section: 'properties'; main article: Fluid mechanics) would be a welcome. Logger9s proposal includes some things that may be mentionable, but it is rather specialistic. I think it's better to describe the stuff that's already there in a way that a non-specialist user can understand it. For example: there are currently some sentences about viscosity, yet more text is needed to explain what the physical property viscosity means in practice imho (for an eight-grader). Woodwalker (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the earlier section (which is written at an introductory level) could be expanded. But I disagree that this section be removed from that which is written for the more scientific mind. This not specialistic if it applies to most liquids (which it does). Most liquids will exhibit some degree of viscoelasticity on certain timescales. -- logger9 (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The above should definitely only get a short introduction, and the rest moved into a separate article. Esben (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thermodynamic limit

It is interesting to note that at zero frequency, the shear modulus vanishes and the response can be described by the bulk modulus (inverse compressibility) alone. Fleury refers to this condition as the thermodynamic limit (υ → 0), in considering the high-frequency dynamics of simple liquids and solids near their melting points. The remarkable conclusions of his inelastic light scattering studies near the melting point is that there is no discernible difference between the liquid and solid vibrational spectra at sufficiently high frequencies. This means that on the short time and length scales probed by these experiments, melting causes no discontinuous change in the microscopic dynamics of the substance. The lower the frequency, the larger the discontinuity between liquid and solid behavior -- so that in the thermodynamic limit (zero frequency) the transition is first order.

Doesn't this belong rather to the "atomic vibrations" section ?

Negative. This is the conclusion of the previous 2 sections. In the section on vibrations, we have not yet discussed either the bulk modulus or compressibility. Once they have been presented, this section brings both of the 2 previous sections together.

On second thought, I think you are right. All I need to do is take out the first sentence, and place it elsewhere. Done !

"It is interesting to note" is essay style, not encyclopedic. "Fleury refers": see above, don't write history. "The remarkable conclusion": would you mention it if it were not remarkable? -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Then allow me to rephrase:

Note that at zero frequency, the shear modulus vanishes and the response can be described by the bulk modulus (inverse compressibility) alone. This condition has been referred to as the thermodynamic limit (υ → 0), in considering the high-frequency dynamics of simple liquids and solids near their melting points. The conclusions of inelastic light scattering studies near the melting point is that there is no discernible difference between the liquid and solid vibrational spectra at sufficiently high frequencies. Thus, on the short time and length scales probed by these experiments, melting causes no discontinuous change in the microscopic dynamics of the substance. The lower the frequency, the larger the discontinuity between liquid and solid behavior -- so that in the thermodynamic limit (zero frequency) the transition is first order.

Phase

I have renamed the section from phase equilibriums to phase transitions, in part to be more precise but especially since there was no good reason to spring the mouthful-of-a-word equilibriums at people so early in the article. I have also corrected a few minor errors (liquids can exists in vacuum, provided some force e.g. gravity provides the necessary pressure), and added a bit about the liquid->solid transition. I also believe the bit about mixing liquids should be moved to its own section and cleaned up, but I want a break. Hope you like the new wording better. Esben (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction section

Hi everybody. I'm back from my holiday vacation, and see that there has been a little progress made, and quite a bit of drama played out. As promised, I have gone through Logger9's version to see if we could salvage anything to be used for an intro section, which this article is currently lacking. I have extensively reviewed the material, line by line, hoping to help Logger9 improve his own contributions, and have rewritten it as follows:

Liquid is one of the three principal states of matter, with the others being solid and gas. A liquid is a fluid. Unlike a solid, the atoms in a liquid have a much greater freedom to move. The forces that bind the atoms together in a solid are only temporary in a liquid, allowing a liquid to flow while a solid remains rigid.

The atoms and molecules in both a liquid and a solid are spaced fairly close together, and so exhibit similar densities. The solid state of matter is different from liquid because the atoms are usually locked into very specific arrangements, forming crystals. Solids resist changes in shape, called deformation, and, therefore, display the property of rigidity. In contrast, the atoms in a liquid have much more freedom to move around, which allows them to easily rearrange themselves on microscopic scales, which becomes flow on larger scales. Since the atoms in solids and liquids are closely spaced, the branch of physics that deals with both is called condensed matter physics.

Liquid particles are bound firmly but not rigidly. They are able to move around one another freely, resulting in a limited degree of particle mobility. This freedom for the atoms to move results from the temperature of the material. Heat is the vibrational motion of the atoms, so as temperature increases the vibration causes distances between the atoms to increase. When a liquid reaches its boiling point, the cohesive forces that bind the atoms closely together break, and the liquid changes to its gaseous state. If the temperature is decreased, the distances between the atoms become smaller. When the liquid reaches its freezing point the atoms will usually lock into a very specific order, called crystalizing, and the bonds between them become more rigid, changing the liquid into its solid state.

I know this is not complete, and some of my understanding may be incorrect, but I believe it would be a good starting point for an introduction section. If anyone feels up to improving upon it, I believe it would be beneficial to have an intro section here. Zaereth (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is better. Get rid of atoms everywhere, though, it is molecules that matters. The 2nd paragraph is mostly wrong, so kill it. I think what we have under phase transition in the article is much better. And I think that we are missing the bit about how liquids reacts to a container compared to a gas and to a solid is an important, but missing bit from the introduction. I'd also at least mention that liquids only are stable under pressure, as I find that to be a very defining bit for liquids. All in all, very good work work! Esben (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! As you can probably tell, I'm straying a bit out of my expertize when I'm not discussing stuff like laser pumping or basic fighter maneuvers. My knowledge of liquid is mainly limited to its application in hydraulics, so can I ask you to make the appropriate changes? The intro should really bridge the lede with the rest of the article, and should briefly touch on every section to follow. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take another crack at this. There are a few things which I don't understand. I know from dealing with vacuum pumps that the boiling point of certain liquids lowers with pressure. (The boiling point for water, in space, I've read is -90 degrees F.) I don't know if this is true or not for other liquids, such as mercury or vacuum pump oil. I have made the changes recommended by Esben, and have tried to construct an intro paragraph, a paragraph about properties, and a paragraph about phase transition. It may need a little more work, and could use a paragraph about structure, (fron someone who understands it better than I), but I think this could work for an intro section. Does anyone else have something to add? Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Liquid is one of the three principal states of matter, with the others being solid and gas. A liquid is a fluid. Unlike a solid, the molecules in a liquid have a much greater freedom to move. The forces that bind the molecules together in a solid are only temporary in a liquid, allowing a liquid to flow while a solid remains rigid.

A liquid, like a gas, displays the properties of a fluid. A liquid can flow, assume the shape of a container, and, if placed in a sealed container, will distribute applied pressure evenly to every surface in the container. Unlike a gas, a liquid may not always mix readily with another liquid, will now always fill every space in the container, forming it's own surface, (except in a vacuum), and will not compress, (except under extremely high pressures). These properties make a liquid suitable for applications such as hydraulics.

Liquid particles are bound firmly but not rigidly. They are able to move around one another freely, resulting in a limited degree of particle mobility. This freedom for the molecules to move results from the temperature of the material. Heat is the vibrational motion of the molecules, so as temperature increases the vibration causes distances between the molecules to increase. When a liquid reaches its boiling point, the cohesive forces that bind the molecules closely together break, and the liquid changes to its gaseous state {unless [superheateding] occurs}. If the temperature is decreased, the distances between the molecules become smaller. When the liquid reaches its freezing point the molecules will usually lock into a very specific order, called crystalizing, and the bonds between them become more rigid, changing the liquid into its solid state.

Sorry for not responding, real life got in the way. I think the above is excellent; only two small matters: Vacuum and liquid don't mix (place liquid in a vacuum and some of the liquid will vapourize, filling the vacuum). So I would remove that parenthesis. The other thing is superheating and supercooling. I would fix that by adding the parenthesis. Finally finally or think the sentence with "Heat is vibrational motion of the molecules" is both slightly wrong and unnecessary, so I would condense it. Thus, I arrive at

A liquid, like a gas, displays the properties of a fluid. A liquid can flow, assume the shape of a container, and, if placed in a sealed container, will distribute applied pressure evenly to every surface in the container. Unlike a gas, a liquid may not always mix readily with another liquid, will now always fill every space in the container, forming it's own surface, and will not compress, (except under extremely high pressures). These properties make a liquid suitable for applications such as hydraulics.

Liquid particles are bound firmly but not rigidly. They are able to move around one another freely, resulting in a limited degree of particle mobility. This freedom for the molecules to move results from the temperature of the material. Heat is the vibrational motion of the molecules, so asAs the temperature increases, the increased vibrations of the molecules causes distances between the molecules to increase. When a liquid reaches its boiling point, the cohesive forces that bind the molecules closely together break, and the liquid changes to its gaseous state (unless [superheateding] occurs). If the temperature is decreased, the distances between the molecules become smaller. When the liquid reaches its freezing point the molecules will usually lock into a very specific order, called crystalizing, and the bonds between them become more rigid, changing the liquid into its solid state (unless [supercooling] occurs].

Esben (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I still think we could use a paragraph covering structure, but that can come later. I think this is enough to insert into the article for future expansion. Zaereth (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no other comment, I have added this to the article. thanks Esben for your help! Zaereth (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Immiscibilty and thermal expansion

I have a question. Do these two items belong in the phase transition section, where they are now, or should these be in the properties section?

I think these two sections could probably go into a little more detail, such as the compressability of liquids. It's usually not a factor, until dealing with high pressure hydraulics. I'll have to dig up the actual numbers, but as I recall, oil will usually compress by about 0.5% in volume at 4000 PSI (275 bar), and 4% in volume at 10,000 PSI (690 bar). Compressability becomes a major factor in systems that operate in the 20,000 to 50,000 PSI range (1400 - 3450 bar). I'll see what I can find for some of this info, and try to start an application section as well. Zaereth (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Immiscibilty should definitely be moved and expanded; it is on my todo list if noone beats me to it. Compression of liquids is outside my knowledge, but sounds relevant. Esben (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Spellcheck: compressibility :-) -- logger9 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. :-/ I thought it looked funny, but almost never spellcheck on talk. Thanks, and happy holidays! :-D Zaereth (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Application section

I have started an application section, but it could probably use a little expanding, as I don't have much info to add on uses such as solvents, acids and others. It could probably use some info on liquid's use in measurement, like thermometers and manometers. Does anyone have any comments, or anything to add? Zaereth (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Liquids have a variety of uses, as lubricants, solvents, and coolants. In hydraulic systems, liquid is used to transmit power.

In tribology, liquids are studied for their properties as lubricants, to reduce friction between moving parts. Lubricants such as oils are often chosen for viscosity and flow characteristics that are suitable throughout the operating temperature range of the component. Oils are often used in engines, gear boxes, metalworking, and hydraulic systems for their good lubrication properties.

Liquid is the primary component of a hydraulic system, which takes advantage of Pascal's law to provide fluid power. Devices such as pumps and waterwheels have been used to change liquid motion into mechanical work since ancient times. Oils are forced through hydraulic pumps, which transmit this force to hydraulic cylinders. Hydraulics can be found in many applications, such as automotive brakes and transmissions, heavy equipment, and airplane control systems. Various hydraulic presses are used extensively in repair and manufacturing, for lifting, pressing, clamping, and forming.

Liquids tend to have better thermal conductivity than gases. The ability to flow makes a liquid suitable for removing excess heat from mechanical components. The heat can be removed by channeling the liquid through a heat exchanger, such as a radiator, or the heat can be removed with the liquid during evaporation. Water or glycol coolants are used to keep engines from overheating. Water or liquid metals, such as sodium or bismuth, have been used as coolants in nuclear reactors. Liquid propellant films are used to cool the thrust chambers of rockets. Water and oils are used to remove excess heat generated during machining, which can quickly ruin both the work piece and the tooling. During perspiration, sweat removes heat from the human body by evaporating. In heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), liquids such as water are often used to transfer heat from one area to another.

I did a little research over the holiday to come up with some uses for solvents, and added it to the above. I've gone ahead and placed this section into the article. Zaereth (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hidden structure

This section seems totally unclear and redundant to me. What it tells beyond the existence of short-range order in liquids as follows from the radial distributions (something that has been already described in the previous section about correlations)? Biophys (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, for I really have no idea what those subsections are trying to say. An introduction paragraph for these subsections, and those in the "dynamics" section too, would definitely be helpful to me. If anyone who understands them can do this it would be much appreciated.

On a similar note, I am wondering if "dynamics" is the proper title for that section. To me, liquid dynamics generally refers to large-scale flow effects, like eddie currents and cavitation, so it seems a little surprizing to find only a discussion of molecular dynamics there. Zaereth (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the "molecular vibrations" sub-section is also out of place and tells little.Biophys (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@Logger9

Logger9, please slow down. You are again inserting huge blocks of text, here and in glass transition and who knows where next.

Andrade focused his studies...

Who cares? Who does know Mr. or Ms. Andrade? You cannot start a section with such an unmotivated history-of-discovery.

and cited Lindemann's theory of melting

Again, who cares that A cited L's theory? If L's theory is relevant, then write a short article about it, instead of summarizing it in similar terms in different articles.

Another problem is your choice of references, mostly several decades old. If those old ideas were still relevant today, they should have made it into review articles and textbooks. In general, it should not be necessary to cite the original papers. On the contrary: assembling an arbitrary choice out of the tens of thousands of orginal papers on liquids and glasses is creative work in its own right - and therefore a violation of Wikipedia's policy no theory finding.

-- Marie Poise (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Melting is at best a marginal aspect in the vast topic "liquid". I suggest the new section on melting be transferred to melting. -- Marie Poise (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Support as a general approach. This is a simple management rule (speaking to Logger): keep a major text in one place, so that it can easily be fixed in that place. Copying it between a dozen of articles makes it very difficult to synchronize the corrections. We've got wikilinks and {{main}}/{{Seealso}} templates for that. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Solution section

I'm getting a little out of my field when I start talking chemistry, but it seems odd to me that the solution section only describes immiscibility. I may be wrong, but many definitions I've seen describe a solution as a solid dissolved into a liquid and miscibility as a two liquids disolved into each other. Other definitions descibe both miscible and a solution as a homogenous mixture of liquids and/or solids, while immiscible/insoluble is a mixture that will eventually separate. Other definition describe a solution as a homogenous mixture and miscible as more of a suspension.

It's a bit confusing. I hope that someone who understands it better than me can sort this out. I also think we should describe how liquids can sometimes dissolve solids as well as other liquids, and how immiscible liquids can form emulsions. It might be worth mentioning something about acids and bases as well. Just a thought. Zaereth (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Iodine

Iodine should be excluded from the list of elements liquid at slightly above room temperature since its melting point is higher than the boiling point of water, not to mention the melting points of sodium and potassium.Syd Henderson (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Further, while it is easy to dissolve, it is difficult to melt because of sublimation. I went ahead and removed it. Materialscientist (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Immiscibility of hot and cold water

One of the pictures has this caption: "Thermal image of a sink full of hot water with cold water being added, showing the immiscibility of the two liquids." This is not correct. Immiscibity refers to two liquids that won't mix. That's not true of hot water and cold water. In fact, they're miscible, not immiscible. It's an interesting picture, and it illustrates how liquids flow. But it does not illustrate immiscibility of hot and cold water. I've revised the caption. Omc (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Good job! Polyamorph (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right in that immiscibility was not the best choice of words. The main point I was trying to demonstrate is that they do not readily mix, but the cold water will fall to the bottom and they will stratify. This is a common occurance in heating and thermal storage systems, and can easily be experienced in a bathtub. Unfortunately, the thermal camera can't see through glass, so my photo of the actual stratification was far less impressive. Zaereth (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Abundance of liquids in the universe

A recent addition was made to the article, I believe in very good faith, but it is unsourced and doesn't seem to completely hold to the known facts about the universe. I had thought about cutting it, but then tried to copy edit and correct it a bit. However, the more I consider it, I'm thinking it should be cut until sources can verify the accuracy.

The main thing that strikes me is the statement that liquid is the least abundant type of matter in the known universe. The reason I say this is because many the gas giant planets are believed to have liquid cores. Liquid methane rains and forms lakes on Titan. Enceledus may be composed mostly of liquid water. The Earth itself, besides being covered with water, is made mostly of liquid rock and metals with a thin crust of solid. The other rocky planets are believed to have similar liquid cores. Just in this solar system alone the abundance of liquid is probably much greater than solids, and maybe even gases.

Should this be cut, or does anyone have some sources which can improve the sccuracy of the statement? Zaereth (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You mention that certain moons and planets may have liquid in them, but you fail to realize that these bodies are absolutely miniscule in comparison to the immense sizes and masses of stars and interstellar clouds, which are made mostly of gas and plasma, with small amounts of solid matter mostly in the form of dust. It is also worth mentioning that I am talking about baryonic matter that we can easily observe, not dark matter or any other exotic matter. I just added that info on a whim, but I am fairly confident that credible sources exist to confirm this piece of knowledge I remember reading a long time ago. Cadiomals (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that, universally, gas and plasma and dark matter far outrank both liquids and solids. The question, are liquids more prevalent than solids? Zaereth (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't mean cut the entire thing, just that one point. It would be nice if someone, somewhere had some info, because with all the new planets and stuff being discovered I'd really like to know. Zaereth (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Statistical theory of liquid state - references

• J.G. Kirkwood, J. Chem. Phys. 3, 300 (1935)
• J.E. Mayer, J. Chem. Phys. 15, 187 (1947)--82.137.9.33 (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Liquids in space

It makes perfect sense that a liquid should not be able to exist in the vacuum of space, but my question is, does this apply to all liquids? In specific, to liquid rock and metals? I ask, because I see multiple sources that say the rocky planets and asteroids formed from molten lava, Vespa being a prime example, so I am wondering if liquid rock can exist in space? I assume that these things were liquid in the early development of the solar system. Liquid rock is by far the most abundant liquid within the Earth. Can this lava exist in a vacuum, or would it also sublime into a gas until it reaches enough gravitational pull to condense in to a liquid? (I find no sources that go into that level of detail.) Zaereth (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, all of my high-vacuum pumps use vacuum oil to help draw the vacuum (and also to absorb moisture), and mercury can also exist in near total-vacuum, which is why it is used for very-deep vacuum measurements. Zaereth (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I forgot about this. The answer to my own question turned out to be no (or at least not very long.) Zaereth (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Add more about the theory of liquids and intermolecular forces?

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this article, and it is very informative. However I would like to see more about the small scale structure of liquids and "intermolecular forces". What is responsible for the characteristic properties of liquids such as incompressibility and surface tension? I know the theory of liquids is much more complicated than for the other states of matter; there is no single model such as the ideal gas law or band structure for solids. [4] Perhaps Van der Waals forces should be mentioned? as they have seen a resurgence in recent years. [5] --Chetvorno^TALK 00:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Expert needed template

This template was recently added to the article:

Really I feel this is something that should be discussed here before such a call is put out. Polyamorph (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph. Long time no see. I left this reply to Leprof on User talk:Materialscientist: The term "mobile" in reference to fluids is usually referring to chromatography, where a mobile phase (a liquid or gas in motion) passes over a stationary phase (non-moving solid) to effect the separation of components in the fluid. The concept has nothing to do with viscosity, there is no viscosity threshold between mobile and immobile (as suggested by the viscosity article). The difference is that one is moving and the other is not.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I've heard the term "mobility" or "degrees of freedom" when talking about individual particles, but "mobile" only in chromatography. The statement Leprof asked about in the lede of Viscosity seems like a misquote or lack of understanding about chromatography. ("In common parlance, however, a liquid is said to be viscous if its viscosity is substantially greater than that of water, and may be described as mobile if the viscosity is noticeably less than water.") Thinner fluids require less pressure and can be separated faster, and a certain threshold may be required for certain set-ups. However, in the overall scheme of liquids, the only viscous threshold I've ever heard of is the glass transition (T_g). (And as I understand it, the real indicator is not so much viscosity as temperature's rate of change; something analogous to but not exactly the same as the "arrest" temps (critical temps) common in allotropy.) Viscous liquid, on the other hand, appears to be a term describing those liquids which exist below their crystalline melting-point but above the glass melting-temperature (T_m), such as honey. Zaereth (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2019

The fourth introduction sentence, about water being the world's most common liquid, would fit better at the end of its paragraph. Right now, it interrupts a discussion of basic properties of liquids, but if you put it at the end of its paragraph, it won't be a distraction. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense to me.  Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A type of liquid is is plastic and brick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.35.58 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of the term buoyancy

On the one hand, the buoyancy appears to be defined as an upward force resulting from a difference in pressure:

"Static liquids in uniform gravitational fields also exhibit the phenomenon of buoyancy, where objects immersed in the liquid experience a net force due to the pressure variation with depth. The magnitude of the force is equal to the weight of the liquid displaced by the object,[...]"

On the other hand, buoyancy appears to be the resultant force of the above plus the actual weight:

"[...]If the density is smaller than that of the liquid, the buoyant force points upward and the object floats, whereas if the density is larger, the buoyant force points downward and the object sinks. This is known as Archimedes' principle."

But in the latter definition the buoyancy does not have the volume of the displaced water as its magnitude, as incorrectly suggested by the last part of the first sentence:

"[...] and the direction of the force depends on the average density of the immersed object."

I propose to rewrite this paragraph using the first definition, and to describe sinking and floating in terms of the resultant force without calling it buoyancy. --Oscar Zariski (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The term "buoyancy" is correct, and I think we should use it. The first example is correct, although I think it could be worded a little better for the non-scientist. The second example doesn't seem to make much sense, because it implies that the object becomes heavier if its density is greater than water (that the weight of the water exerts a downward force, adding to the weight of the object), but of course that's the opposite of what happens. The downward force is gravity, and buoyancy is always opposed to gravity.

This was the basis of Archimedes' principle. A gold crown should weigh the same as an equal weight of pure gold when placed underwater. If the weights were equal in the air, but underwater the crown weighed less than the sample, then he could tell it had been alloyed with something in order to rip off the king. It doesn't matter if the object is heavier or lighter than the fluid, unless you're talking strictly in terms of floating or sinking, but regardless the fluid always exerts an upward force on the object (opposing the force of gravity) that is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid (eg: both the crown and the gold sample sink, but both weigh slightly less underwater than they do above, depending on their density).

Now, buoyancy is not limited to liquids; it can occur in gases and even sometimes solids. Examples of such include hot-air balloons and to some degree the Brazil nut effect. It's just a lot more pronounced in liquids.

I think the second example is an attempt to give a simplified, mechanical explanation, but the author was either a bit confused about the concept or the explanation didn't come out quite as intended. I agree, it should probably be rewritten. Zaereth (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Description

Liquid is one of the *five* states of matter 59.89.47.195 (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)