Talk:Sol–gel process

B Class?
Over blown. Far too much use of buzz words and technical jargon and far too little straight forward explanation. Needs a good edit by someone in the know to make it much more succinct. And to bring it to the target level for wikipedia science articles. This means it should be understandable to any reasonably intelligent person with a high school science background. I find this article extremely difficult to read. Much harder than the subject warrants. And I had two years of undergraduate chemistry experience before I changed my major to computer science. I changed majors because my colour blindness (John Dalton not withstanding) meant an inability to determine titration endpoints accurately, coloured indicators still being à la mode. A good start on cleaning up this article would be to bring the introduction down to one or two paragraphs that précis the whole process. Like say a sort of introduction to the subject. Not five windy paragraphs each the size of a Russian literary classic. 124.254.99.129 (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree. There's Simple English for the level that you seek.

And in an additional note, why are you explaining why you changed majors? This is completely irrelevant, and a blatant lie - I personally know successful colorblind chemists. Onoros (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

polymeration vs polymerization
From Google defnitions:

Polymeration is a reaction where monomers join together to form bigger macromolecules.

polymerization The composition of long chains of molecules called polymers from shorter chains called monomers,

DV8 2XL 13:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I linked these words, maybe it's worthwhile to make stubs on them (I don't know yet if there are pages, I will se in 5 seconds...)?

Copied?
--10:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.bell-labs.com/org/physicalsciences/projects/solgel/solgel.html

Geffcken at ...
I'm trying to reconcile this edit, by an anon with no other edits, with the historical information that was already there. Where did Geffcken study or work? This is an earlier date than what was there previously, but I'm inclined to revert. Any ideas? I'm not even sure if 1939 is the earliest date. I seem to recall papers from early 1920s being cited, but I'll have to verify that. Ufwuct 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This might contain the answers, but I don't have access to it right now. This article suggests that sol-gel processing occurred much earlier. However, I can't verify the sources to see what links these references have to sol-gels.  Is anybody at a library at a large university right now who can access these articles?  Thanks. Ufwuct 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A form superior to teflon?
The first version of this article featured this: (...) as a means of producing very thin films of metal oxide for various purposes, including a form which is a superior alternative to teflon.

And now it is still there: (...)or as a means of producing very thin films of metal oxides for various purposes, including a form superior to teflon.

However, this is just nonsense, right? I mean, a thin film can be used for so many things, so why stress that a thin film can be used as a 'form superior to teflon'? This should be removed, it is too vague. It could be replaced with a comment that cites a property of a sol-gel fabricated polymer which is superior to Teflon, with an appropriate reference, of course.

antiflu2 10:43, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Solid / Gel ??
Regarding the comment "The sol-gel process involves the transition of a system from a liquid (the colloidal “sol") into a solid (the "gel") phase."

I'm only guessing, but wouldn't the liquid phase be "gel", and the solid phase be "sol".

HexAmp 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)~ This entire article reads like either a sales brochure for a Sol-Gel company or an overview of coursework in a junior-college material science class. It lacks citations, it's completely biased toward the concept of sol-gel as a manufacturing technique but gives delightfully little actual information.

05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)~`

Sol=a stable dispersion of colloids/nanoparticles in liquid gel= a continous network of solid material with air or water in the "holes"

So the author has got it right, but he/she has missed that there has to be a drying for getting the solid material.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.172.201 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sol-gel vs. teflon
"including a form superior to teflon" has no meaning because:


 * 1) teflon is NOT a metal oxide and is NOT obtained by sol-gel
 * 2) superior as to what? mechanical properties, physicochemical properties...
 * 3) a reference should be included (journal article or book)

So I'm removing this part because it simply does not fit in the scope of the article.

--Ste nohype 08:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sol-gel properties
Second section (after Introduction):


 * Silicon alkoxides
 * Metal alkoxides: hydrolysis and condensation
 * Recent development by Kessler et al.
 * Metal chlorides

Ste nohype 12:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Hello, I think "sol-gel" (with a dash) is more appropriate than "sol gel", therefore I suggest this page should be renamed "Sol-Gel". Also, he "sol-gel" page (with a dash) already exists, it is just a redirect to "sol gel"... so there should be no problem in renaming. Ste nohype 10:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page, per the request and the apparent commonness of the hyphenated spelling. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Questioning some of the math
In the sentence (fragment?): "it has been observed that the total volume fraction of these nanoscale pores (both intergranular and intragranular porosity) must be less than 1% for high-quality optical transmission. I.E. The density has to be 99.99% of the theoretical crystalline density.", should that be less than 0.01%?

I have not checked the references (currently 37 and 38), nor do I know enough to be sure, but it just seems that, for the density to be 99.99% of the theoretical density, there must be no more than 0.01% pores.

On the other hand, because volume is a cubic function, maybe 1% (0.01 fraction) in pores translates to 0.00001 (0.001%) volume, but then I'd guess the other number (the density) should be 99.999%?

Rhkramer (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Medicine Section
There are probably medical applications, however shouldn't there be a mix of references and not just from people with the last name Vinogradov? Sources seem to be only from a single researcher, group, ...family? 63.125.136.110 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)