![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
In the article, the calculations used "...If at least 500 atm (50 MPa) is required to melt the ice...", I wanted to know why this was used, and does it have a strong reason for this quantity? -- Reza M. Namin ( talk) 09:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The article contradicts itself: according to the introduction, a copper wire cutting through ice is a valid example, although the details are complex. According to the 'misconceptions' paragraph it is an invalid example.
I'm no expert on thteh is topic, but as is, the paragraph contradicts the lead which speaks of this effect for below freezing temperatures. Tallard ( talk) 20:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is this section here? Why is it so poorly written? 2601:80:C97F:EFD0:69F5:5234:3838:590 ( talk) 07:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Removing the full section. Polilogaritmo — Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned above by others, this article appears to contradict itself in multiple ways.
As mentioned above by others, this article appears to contradict itself in multiple ways.
This article's claims attributing Faraday's wire experiment to regelation need to be better cited and contextualized. The parts about ice skating might be best removed since this subject and the related controversy is already covered in the Premelting article.
I'm adding the {{contradictory}} template to the article and linking to Premelting.
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
In the article, the calculations used "...If at least 500 atm (50 MPa) is required to melt the ice...", I wanted to know why this was used, and does it have a strong reason for this quantity? -- Reza M. Namin ( talk) 09:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The article contradicts itself: according to the introduction, a copper wire cutting through ice is a valid example, although the details are complex. According to the 'misconceptions' paragraph it is an invalid example.
I'm no expert on thteh is topic, but as is, the paragraph contradicts the lead which speaks of this effect for below freezing temperatures. Tallard ( talk) 20:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is this section here? Why is it so poorly written? 2601:80:C97F:EFD0:69F5:5234:3838:590 ( talk) 07:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Removing the full section. Polilogaritmo — Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned above by others, this article appears to contradict itself in multiple ways.
As mentioned above by others, this article appears to contradict itself in multiple ways.
This article's claims attributing Faraday's wire experiment to regelation need to be better cited and contextualized. The parts about ice skating might be best removed since this subject and the related controversy is already covered in the Premelting article.
I'm adding the {{contradictory}} template to the article and linking to Premelting.