Talk:Ice-nine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Why is Peter Muntean collection listed in popular culture and who is he anyway? All I get is an eye doctor in Austria.
I agree; it smells like vandalism. I've rolled the page back to the previous version. Nezuji 08:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No need for info referring to a band that existed for three years in the 1990s.


  • Why is this article filed under "Ice-9"? In Cat's Cradle, it is consistently referred to (in italics) as "ice-nine".
  • Can anyone verify the existence of the ice-9 mentioned here (not the real ice IX), or the drilling platforms? I'm skeptical.

Tim

  • According to this site: Here is a paragraph from a recently published article from the Journal of Chemical Education (Vol. 81, 2004, p.509)that you may find interesting:

"Although ice-nine is fictitious, it does have some interesting ties to the real world (4). The author of the story, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., graduated from Cornell University with a major in chemistry. Vonnegut took a job in the public relations office at General Electric where his older brother, Bernard, was working in the lab and had discovered how to use silver iodide particles for seeding clouds to precipitate rain and snow. The author Vonnegut credits the invention of ice-nine to Irving Langmuir, who pioneered the study of thin films and interfaces. While working in the public relations office at General Electric, Vonnegut came across a story of how Langmuir, who won the 1932 Nobel Prize for his work at General Electric, was charged with the responsibility of entertaining the author, H.G. Wells, who was visiting the company in the early 1930’s. Langmuir is said to have come up with an idea about a form of solid water that was stable at room temperature in the hopes that Wells might be inspired to write a story about it. Apparently, Wells was not inspired and neither he nor Langmuir ever published anything about it. After Langmuir and Wells had died, Vonnegut decided to use the idea in his book, Cat’s Cradle."

  • In this science news article] it is said that "Although Ice-9 of Cat's Cradle (1963, Holt, Rinehart and Winston) is pure fantasy, the concept of a molecule assuming multiple crystal structures—or polymorphs—is real, and the consequences can be dramatic."
  • On this site it is said that: "Vonnegut's Ice-9 is a cute plot twist with no connection to observation. We've looked! No matter what anomalous form of solid water at whatever pressure and temperature we've made, it always melts to ordinary water at ambient pressure above 0 degrees C."
  • In this online science lecture, it is stated that: "Ice-9 is a fictional material – we haven’t gone that high in naming ice structures."

"Kurt Vonnegut's highly entertaining story concerning an (imaginary) ice-nine, which was capable of crystallizing all the water in the world [83], fortunately has no scientific basis (see also IE) as ice-nine, in reality, is a proton ordered form of ice-three, only exists at very low temperatures and high pressures and cannot exist alongside liquid water under any conditions. Ice Ih may be metastable with respect to empty clathrate structures of lower density under negative pressure conditions (i.e. stretched) at very low temperatures [520]."

Contents

[edit] No longer a stub?

After the latest re-write, it seems to me the article is no longer a stub. Consensus? Riobranden 21:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I took off the tag, expansion isn't urgent or easy and there are plenty of worse stubs. Generally there's no point getting consensus with stub tags, they aren't important enough. Just take it off if you want to and let anyone put it back if they disagree. Kappa 14:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Influence of Bernard Vonnegut??

Kurt Vonnegut cites Irving Langmuir as the inspiration for ice-nine. But is there any reason to believe that Kurt was also influenced by his older brother, Bernard Vonnegut, who developed the use of silver iodide to precipitate rain from clouds in 1946. I wonder if there is any evidence of this? Maybe Kurt thought of his brother's discover as tinkering with nature in a way similar to ice-nine....... This is pure speculation, does anyone else have any thoughts or information on this?

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 23:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Cat's Cradle is undoubtedly Kurt Vonnegut's finest book and is far more wittily written and less ideological than some of his other writings such as Sirens of Titan, however it has to be said that it is doubtful what actual merit there is in having a seperate article for Ice Nine which after all is really the main focus of the novel so why not just mention it in the article on the novel as outside of the book it has no existence in itself? --Lord of the Isles 11:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ice-Nine

In The book its only spelled as Ice-Nine, Never as Ice-9. Would some one please fix this.

This has been resolved. IsidoroCruz 10:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is a real substance called ice-9

Its fortunatly not the same as Vonnegut's, but it bears the same name: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ice_iii.html#icenine Linked from: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html Perhaps add a disambigition page, or at least a reference in the article? (bah, how is it spelled...)

  • oops it is really mentioned. But it isn't that visible, it should be more prominent. I haven't read the book so i don't feel competent enough to edit.

[edit] Use of word "allotrope"

The article states that ice line is an imaginary "allotrope" of water. My understanding is that this term is only applied to elements. I intend to replace it with "crystaline form" or "polymorph". Glow worm64 07:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I have attempeted to edit the page. IsidoroCruz 10:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Podcast Mention

This article was mentioned in the April 13, 2007 podcast 60 Second Science from Scientific American. Bear475 00:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confusing

i may not be a knowlage type guy- But the end of the article is very mixed up and seems to be a attempt list of things that are called ice-9. while this is a unrelated and imposable goal ( i do not think a game clan is pop culture and would be a bad idear to include) it is more importantly unreadable. i think somebody just wanted to put in there own account of ice-9 named things and in doing so screwed it up. i cant fix it myself as i have no idear how so i thought i point it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.189.93 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"In popular culture" sections can be quite common in Wikipedia articles. The good thing about them is that they can help demonstrate notability and provide a place to show how influential things like Ice-nine are, but the bad thing is that they can get messy and quite out of hand. If you feel that this is the latter, go ahead and fix it. Personally, I think that this is much improved over the previous version, although I definitely agree that there are still some non-notable mentions that should be removed. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I got banned the first time i did anything for "stalking". I fixed some spelling on a halo article, i am not going to do risk it, because then i can't talk in discussion. (i think it was halo, but it was a long time ago) (211.31.189.93 (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Astrophysics

I am reposting the new meaning of ice-9, as the fission reaction of strange matter. As quarks come from literature, (Joyce) so does ice-9, (wilczek took it from kurt vonnegut) Please do not take it away without answering this legitimate ethimological points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section again. If you are correct that this Wilczek fellow took the idea from Vonnegut (and I don't dispute that point), then it probably deserves a mention under the In popular culture section in this article. The Nonfiction section is more about answering the question "Is this possible?" rather than a thorough lesson on changing states of matter in some viral fashion. Is a full article on something of that nature warranted on Wikipedia? Sure, provided there is sufficient information out there. Is this the place for such an article? Unfortunately not. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Language changes, any encyclopedia has to update meanings. Today after 10 years of a huge debate aobut the lhc and its ice-9 reaction the second meaning of ice-9 is totally common talk in periodism, is the thing might happen at cern that will kill all of us, in 'popular culture', but this is no longer popular culture but a concept that will stay for ever. Quark is no longer popular culture even if it was taken from a poem by Joyce. Ice-9 has been a decade around, and it is quoted all over. This is the place to go, and probably as the second definition, as it is directly, intimately related to ice-9 THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT IS THIS POSSIBLE? but about a word, ice-9 with many definitions. I dont believe it is needed to divide in 2 articles as both concepts are related Now i have 2 writing versions: one is more proper i think as it quotes the origin in journalism, the other is more technical as it focus in the reaction. I guess you might choose which one is prefered to the tone you set to the article, but please do not remove this. It should go here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreover i have just read cat and the cradle and it is a thoroughly extensive article, so i believe the original ice-9 concept is very well covered in both articles... And the new concept only has this 'hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that an article on the ice-9 reaction isn't needed on Wikipedia. I would strongly urge you to read the how-to guide on making your first article and write your article. What we are saying is that this article, Ice-nine, is not the place for an in-depth discussion of the reaction. Articles on Wikipedia are about one single topic, except for disambiguation pages (please read that link if you don't know what these are), which this page is not. As an example, take a look at the page for Neuromancer, the book where William Gibson coined the term "Cyberspace". Certainly "cyberspace" deserves its own entry, and it has one. And since the term was coined in Neuromancer, you'll find it mentioned in that article. But what you won't find is a complete and in-depth explanation of Cyberspace in the article on Neuromancer. This simply isn't done on Wikipedia. If something is notable on Wikipedia, it get its own article. No matter how much you believe that the novel and the physics reaction are related, I'm sorry, but they aren't. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So if you are such a good wikipedian, i hmble request your help and disambiguate or wahtever, the ice-9 reaction must be in the encyclopedia and all what you do guy is to erase articles not solve problems, so i repost again adn you do the disambiguation? though my friend wiat, i mean, dont you think that a possible end of the world, accoding to the masterpiece of kurt vonnegut, shouldnt be in an article about kurt vonnegut? My friend, are we both admirers of kurt vonnegut? Slauhter house,, 'i was in dresden' i my friend dont be like that be nice to the newcomers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talk • contribs) 02:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have once again reverted your changes. Please do not change it back and read these comments carefully. I understand that you are new around here, which is why I am being patient, but what you are doing is against Wikipedia policy. If you continue to disregard policy, we will start adding warnings on your user page, which can and will lead to you being blocked from Wikipedia.
Here are the relevant points:
Again, please do not change this page back. If you do so, I will add additional warnings until an administrator takes action. Please understand that I am trying to be nice with you, but your actions are considered very rude on Wikipedia. Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

i d not agree with your comments, articles in encyclopedias are about 'words', not 'substances' i do nto erase any of your work, so im not rude, i think you are rude erasing mine instead of improving it, as this is a collaboration, i have done the best i could, i dont know really why you dont see how obvious is that ice-9 the cosmic reaction has reached today the same status as a word that the book in the same way if you erase quarks becuse you think it should only be 'james joyce' quarks, everybody would argue with you. and the rest is bullying me, you can bully me, but i dont care. And this is nto origianl reasearch that bullyng was appealed by me to wikipedians and they agree totally after i passed my info that it was not original research and that reason dropped, ill put again the quotes they have disappear and it is a pain in the ass finding them just leave me 2 days. And again i think you are rude not me, obsessed by diminishing the article i never erase other people articles i ather would imrpove them if i had time and that is all waht i ask you, improve it dont erase it, for me is the perfet version but if you think you have to cut it down cut it. But you cant take it s you cant take quarks, the word doesnt belong to you or to kurt, languages are living evolving things —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I HAVE DONE WHAT IS PROPER, CUTING AS YOU SAY THE THING, now it stands as long as the part of chemistry so it is just. or else why we have to give more impotance to the concept of ice-9 in chemistry, which has also an independent article and it is not invented as a comparison to the novel? So please just leave it or cut a few sentences/arrange grammar, but now is just what it should be same for chemistry and physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

as i said i have repost,it hasthe same size than chemistry it is more related to ice-9 than chemistry it doesnt have another article like chemistry and kurt vonnegut would have loved it unlike chemistry asi que no me toques los cojones y dejalo estar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.210.93 (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As we have tried to explain to you, the chemistry section is there only to answer the question "is this real?" or "could this happen?". As it stands, that section is probably much larger than it actually should be. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

CORRECTED PAGE, PROPER STRUCTURE: NOW IT IS DIVIDED AS IN ANY ENCYCLOPEDIA IN FICTION AND NON-FICTION MEANINGS AND EACH OF THE 3 MAIN ACEPTIONS OF THE WORD, GIVEN THE SAME VOLUME, JUSTICE ET PEACE SHALOM Shalom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.210.93 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As we have tried to explain to you, Wikipedia does not work like that. Each article is on a separate subject. This article is on the Ice-nine as it relates to the Kurt Vonnegut novel. It's that simple. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wyatt Riot: I believe you are slightly overstepping your bounds. The term "Ice-9" started out as a fictional water substance in Vonnegut's book. However, since then it has been used to refer to many non-fictional "Ice-9 -Like" reactions. Accordingly, it is appropriate to have an encyclopedic article that uses the many present-day connotations of the term. That having been said, however, I note that in the nonfiction section there is a reference to Nobelist Franck Wilczek and his usage of the term "Ice-9" to describe a runaway fusion reaction in a letter he wrote to Scientific American. Apparently, he is a Vonnegut fan too. Please insure that that referenced/cited sentence remains. Just because Homocion's English is not his mother-tongue does not give license to erase his work. The better thing to do is to clean up his English grammar, and reduce in volume if his posts are too lengthy - not simply censor. Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

This is exactly what I've been saying the entire time. Yes, the fact that this reaction is named after the substance in the book means that it deserves a mention in the "In popular culture" section. But it certainly does not deserve its own in-depth section; if sufficient references can be found, the reaction should have its own article as Wikipedia policy requires. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So you let me disambiguate? I mean i got the message you can ban very easily anyone for doing work, and so this is a destructive not a constructice encyclopedia. Pint is this is neither original research not me being a freak obsessed by ice-9, it is a theme that concerns humanity and will do so increasingly. For example hee in wikipedia you have this text not put by me: Another kind of accident is the Ice-9 Type Transition, in which our planet including everything on it becomes a strange matter planet in a chain reaction it is in an article about possible catastrophes and ice-9 redirects here and there is no info. So let me know if you are gonna erase me if i disambiguate cause then it wont , really if you are working at cern too as the people that censors lhc is ok, just let me know so i dont waste time, but if you really are wikipedians and this is a matter of formalities, let us disambiguate what is absurd is not to have proper infomation of something that can probably with a 10% up chances end this planet within the next decade. IT IS NOT though popular culture, that is ridiculuous, this is serious science, the next scale of energies in the Universe, this is as serious as an H Bomb or the discovery of the structure of the atom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You should just be able to update the disambiguation tag that's already at the top of the article. If that doesn't work, there are plenty of available tags at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polywater

Should there be a see also: link to polywater ? (there is a link from that page to here). 189.70.185.200 (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. 189.70.172.209 (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2008

(UTC)


[edit] Tiberium?

Im amazed nobody has pointed out the similarity between the behaviour of this substance and that of the fictional tiberium in the command and conquer games.This may have inspired the idea of tiberium.

[edit] In popular culture

Anybody have an opinion on what should or shouldn't be included in the In popular culture section? The general consensus, from what I've seen on other articles, is that if there is such a section, it should be concise and only include subjects which have links to other articles or are otherwise notable.

Specifically, I'm looking for opinions on this:

  • Ice-nine is also the DJ name used by a hip-hop artist on the East Coast -- DJ Ice Nine

I feel that this is neither concise nor notable. Opinions? Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Feel free to delete it. -- wr 87.139.81.19 (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone ahead and removed everything that doesn't link to its own article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)