Talk:Nucleate boiling

Physics Start‑class Mid‑importance

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

Chemical and Bio Engineering (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering

This article or section is in need of attention from a proofreader

"contradictionary"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.37.196 (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed typo. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Departure from nucleate boiling

Yes, the topic "departure from nucleate boiling" is not nucleate boiling but rather transition or film boiling and should not be in this article. It is contradictory and should be moved. Venny85 (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay here. It's not contradictory (nor was that what 76.1.37.196 was saying). The article is quite small and can easily cover the boiling regime past the CHF since it is related. Generally, it is mentioned in the same paragraph or in the same discussion as nucleate boiling. Many modern discussions and textbooks blur these lines and expound the fact that in flowing systems, there are often times in which both types of boiling are happening in close proximity, especially where local hot spots exist and localized flow turbulence cause different sized nucleates. Other factors held constant, channel size alone can determine essentially which regime a fluid is in.

So although the pretty graph is great for an entry-level understanding of heat flux, it lacks the benefit of engineering analysis of a real, dynamic system in which you cannot easily separate nucleate boiling from film boiling. I say keep these concepts in the same article. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to keep the article objective and easily understandable, it is better to separate nucleate boiling, transition boiling, just like free convection boiling and film boiling are now separate articles. It is true that some books merge them together, however the calculations for the different regimes are still done separately and not together. For example, to calculate the heat flux for boiling at film boiling, one has to calculate it at nucleate boiling and transition boiling and finally at film boiling. By merging them all together, you are confusing the reader and assuming them to be the same. Most times in engineering, it is not really the boiling regime that one is interested in, but rather to calculate the total heat flux for say, phase change boiling fluids heat exchangers.

And I was about to expand the article for transition boiling today only to find it has been removed and redirected! ..... There is still more that can be added to this article on nucleate boiling that i can do. Venny85 (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good graph

Found this article very informative with the different sorts of boiling. The graph of water heat transfer is also highly useful. Whatever you do with this article (rename etc.) try to preserve the content somewhere (e.g. under a "boiling mechanisms" article or section elsewhere). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.132.177 (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

boils are gross

doctor dre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.64.10 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]