Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T07:06:43.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences Between Gel-Derived Melts and Those Produced by Batch Melting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

Alfred R. Cooper
Alfred R. Cooper*
Affiliation:
Case Western Reserve University, Metallurgy and Materials Science Department, Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Get access

Abstract

Properties of a system at equilibrium depend on pressure, temperature and composition. Thus for a melt produced by the sol-gel (SG) process to be different from an identical composition melted from batch (MB), both cannot be at equilibrium. Non equilibrium melts can be associated with structural differences or homogeneity differences. The former have been suggested for SG melts while the latter is always possible in MB melts. Appropriate relaxation times are presented for structural and heterogeneity relaxation. From this it is concluded that structural differences will not persist unless the SG melt is metastable with respect to the equilibrium melt. A method for testing this unlikely premise is proposed.

Melts which are imperceptibly different from equilibrium may have non-equilibrium crystal embryo distributions that relax toward equilibrium with a time constant longer than that for structural relaxation. A difference in embryo and stable nuclei distribution will result in different crystallization kinetics.

Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 73: Symposium H – Better Ceramics Through Chemistry II , 1986 , 421
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Zallen, I. Richard, The Physics of AmorDhous Solids, (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1983). p. 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Kordas, G. and Weeks, R.A., in Effects of Modes of Formation on the Structure of Glass, edited by Weeks, R.A., Kinser, D.L., and Kordas, G. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), p. 327, A.A. Wolf, E.J. Friebele, and D.C. Tran, Effects of Modes of Formation on the Structure of Glass, edited by R.A. Weeks, D.L. Kinser, and G. Kordas (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), pp. 345.Google Scholar
3a. Kordas, G. and Weeks, R.A., in Effects of Modes of Formation on the Structure of Glass, edited by Weeks, R.A., Kinser, D.L., and Kordas, G. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), Ibid, p. 331.Google Scholar
3b. Kordas, G. and Weeks, R.A., in Effects of Modes of Formation on the Structure of Glass, edited by Weeks, R.A., Kinser, D.L., and Kordas, G. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), Ibid, p. 317.Google Scholar
3c. Kordas, G. and Weeks, R.A., in Effects of Modes of Formation on the Structure of Glass, edited by Weeks, R.A., Kinser, D.L., and Kordas, G. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985),. Ibid, p. 187.Google Scholar
4a. Zarzycki, J., J. Mat. Sci. 19. 1656 (1984).Google Scholar
4b. See also papers by Scherer, G. and Shaw, T. this meeting.Google Scholar
5. Mackenzie, J. D., J. Amer. Cer. Soc. 46, 461–70 (1963). Ibid 47. 76–80, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Primak, W., Fuchs, L.H., and Day, P., J. Amer. Cer. Soc. 38, 135–139 (1955).Google Scholar
7. Hara, M. and Suetoshi, S., Report Research Lab, Asahi Glass Co. 5., 126–135, 1955. Also see George W. Scherer, Relaxation in Glass and Composites, (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986), p. 118.Google Scholar
8. Williams, G. and Watts, D.C., Trans. Far. Soc. 66, 80–85 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Cahn, J.W. and Hilliard, J.E., J. Chem. Phys. 28 228 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Mukherjee, Shyama P., J. Non-Cryst. Sol. 63, 35–43 (1984).Google Scholar
11. Mackenzie, John D., J. Non-Cryst. Sol. 48, 1–10 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Kashchiev, D., Surface Science 14 209 (1969).Google Scholar
13. Zarzycki, J., J. Non Cryst. Sol. 48. 105–162 (1982).Google Scholar
14. Dislich, H., Angew Chem. Int. Ed. 10 363–70 (1971).Google Scholar
15. Yamane, M., Aso, S., Okano, S. and Sakaino, T., J. Mat. Sci. 14, 607 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Sakka, S. and Kamiya, K., J. Non-Cryst. Sol. 42, 403 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Gottardi, V. et al., in Thermal Analysis, (Edition Wiedeman Birkhauser, Basel, 1980), p. 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Brinker, C.J. et a]., J. Non-Cryst. Sol. 71, 171 (1985).Google Scholar
19. Scherer, G.W., Brinker, C.J. and Roth, E. Peter, presented at the III International Workshop on Glasses and Glass Ceramics from Gels, to be published.Google Scholar
20. Brinker, C. Jeffrey (private communication).Google Scholar
21. Weinberg, M.C. and Neilson, G.F., Amer, J., Cer. Soc. 66 (2), 132–134 (1983).Google Scholar
22. Neilson, G.F. and Weinberg, M.C., in Materials Processing in the Reduced ravity Environment of Space, edited by Rindonie, Guy E. (Elsevier Science Publishing Co., New York, 1982), p. 333.Google Scholar
22a.Weinberg, M.C. and Neilson, G.F., J. Mat. Sci. 13, 1206 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Gupta, P.K., in Effects of Modes of Formation on the Structure of Glass edited by Weeks, R.A., Kinser, D.L., and Kordas, G. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), p. 29 (see eqn. 8, p. 32).Google Scholar
24. Yoldas, B.E., J. of Non-Cryst. Sol. 51, 105–121 (1982).Google Scholar
25. Cooper, A.R., J. Non-Cryst. Sol. 71, 5 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Neilson, G.F. and Weinberg, M.C., J. of Non-Cryst. Sol. 63, 365–374 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Grassi, A. et a)., Thermochemica Acta 76, 133–138 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Mukherjee, S.P., J. De Physique 43, C9–265 (1982).Google Scholar
29. Mukherjee, S.P. and Zarzycki, J., J. of Amer. Cer. Soc.. 62, 1–4 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar