Talk:Crystal twinning

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

‹See TfM› Physics High‑importance 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Materials High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials 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.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This paragraphs seems to me to be thoroughly misleading, though I'm not expert enough in the topic to edit it. I hope someone will. The impression is given that the difference in orientation of the two crystals sharing a twin boundary is necessarily slight. That's only a very special case (called "pseudo-merohedry" ^[1]). In general, there is NO distinction between a "twin boundary" and a "grain boundary". It is NOT TRUE that "grain boundaries ... form when crystals of ARBITRARY orientation grow together". There is nothing arbitrary about mis-orientations across grain/twin boundaries. The possible relative orientations of two crystal lattices sharing a boundary is a branch of group theory with an extensive literature.

Moreover, the description of "inter-penetrating twins" is also misleading. Crystals do not inter-penetrate - they only sometimes look as if they do! Ericlord (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grain boundary is generally taken to mean a plane across which crystalline order is not preserved. This can include a boundary produced by the concentration of defects and/or inhomogeneous material, which would constitute a case entirely distinct from a twin boundary, and the relative orientation of the faces of adjacent grains can be entirely arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defects are excluded (no crystal is homogeneous with respect to that if to look with proper techniques). Materialscientist (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following statement: "FCC structures will not usually twin because slip is more energetically favorable.", which does not account for twinning in FCC materials which have low stacking fault energy, like Fe-Mn steels, and for which twinning is one important deformation mechanism. In these materials, twinning might be as energetically favourable as dislocation glide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marechad (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

misc: I think that the images are not displaying correctly. Some of them are skipped over when being displayed and the next/previous buttons are pressed. That or the computer i am using is a vegetable.

It would be nice to have a discussion of what twinning boundaries look like at the level of unit cells. For example, could someone make a figure showing unit cells in two different tiling arrangements? Spencer Bliven (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Crystal twinning's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "KleinHurlbut1993":

• From Jadeite: Klein, Cornelis; Hurlbut, Cornelius S., Jr. (1993). Manual of mineralogy : (after James D. Dana) (21st ed.). New York: Wiley. pp. 482–483, 598. ISBN 047157452X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• From Plagioclase: Klein, Cornelis; Hurlbut, Cornelius S., Jr. (1993). Manual of mineralogy : (after James D. Dana) (21st ed.). New York: Wiley. p. 543. ISBN 047157452X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• From Niter: Klein, Cornelis; Hurlbut, Cornelius S., Jr. (1993). Manual of mineralogy : (after James D. Dana) (21st ed.). New York: Wiley. p. 418. ISBN 047157452X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Twinforescatter diode.tif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may not seem like a typo, and my change may not change the appearance of the page, but I fixed a coding typo – there was no space on either side of a file (photo). When automated spellcheckers scan Wikipedia pages, they skip the files including the brackets, which then makes it seem that there is no space following the period. Adding a space either before or after the file (brackets) can solve this problem, but it can also cause an indentation problem. Starting a new paragraph with the file and a new line with the text prevents this. The appearance may not change at all, but it's better coding. Thanks for understanding. Ira Leviton (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC) –[reply]

@Ira Leviton it is not a typo still. See Scattered electron imaging article. Can you please put it back? FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: Maybe we are talking about different things? I inserted a hard return and space after a period but I don't see a difference in the page appearance. Did I do something else that I'm not aware of or don't see? Ira Leviton (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ira Leviton you removed an acronym, i.e., FSD FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I put it back ., sorry to labour the point since you clearly did not intentionally remove the acronym …FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]