Talk:Flash freezing

if any one can add this information, i'd like to know what devices are used to do this, and who the scientists were who developed it. how long as it been around? Kingturtle 18:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Added punctutation to this article and rephrased some redundant and/or nonsensical sentences. I hear periods are important to encyclopedias in this day and age. - Anonymous, 15:19 EST, 23 Sept. 2007.

Self-promotion edit war

Somebody keeps on trying to add a section about a particular trademark version of flash freezing called, "QuickFreeze". The only references are to a patent and the commercial site that promotes it. I searched and found no evidence that this process was noteworthy, hence I conclude it is self-promotion. The onus is on the person adding material to provide evidence of noteworthiness. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Prodived evidence of noteworthiness by adding link to trade magazine article detailing the innovation and significance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.51.111 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

And you got rid of the buzzy "time to market" bit too. I'm satisfied. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions I hoped this article would answer

• How long does it take to freeze something by flash-freezing?
• What sort of dimensions of objects are flash-frozen?
• How long before the centre is frozen?
• When is flash-freezing advised and not advised?

I see in reference [1] from 1930 that "flash" freezing a two-inch thickness of fish actually took 1.5 hours; it was "flash" compared to the previous time of ten hours. What's the numbers in 2015? - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Page cleanup for tone and person

This article really needs a rewrite. Not only is the prose awkward and overly academic ("Now, it is shown how cold water can get before it absolutely must freeze: 48 degrees below zero Celsius.", "For the understanding of Flash freezing, various related quantities might be useful."), a good portion of the article is written in the incorrect person and reads like a bizarre textbook. I'd strongly recommend trimming the excessive academic background and normalizing the prose used throughout the article - some sections read like the rest of Wikipedia, but others feel more like an undergrad lecture given by a tenured professor. While this is a complex subject, Wikipedia is not a textbook or a white paper and its writing should reflect that in its ability to explain abstract concepts in an accessible manner. 64.238.140.42 (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)