Talk:Rollin film

(Rated Stub-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 articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

I deleted the cleanup tag, as it didn't appear that this article was in excessive disorder. You can put it back up if you disagree, but please post your reasons why here. Stephen (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Video?[edit]

Does anyone have a video of this? It would be an excellent addition to the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is a Rollin film visible?[edit]

At 30nm thickness, I suspect it's invisible. More specifically, I don't know what to make of this sentence in the paragraph about fountains: "If not for its evaporation in the presence of heat, a Rollin film would have a very low index of refraction". Does that mean that, because it can evaporate, the refractive index of a Rollin film is not low??? I'm inclined to delete the sentence, but maybe someone knows what the the original author meant to say. It could be replaced with a statement that, because of the low refractive index, the films are not visible. Spiel496 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xkcd[edit]

this "what if" from xkcd brought me here, and it did provide another reference that might be used to expand the article . But it's all a bit beyond my physics skills EdwardLane (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]