I saw the structure. So its the zwitterionic tautomer that crystallizes? Makes sense. If so, I'll redo the ChemDraw, perhaps showing an equilibrium. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Triethyloxonium_tetrafluoroborate&diff=266749919&oldid=266749677 .. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ben, I'm still quite uncertain about navigating on Wikipedia. But I have learned a lot about editing.
No, I didn't think you were concerned about that changed name for the Image file for my Figure 3. What happened there was that I had found a minor error in the drawing and thus made a new one on my pc. But in uploading it into Commons, all the hyphens in the original drawing were replaced by underscores (actually a good thing since then one could bring in the revised drawing without bringing in the old one again. But it too me a brief while not to understand that I had to change all the hyphens in the Edit copy for the drawing to underscores. And that solved the problem.
My only comment about the minus sign was that I didn't want you to think that it my part of the Birch article where you found an error (at least I think so). The history of that article is that I had it in my User Space. I had written it when I noted that the Birch article Wikipedia had was very limited and had some errors which only an organic chemist would find. First I did try making some minor corrections in the old one (mainly missing references) but that met resistance. So I wrote an entirely new one. Finally it was moved to Article Space and then merged with the old one. It was a part of the old one in which you found a problem with minus signs; at least I think so.
Ben, it was nice to hear from you. You are in England a place I saw back in 1944-45 on a troop train going from Glascow to Southampton. Of course, later I got to see England in much nicer times.
With best wishes,
--Howard E. Zimmerman 22:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman ( talk • contribs)
Ben, Thanks for the heads up on the Carboxyl group geometry. Your work on wikipedia is impressive. I uploaded the new image to the page Carboxyl.
Itineranttrader ( talk) 00:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement as well as the nifty structures. Even if we dont educate the world, we seem to be learning bits ourselves.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you changed the formatting for Plumbide slightly, putting the links to 18-crown-6 and en to the sentence after the chemical structure rather than in the chemical structure itself. Why is that? Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of the info that I added from Greenwood and Earnshaw? Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 14:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I found "Aspects of anionic framework formation: Clustering of p-block elements". doi:10.1016/S0010-8545(98)00168-4. Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, can you also do the structure for the pentaplumbide anion? Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 16:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ben. I noticed that you have recently uploaded nice structures of cyclic siloxanes substituted with phenyls. They are not used in an article as far as I see. Do you know, if hexaphenylcyclotrisiloxane and octaphenylcyclotetrasiloxane have industrial or commercial applications (i.e. they are produced/used in significant amounts)? -- Leyo 17:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have not removed galleries from articles, but a gallery from an article. I acknowledge that there really is no problem. I will explain more in depth on Talk:Butane. Happy Wiki'ing! Bobber0001 ( talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, next time please be careful when reverting edits, as you did with User:Ratpole's edit to Gold. One of his/her changes included a valid spelling correction (abandonded -> abandoned), which you also reverted. I've already fixed the problem, but just keep an eye out for this in the future. Thanks!— Tetracube ( talk) 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Ben. Thanks for the encouraging message. I actually got started making the 3D molecules using your tutorial, so in a way you are sort of my mentor. I would love some pointers on where to find the correct geometries for different molecules so that I do not make the mistake I made again. Thanks! Woodenchemist ( talk) 16:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ben, you were right to revert my edit of TlCl. Indeed, it is CsI-type at room temperature and converts to TlI structure at low-T only. I have put references on TlI structure as (A-V Mudring "Thallium Halides - New Aspects of the Stereochemical Activity of Electron Lone Pairs of Heavier Main-Group Elements" Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 6 (2007) 882)(R. P. Lowndes and C. H. Perry "Molecular structure and anharmonicity in thallium iodide" J. Chem. Phys. 58, 271 (1973)) I can email you these pdfs if you wish.
Regarding ZnO. IMO, the images are redundant because is not the unit cell, but its expanded graphical depiction, i.e. just a cropped version of . The wurtzite unit cell contains only 4 atoms (see, e.g. http://portellen.phycmt.dur.ac.uk/sjc/thesis_mcg/node47.html). Also, for most readers, unit cell does not say much, i.e. one structural picture is sufficient. If you agree, you may wish to revert your edit, but this of no importance. Best regards. NIMSoffice ( talk) 00:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I looked up the definition of unit cell, which I have forgotten actually. Loosely speaking, most of those ball-and-stick models are unit cells (thus no need to put several, I usually choose one which looks clearer). More restrictive (thought not unique too) is "primitive unit cell", i.e. the smallest number of atoms to build the lattice (e.g. 4 for ZnO). Those are however not so illustrative. NIMSoffice ( talk) 03:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ben. Could you draw a boat conformation version of File:Cyclohexane-chair-2D-stereo-skeletal.png? The version in Commons:Category:Cyclohexane conformation missed the perspective. I tried to draw one, but as it didn't look nice, it didn't upload it. -- Leyo 12:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ben, you may want to weigh in here: Talk:Fluoxetine#Question on the Chemical Structure of Fluoxetine. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ben, I am working on boron nitride hoping to bring it to GA level. The article desperately needs pictures. Would you be willing to draw them ? For example, something like boron-nitride nanotube (same as carbon nanotube, but with alternating boron and nitrogen atoms) and intercalated hexagonal BN. Intercalation of BN is difficult, and thus I am trying to be careful in selecting credible sources. I trust Solozhenko [1] and he has reported BNXNH3 with x=3,4,5 where NH3 molecules are between the BN sheets (no picture given). Another intercalation is alkali metals (with a picture). [2] Any other ideas on pictures and contents are welcome. Cheers. NIMSoffice ( talk) 06:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
I had a look on the crystallographic databases I have access to, but could not find any BN intercalation compounds. I also read the papers you link to above – the 1989 paper didn't seem to identify the interlayer separation, and I am not advanced enough to really understand their reciprocal lattice diagram. `The BN-NH3 paper didn't seem to contain any coordinates.
Ben ( talk) 10:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem, I just like to keep a record of what's been said. It was HgO, I think. I looked into the polymorphs of HgO and there are many - see User:Benjah-bmm27/Task list. I'll add pictures shortly. Don't worry about redundancy, there's plenty of room in Wikipedia, the most important thing is to convey the information clearly.
I have a few tips for your drawings, such as File:OsO4structure.jpg:
Ben ( talk) 11:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You could take your images with a black background and remove it using Photoshop or GIMP. You're probably right about OsO4, although it is possible to show a bit of packing. Not necessary though, molecular structures are mostly about the molecule! I respectfully disagree that space-filling models are less desirable than ball-and-stick models. Graphite intercalation compound is a prime example! You can see the way the potassium atoms prop open the graphite layers. Both styles are complementary - although in some cases, one may be much clearer.
Thanks for adding the reference to File:Rutile-unit-cell-3D-balls.png. I've updated the image description. I think it's important to give the source that was actually used for the image, rather than any convenient reference that seems to say the same thing. Sometimes there are differences or mistakes in sources that we don't notice until later.
You make a good point about noting atom colours explicitly. I will start to do that in my image descriptions. It's not always practical, though, to add a caption. Chemboxes are a notable example. And often, it is easy to deduce which atom is which colour, e.g. phosphorus pentafluoride!
Ben ( talk) 12:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ben, I saw your new structure - replacing my one :-( c'est la vie. My one question is that which of us is correct? I set IsisDraw up according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing, and I got the result that I posted. Personally I prefer your structure - I always do Hydrogen "on Hetero and Terminal" at work - but the WP page says just "on Hetero" Ronhjones (Talk) 23:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is possible to get IsisDraw to export a bigger image. I haven't used it for a few years, but I believe other Wikichemists do. Post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry - people there are normally very helpful. You'll be a welcome addition to the gang. Let me know if there's anything else you need pointers on.
Cheers
Ben ( talk) 06:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Once you get a TIFF, use software like IrfanView to convert it into a PNG, at the maximum resolution possible. Typically 720 dpi or similar. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Ben, why reverting ? Why two same figures ? Pride for own creation ? There are so many wrongs there. To start with, red and brown colors are no good couple. Atoms do not pack simply because their ionic/covalent "radii" is a primitive abstraction developed around 1920 when no better methods were available. This abstraction proportionally splits a distance between atoms in a solid, names it "radius" and assumes the electron shell is a sphere having that radius. By definition, it gives dense packing, but. We know that bonding electron distribution is very far from spherical. Another point is that all structural models we use are crude approximations, but dense packing is graphically poor to show relative atomic positions, as compared to ball-stick models. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I just wanted to mention that the File:Fluorite-unit-cell-3D.png is not to scale. I've added a warning in the image description to tell that, because I have made the error to exchange F and Ca atoms based on this image (I should have check more carefully)... -- Mathieu Perrin ( talk) 15:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Ionic radii are averages over many crystal structures - they're not exact because ions are not perfectly hard spheres, there is some degree of covalency in even the most ionic of compounds. Differing degrees of covalency in different compounds would give rise to slightly different ionic radii if they were calculated separately for each compound.
This isn't normally a problem in images, as the picture would look almost identical, whether r(F−) = 1.33 Å or 1.35 Å etc.
Ben ( talk) 14:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Ben, could you please check File:Iron(II)-sulfide-unit-cell-3D-balls.png. My database tells this is exactly the structure of Ln2O3 (Ln=rare earths - pity I did not see that yesterday when I drew this Ln2O3 structure myself), and gives a quite different structure for FeS (mackinawite). Suspicious is also the ratio of atoms in the unit cell. Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I just saw this (I though I was watching this page, but I wasn't). I was wrong and your structure is correct. The similarity between File:Iron(II)-sulfide-unit-cell-3D-balls.png and File:La2O3structure.jpg, although the stoichiometries are different, is accidental - neither structure is a primitive cell. Indeed, FeS has many polymorphs, the information on that is obscure (because not only structure but also Fe/S ratio may change slightly, say 10-20% this is not very common and is misleading), but I might sort that information out later. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Drawing is easy - I have good access to structure files (but the program which can treat them is crippled - thats why black backgrounds). Most time is gone to understand the polymorphs. I also still can't figure out my PNG problem (my PNGs/SVGs display on WP only in full size, but not upon thumb reduction) - thats why still jpegs. You were right about Zirconium(IV) chloride, I forgot about similar layered structures (in fact, many different binaries have structures which are almost same graphically, but not crystallographically). Materialscientist ( talk) 11:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ben, I have added the symmetry and phase transition for that article. Could you please fix the captions (if you remember) in terms of which structure (orthorhombic or tetragonal (it might be called "square" or "cubic" in some papers)) is shown there. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ben
Could you do a picture for Magnus' green salt, because the one there sucks :). Ta, Chris ( talk) 08:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Chris ( talk) 12:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benjah-bmm27,
Regarding [1], I don't dispute your edit, but I was wondering whether we could include a note at Wikipedia:Chemical_infobox or Template:Chembox_Properties stating the consensus? Even a link to a relevant guideline would be useful. I've looked both before and since making my edit, but I can't find any discussion about how these formulae should be presented, and I'm sure I'm not the first person to wonder. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 13:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a question about models. How do you get the background of the image to be transparent? Thanks. Ginogrz ( talk) 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ben, thanks for the note about my claim that calcium gluconate is mis-drawn. It was a guess based on the nakedness of the Ca2+ center and the bis(bidentate) carboxylate (I have never seen that motif in acetates), the absence of aquo ligands, and the fact that the thing looks molecular (also rare for carboxylates). Possibly the picture is of a subunit in a polymer that forms upon dehydration. I would expect something far more complicated with octahedral Ca2+. But I havent gone digging yet in the literature.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ronhjones (Talk) 19:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ben. Do you remember where you got the 101.7 pm from? The value cited from this book is 101.4 pm (see article in de-WP). -- Leyo 06:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry - confusing wording "No preview available - 2007 - 2149 pages. This book has a more recent edition (1955)." - makes no sense!
I know Holleman & Wiberg, it's the graduate-level inorganic text here, too.
Shall we have a look in the literature?
Ben ( talk) 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi....... I think we really need to do some work on the articles related to electropositivity, screening effect, etc... It seems to be very inadequate, as was exposed by the question on the Science Reference Desk.... Rkr1991 ( Wanna chat?) 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have done a lot of chemistry-related images. Could you help make a new image for Sodium pertechnetate? The current image is a low-resolution GIF; I think we can do better. :-) Thanks!— Tetracube ( talk) 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw the structure. So its the zwitterionic tautomer that crystallizes? Makes sense. If so, I'll redo the ChemDraw, perhaps showing an equilibrium. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Triethyloxonium_tetrafluoroborate&diff=266749919&oldid=266749677 .. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ben, I'm still quite uncertain about navigating on Wikipedia. But I have learned a lot about editing.
No, I didn't think you were concerned about that changed name for the Image file for my Figure 3. What happened there was that I had found a minor error in the drawing and thus made a new one on my pc. But in uploading it into Commons, all the hyphens in the original drawing were replaced by underscores (actually a good thing since then one could bring in the revised drawing without bringing in the old one again. But it too me a brief while not to understand that I had to change all the hyphens in the Edit copy for the drawing to underscores. And that solved the problem.
My only comment about the minus sign was that I didn't want you to think that it my part of the Birch article where you found an error (at least I think so). The history of that article is that I had it in my User Space. I had written it when I noted that the Birch article Wikipedia had was very limited and had some errors which only an organic chemist would find. First I did try making some minor corrections in the old one (mainly missing references) but that met resistance. So I wrote an entirely new one. Finally it was moved to Article Space and then merged with the old one. It was a part of the old one in which you found a problem with minus signs; at least I think so.
Ben, it was nice to hear from you. You are in England a place I saw back in 1944-45 on a troop train going from Glascow to Southampton. Of course, later I got to see England in much nicer times.
With best wishes,
--Howard E. Zimmerman 22:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman ( talk • contribs)
Ben, Thanks for the heads up on the Carboxyl group geometry. Your work on wikipedia is impressive. I uploaded the new image to the page Carboxyl.
Itineranttrader ( talk) 00:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement as well as the nifty structures. Even if we dont educate the world, we seem to be learning bits ourselves.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you changed the formatting for Plumbide slightly, putting the links to 18-crown-6 and en to the sentence after the chemical structure rather than in the chemical structure itself. Why is that? Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of the info that I added from Greenwood and Earnshaw? Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 14:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I found "Aspects of anionic framework formation: Clustering of p-block elements". doi:10.1016/S0010-8545(98)00168-4. Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, can you also do the structure for the pentaplumbide anion? Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 16:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ben. I noticed that you have recently uploaded nice structures of cyclic siloxanes substituted with phenyls. They are not used in an article as far as I see. Do you know, if hexaphenylcyclotrisiloxane and octaphenylcyclotetrasiloxane have industrial or commercial applications (i.e. they are produced/used in significant amounts)? -- Leyo 17:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have not removed galleries from articles, but a gallery from an article. I acknowledge that there really is no problem. I will explain more in depth on Talk:Butane. Happy Wiki'ing! Bobber0001 ( talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, next time please be careful when reverting edits, as you did with User:Ratpole's edit to Gold. One of his/her changes included a valid spelling correction (abandonded -> abandoned), which you also reverted. I've already fixed the problem, but just keep an eye out for this in the future. Thanks!— Tetracube ( talk) 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Ben. Thanks for the encouraging message. I actually got started making the 3D molecules using your tutorial, so in a way you are sort of my mentor. I would love some pointers on where to find the correct geometries for different molecules so that I do not make the mistake I made again. Thanks! Woodenchemist ( talk) 16:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ben, you were right to revert my edit of TlCl. Indeed, it is CsI-type at room temperature and converts to TlI structure at low-T only. I have put references on TlI structure as (A-V Mudring "Thallium Halides - New Aspects of the Stereochemical Activity of Electron Lone Pairs of Heavier Main-Group Elements" Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 6 (2007) 882)(R. P. Lowndes and C. H. Perry "Molecular structure and anharmonicity in thallium iodide" J. Chem. Phys. 58, 271 (1973)) I can email you these pdfs if you wish.
Regarding ZnO. IMO, the images are redundant because is not the unit cell, but its expanded graphical depiction, i.e. just a cropped version of . The wurtzite unit cell contains only 4 atoms (see, e.g. http://portellen.phycmt.dur.ac.uk/sjc/thesis_mcg/node47.html). Also, for most readers, unit cell does not say much, i.e. one structural picture is sufficient. If you agree, you may wish to revert your edit, but this of no importance. Best regards. NIMSoffice ( talk) 00:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I looked up the definition of unit cell, which I have forgotten actually. Loosely speaking, most of those ball-and-stick models are unit cells (thus no need to put several, I usually choose one which looks clearer). More restrictive (thought not unique too) is "primitive unit cell", i.e. the smallest number of atoms to build the lattice (e.g. 4 for ZnO). Those are however not so illustrative. NIMSoffice ( talk) 03:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ben. Could you draw a boat conformation version of File:Cyclohexane-chair-2D-stereo-skeletal.png? The version in Commons:Category:Cyclohexane conformation missed the perspective. I tried to draw one, but as it didn't look nice, it didn't upload it. -- Leyo 12:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ben, you may want to weigh in here: Talk:Fluoxetine#Question on the Chemical Structure of Fluoxetine. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ben, I am working on boron nitride hoping to bring it to GA level. The article desperately needs pictures. Would you be willing to draw them ? For example, something like boron-nitride nanotube (same as carbon nanotube, but with alternating boron and nitrogen atoms) and intercalated hexagonal BN. Intercalation of BN is difficult, and thus I am trying to be careful in selecting credible sources. I trust Solozhenko [1] and he has reported BNXNH3 with x=3,4,5 where NH3 molecules are between the BN sheets (no picture given). Another intercalation is alkali metals (with a picture). [2] Any other ideas on pictures and contents are welcome. Cheers. NIMSoffice ( talk) 06:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
I had a look on the crystallographic databases I have access to, but could not find any BN intercalation compounds. I also read the papers you link to above – the 1989 paper didn't seem to identify the interlayer separation, and I am not advanced enough to really understand their reciprocal lattice diagram. `The BN-NH3 paper didn't seem to contain any coordinates.
Ben ( talk) 10:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem, I just like to keep a record of what's been said. It was HgO, I think. I looked into the polymorphs of HgO and there are many - see User:Benjah-bmm27/Task list. I'll add pictures shortly. Don't worry about redundancy, there's plenty of room in Wikipedia, the most important thing is to convey the information clearly.
I have a few tips for your drawings, such as File:OsO4structure.jpg:
Ben ( talk) 11:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You could take your images with a black background and remove it using Photoshop or GIMP. You're probably right about OsO4, although it is possible to show a bit of packing. Not necessary though, molecular structures are mostly about the molecule! I respectfully disagree that space-filling models are less desirable than ball-and-stick models. Graphite intercalation compound is a prime example! You can see the way the potassium atoms prop open the graphite layers. Both styles are complementary - although in some cases, one may be much clearer.
Thanks for adding the reference to File:Rutile-unit-cell-3D-balls.png. I've updated the image description. I think it's important to give the source that was actually used for the image, rather than any convenient reference that seems to say the same thing. Sometimes there are differences or mistakes in sources that we don't notice until later.
You make a good point about noting atom colours explicitly. I will start to do that in my image descriptions. It's not always practical, though, to add a caption. Chemboxes are a notable example. And often, it is easy to deduce which atom is which colour, e.g. phosphorus pentafluoride!
Ben ( talk) 12:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ben, I saw your new structure - replacing my one :-( c'est la vie. My one question is that which of us is correct? I set IsisDraw up according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing, and I got the result that I posted. Personally I prefer your structure - I always do Hydrogen "on Hetero and Terminal" at work - but the WP page says just "on Hetero" Ronhjones (Talk) 23:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is possible to get IsisDraw to export a bigger image. I haven't used it for a few years, but I believe other Wikichemists do. Post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry - people there are normally very helpful. You'll be a welcome addition to the gang. Let me know if there's anything else you need pointers on.
Cheers
Ben ( talk) 06:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Once you get a TIFF, use software like IrfanView to convert it into a PNG, at the maximum resolution possible. Typically 720 dpi or similar. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Ben, why reverting ? Why two same figures ? Pride for own creation ? There are so many wrongs there. To start with, red and brown colors are no good couple. Atoms do not pack simply because their ionic/covalent "radii" is a primitive abstraction developed around 1920 when no better methods were available. This abstraction proportionally splits a distance between atoms in a solid, names it "radius" and assumes the electron shell is a sphere having that radius. By definition, it gives dense packing, but. We know that bonding electron distribution is very far from spherical. Another point is that all structural models we use are crude approximations, but dense packing is graphically poor to show relative atomic positions, as compared to ball-stick models. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I just wanted to mention that the File:Fluorite-unit-cell-3D.png is not to scale. I've added a warning in the image description to tell that, because I have made the error to exchange F and Ca atoms based on this image (I should have check more carefully)... -- Mathieu Perrin ( talk) 15:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Ionic radii are averages over many crystal structures - they're not exact because ions are not perfectly hard spheres, there is some degree of covalency in even the most ionic of compounds. Differing degrees of covalency in different compounds would give rise to slightly different ionic radii if they were calculated separately for each compound.
This isn't normally a problem in images, as the picture would look almost identical, whether r(F−) = 1.33 Å or 1.35 Å etc.
Ben ( talk) 14:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Ben, could you please check File:Iron(II)-sulfide-unit-cell-3D-balls.png. My database tells this is exactly the structure of Ln2O3 (Ln=rare earths - pity I did not see that yesterday when I drew this Ln2O3 structure myself), and gives a quite different structure for FeS (mackinawite). Suspicious is also the ratio of atoms in the unit cell. Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I just saw this (I though I was watching this page, but I wasn't). I was wrong and your structure is correct. The similarity between File:Iron(II)-sulfide-unit-cell-3D-balls.png and File:La2O3structure.jpg, although the stoichiometries are different, is accidental - neither structure is a primitive cell. Indeed, FeS has many polymorphs, the information on that is obscure (because not only structure but also Fe/S ratio may change slightly, say 10-20% this is not very common and is misleading), but I might sort that information out later. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Drawing is easy - I have good access to structure files (but the program which can treat them is crippled - thats why black backgrounds). Most time is gone to understand the polymorphs. I also still can't figure out my PNG problem (my PNGs/SVGs display on WP only in full size, but not upon thumb reduction) - thats why still jpegs. You were right about Zirconium(IV) chloride, I forgot about similar layered structures (in fact, many different binaries have structures which are almost same graphically, but not crystallographically). Materialscientist ( talk) 11:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ben, I have added the symmetry and phase transition for that article. Could you please fix the captions (if you remember) in terms of which structure (orthorhombic or tetragonal (it might be called "square" or "cubic" in some papers)) is shown there. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ben
Could you do a picture for Magnus' green salt, because the one there sucks :). Ta, Chris ( talk) 08:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Chris ( talk) 12:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benjah-bmm27,
Regarding [1], I don't dispute your edit, but I was wondering whether we could include a note at Wikipedia:Chemical_infobox or Template:Chembox_Properties stating the consensus? Even a link to a relevant guideline would be useful. I've looked both before and since making my edit, but I can't find any discussion about how these formulae should be presented, and I'm sure I'm not the first person to wonder. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 13:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a question about models. How do you get the background of the image to be transparent? Thanks. Ginogrz ( talk) 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ben, thanks for the note about my claim that calcium gluconate is mis-drawn. It was a guess based on the nakedness of the Ca2+ center and the bis(bidentate) carboxylate (I have never seen that motif in acetates), the absence of aquo ligands, and the fact that the thing looks molecular (also rare for carboxylates). Possibly the picture is of a subunit in a polymer that forms upon dehydration. I would expect something far more complicated with octahedral Ca2+. But I havent gone digging yet in the literature.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ronhjones (Talk) 19:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ben. Do you remember where you got the 101.7 pm from? The value cited from this book is 101.4 pm (see article in de-WP). -- Leyo 06:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry - confusing wording "No preview available - 2007 - 2149 pages. This book has a more recent edition (1955)." - makes no sense!
I know Holleman & Wiberg, it's the graduate-level inorganic text here, too.
Shall we have a look in the literature?
Ben ( talk) 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi....... I think we really need to do some work on the articles related to electropositivity, screening effect, etc... It seems to be very inadequate, as was exposed by the question on the Science Reference Desk.... Rkr1991 ( Wanna chat?) 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have done a lot of chemistry-related images. Could you help make a new image for Sodium pertechnetate? The current image is a low-resolution GIF; I think we can do better. :-) Thanks!— Tetracube ( talk) 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)