![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 54 |
Hello. I can't find a single mention of Polonol online in a reliable source. Can someone please check the book sources cited? Thanks. Capewearer ( talk) 20:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
On periodic trend grounds I am already rather sceptical that this exists. Due to relativistic destabilisation of the 6p3/2 orbital Po is actually significantly more metallic than Te and it should be quite unhappy in the −2 oxidation state. doi: 10.1002/9781119951438.eibc0182 might be useful (it's a 2011 review of organopolonium chemistry): it is quite short (as expected for the subject), but it looks like what is known is mostly dialkyls/diaryls as well as tetravalent compounds of the form Ar3PoX and Ar2PoX2. Nothing about polonols that I can see. Double sharp ( talk) 15:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The reference "Chemie des Poloniums" turns up in other Polonium articles in equally suspect ways. Polonium hydride: "Experiments conducted on the trace scale show indications that the reaction between polonium metal and nascent hydrogen may produce polonium hydride", nascent hydrogen huh? -- Project Osprey ( talk) 20:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
IUPAC definition of a salt: "A chemical compound consisting of an assembly of cations and anions." ( https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/S05447)
Tetramethylammonium hydroxide is a salt.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
An apparent styrene leak in India has killed 13 people and injured many more. As such there's been a sudden surge in editing on the 'Health effects' section of that page, not all of it to our usual standards. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 08:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Both of the references in this article mentioned that Cl2O5 is non-existent. -- Leiem ( talk) 04:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I have some sad news to report ... Ronhjones, a prolific member of this project, passed away on 7 April last year, the day he made his last edit. Tributes are at his talk page. Graham 87 05:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I came across the Crisscross method article. To me it seems like an almost trivial method, with just a single source (a textbook that mentions it on one page). Is this method notable enough to satisfy WP:N (and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK)? — Bkell ( talk) 18:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Could somebody check my work for cannabigerolic acid -- first time I've done a chemistry article, I think. I'd like to include the structural formula File:CBGA molecule.svg in the infobox. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I did NOT nominate this article for FAR-- just the doing nominations that were not done by the editor who did.
User:Kurzon has nominated Atom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I’m working with User:Egon Willighagen from Wikidata and others to compile a list of what we consider to be the one million most important chemicals. This list will be used to prioritize what we look at for both Wikidata and Wikipedia, and possibly other external groups that interact with us. These chemicals could include things like the elements and other basic substances you would encounter in your chemistry education, chemicals encountered in everyday life (e.g. in detergents, food additives or hair gel) as well as more niche substances such as pharmaceuticals, polymers, pollutants, biologically important materials, etc. Are there any specific collections of substances you would recommend us to look at? Please post any suggested lists or databases below. I'll also post on WT:Chemicals. Many thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 18:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The first two refs in this article use templates that have nothing to do with chemistry. I think some of the links in the chembox are wrong also. This is way beyond me. Can someone here take a look at. Thanks. MB 02:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I've been asked (by Eugen Schwarz) a half-scientific question, as follows:
I've never heard of " The Two Cultures" concept. I've heard of " Paradigm shift" and " Scientific revolution" but that is only from reading what Scerri has said about the development of scientific knowledge per A tale of seven scientists.
Are there any real and computational chemists here, who could take a stab at Eugen's question?
Thank you --- Sandbh ( talk) 00:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Schwarz is a theoretical chemist. I believe he was referring to a “bangs and stinks” chemist. Sandbh ( talk) 12:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that computational chemists are not real?Exactly my thought too when I read the question at the top of this thread. "The Two Cultures" originally referred to the split between the humanities and sciences. So I guess this has been extended to a perceived split between theoretical/computational and experimental chemists. I have done both, so I suppose that I am in a somewhat unique position to comment. I personally do not see a conflict between the two. The goal of theoretical/computational chemistry is to explain and predict experimental results. As long as both sides keep in mind that
All models are wrong, but some are useful– George Box, then there is no conflict. Contributions from both sides are also essential for Paradigm shifts and Scientific Revolutions. Boghog ( talk) 14:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I've passed those comments on to Eugen. Sandbh ( talk) 06:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This RFC may be of interest. Double sharp ( talk) 10:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Do anomalies in d/e actually make a difference to the chemistry of the elements concerned?
I understand this is the case with silver which, according to the idealised Madelung Rule, should be d9s2 in the free atom but is in fact d10s1. This discrepancy seems to, at least in part, contribute to the predominance of its main group chemistry.
Teixidó (2019, in Spanish, here) an Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Barcelona, says that these anomalies impact the elements concerned such that, "their compounds, have properties that do not match the expected regular periodicity. This is the case of Cu, Cr, Pd, Ag, Rh, Pt, Ave or Uno, to name a few." He does not elaborate.
thank you, Sandbh ( talk) 07:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I guess this is somewhat breaking my promise not to argue with Sandbh on such things due to its futility. You see, there has been a long-running argument on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements since December regarding the composition of group 3. It's the old chestnut, whether Wikipedia should show lutetium or lanthanum under yttrium. Since lanthanum accidentally happens to be [Xe]4f05d16s2 with no 4f electron in the gas-phase ground-state, the relevance of this has been dragged in.
Of course on Wikipedia the first thing should be the relevant sources, which focus on the issue, and they mostly support lutetium with strong argumentation. The fact that most elementary general chemistry textbooks persist in showing lanthanum is not as consequential per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, considering that such books rarely cover the heavy 4f and 5d elements at all. In fact the more I read about this dispute it looks more and more like the situation hypervalent molecules like PCl5 are in: there is no 3d component to the bonding from phosphorus, and that has been well-known for decades, but good luck finding an elementary general chemistry textbook that tells you that. Same situation for Lu under Y. Articles have been published from the 1920s(!) to the present explaining why that is the correct placement, but good luck finding it in general chemistry textbooks.
But, I suppose it is natural that the scientific argumentation gets involved at some point. So, on came a lot of discussion on the science. None of it succeeded in changing Sandbh's mind despite how overwhelming the evidence was. Hence my decision to not argue with him due to its futility. I'm drafting an RFC on the matter anyway, since at WT:ELEM we already managed an incredible 5-1 consensus against La under Y, and no one but Sandbh seems to be convinced by his lines of argumentation.
So, take this as a reply to the others involved.
It makes actually basically zero difference. Smokefoot is completely right that it has no bearing on chemistry. For two reasons:
But, don't just trust me. I am not a chemist. Nevertheless I got this from an actual chemist, Andrey Kulsha = Droog Andrey, who dropped by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 38 and said the same thing I'm saying right now.
“ | Ground electron configuration of a neutral atom says too little about its chemistry (unless we have a noble gas). Chemical bonds are about 1 to 10 eV, so that's the scale we need to take into account when talking about chemistry. For many elements, especially for f- and d-block ones, ground state is one among dozens of states within a few eV. Neutral atoms are rarely encountered in compounds, so we probably need to look at dications or smth else. The participation of subshells throughout the forest of excited states depends on that electric charge. So, my opinion is that no "conclusive argument" could be based only on ground state configurations of neutral atoms. Droog Andrey (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC) | ” |
That's especially true for things like the inner 4f subshells: they get more active as charge goes up. That's why neutral lanthanum has 4f16s2 at 1.88 eV, but La2+ has 4f1 only at 0.89 eV. Or why neutral gadolinium has 4f86s2 at 1.36 eV, but Gd2+ has 4f8 only at 0.30 eV.
Sandbh points to silver adding a s electron added from the previous element, as opposed to the d one gold does. (Pd [Kr]4d10, Ag [Kr]4d105s1; Pt [Xe]5d96s1, Au [Xe]5d106s1.) He suggests that the discrepancy contributes to it having predominant main group chemistry. But this is clearly neither necessary nor sufficient. Technetium adds an s electron from the previous element, rhenium adds a d one. I do not see any sign of "predominant main group chemistry" in technetium. Quite the opposite actually given how easy it is to have it convert between its different oxidation states. And most f elements, along with the heavy members of groups 3, 4, and 5, have predominant main group chemistry in that they have only the group oxidation state as the stable one and are quite electropositive and basic. Yet their differentiating electrons from the previous elements are usually d or f electrons, not s or p electrons.
Even for physical properties, there aren't pure atoms in solid metals, there aren't atomic wavefunctions, as Droog Andrey also explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 33. What you look at there is band occupancy. But even there it does not match the configuration in the gas-phase neutral atoms. In fact it spectacularly doesn't match it even for the first two metals. Lithium and beryllium both have 2p band occupancy despite having no 2p electrons as gas-phase atoms chilling out by themselves! As you go further into the periodic table you will almost always have some sort of fractional average occupancy of subshells that matches neither the Madelung rule's prediction nor the gas-phase ground-state configuration. The simple fact of the matter is that the energy required for such rearrangements is chemically easily achievable and therefore the accident of which electron configuration happens to be the ground state in a gas-phase atom chilling out by itself is irrelevant because in chemical environments the same atom may easily take a different configuration!
Finally here are three quotes from noted chemists making exactly the same point. Christian Jørgensen:
“ | The two major reasons why this series intended for gaseous atoms strongly bewilders chemists is that undue emphasis is made on irrelevant irregularities (such as the chromium, rhodium, palladium . . . . , atoms) and that the lowest level of two different configurations, such as [Xe]4f96s2 and [Xe]4f85d16s2 are only separated by 285 cm−1 in the terbium atom, much less than 1% of the spreading of J-levels of each of the two configurations, and quite negligible for chemical purposes. | ” |
— Christian Jørgensen (1988), Influence of Rare Earths on Chemical Understanding and Classification |
“ | It is important to realize that the electronic structures listed in Table 6 are those of the neutral (unionized) gaseous atoms, whereas it is the electronic structure of the ions and compounds that we are chiefly concerned with in chemistry. The relationship of the electronic structure of the gaseous atom of an element to that of its compounds can be rather complicated. For example, in the case of the actinide and lanthanide elements, one would not necessarily predict the predominance of the III oxidation state from the electronic structures of the gaseous atoms; there are usually only two so-called "valence electrons," the 7s or 6s electrons, which might indicate a preference for the II oxidation state.
Apparently, specific factors in the crystal structure of, and the aquation (hydration) energies of, the compounds and ions are important in determining the stability of the III oxidation state. Thus, the characteristic tripositive oxidation state of the lanthanide elements is not related directly to the number of "valence electrons" outside the 4f subshell, but is the somewhat accidental result of a nearly constant small difference between large energy terms (ionization potentials on the one hand, and hydration and crystal energies on the other) which persists over an interval of fourteen atomic numbers. Therefore, if we could somehow have a very extended Periodic Table of Elements containing numerous "f" transition series, we might expect that the 5f, rather than the 4f, elements would be regarded as more nearly representative of such f series. |
” |
— Glenn T. Seaborg (1994), Origin of the Actinide Concept |
And W. H. Eugen Schwarz, whose question Sandbh asked here one section ago:
“ | The second reason for differences between chemically bound transition-metal atoms and free atoms in vacuum is that the electronic motions in free atoms are not disturbed by adjacent atoms. Most free atoms have open valence shells, where the electrons can arrange differently. The orbit−orbit and spin−orbit angular-momenta couplings result in a large number of different electronic states with different energies. For instance, the 3d54s1 configuration of a free Cr0 or Mo0 atom comprises 504 different states with 74 different degenerate energy levels, scattered over several hundred kJ/mol. ...
'The qualitative behavior of chemical elements can be rationalized with the help of the dominant electronic valence configurations of the atoms embedded in a molecular or crystal environment. These may be correctly called the “electronic configurations of the chemical elements”. However, what is listed in respective tables of chemical textbooks under this headline is something else, namely, what physicists call “the configurations from which the J-level ground states of free unbound atoms in vacuum derive”. ... 'The third exception concerns the free neutral transition-metal atoms in vacuum, including the f block. Their ground-state configurations depend in an involved manner on the often-discussed averaged d−d and d−s Coulomb-repulsion energies and also on the individual orbit−orbit (term) and spin−orbit splittings, even if the latter are small. The correct quantitative explanation is vital for the interpretation of atomic vacuum spectra, but exceeds the scope of general chemical education. There are only a few special topics in chemistry that require the correct understanding of free atoms in vacuum (e.g., atom-molecular gas-phase reactions) or of orbit−orbit and spin−orbit couplings of bonded open-shell atoms (e.g., the chemistry of the transition, lanthanoid, and actinoid metals; spin-flip enhanced reaction mechanisms; so-called spin-forbidden processes). [Nota bene, bonded open-shell TM atoms show different configurations from ground-state free ones.] 'Finally, it is misleading to present free atoms as prototypes for the microscopic description of chemical elements in compounds. The common qualitative textbook explanations of the atomic ground states (correctly: J levels) are incorrect. Therefore, we plead for teaching the correct atomic-orbital order (sequence 6) together with the regular exception, sequence 8, for the s block. One need no longer apologize for irregularities. |
” |
— W. H. Eugen Schwarz (2010), The Full Story of the Electron Configurations of the Transition Elements |
In particular this situation also applies very well to the group 3 dispute. In his very last article doi: 10.1016/bs.hpcre.2016.07.001, Karl A. Gschneidner Jr. ("Mr. Rare Earth") presented this figure showing the melting points. He also showed "pseudo-La" on the figure showing what the melting point of metallic lanthanum would be expected to be if 4f were not involved in it. (Of course 4f has no involvement in lutetium.) This kind of thing is why I've been noting that the scientific and source-based support for lanthanum as an f block element is overwhelming. The lack of a 4f electron in the gas-phase ground state of La does not stop it from using its 4f shell to make bonding MOs from.
Oddly enough, Sandbh is perfectly willing to accept the need to go beyond gas phase configurations when it comes to thorium, which is [Rn] 5f0 6d2 7s2 in the ground state gas phase, yet has clearly been shown to have 5f band occupancy in the metal. For lanthanum he just will not do it. There is a lack of consistency here. Of course by now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements he is calling the raising of the thorium double standard a "zombie that will not die" argument: it indeed won't die as long as he doesn't logically address why on earth thorium is so different from actinium, that thorium with zero 5f valence electrons in the ground-state gas phase may be allowed in the f block, lawrencium with zero 5f valence electrons in the ground-state gas phase may be allowed in the f block, but actinium also with zero valence 5f electrons may not. No consistency.
I have repeatedly been saying this stuff, with the quotes, with the sources. So has Droog Andrey. For months now. Sandbh has refused to change his mind about the relevance of these anomalies in the face of all of this evidence. Double sharp ( talk) 03:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Smokefoot, Project Osprey, and Graeme Bartlett: Forgot to ping you, sorry. Double sharp ( talk) 03:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Sandbh ( talk) 14:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Sandbh may call it what he wants. The fact of the matter is that I backed up everything I said with reliable sources and quoted them at length to show what they said. If that is called a "diatribe" of "rehashed clutter", so be it. Reliable sources, if raised by me and helpfully bolded to emphasise what answers his question, do not seem to be wanted, as was evident from the fact that these sources addressing the issue have been raised countless times in archives 42, 44, and 46 of WT:ELEM, and is now again evident from the fact that he calls my statements "biased hyperbole" even though I said exactly what Smokefoot said: that it has no bearing on chemistry. Replying to his contribution, even for the other parties, was evidently a mistake on my part. Even if everything I say is supported by reliable sources, it is simply not a productive activity because he doesn't accept the answer I and by extension the sources I raise give him.
He may indeed enjoy discussing such matters with me. I used to enjoy it in the past. You can see from this part of why I no longer do. I respect him as a person, but this conversation is clearly not productive. Double sharp ( talk) 14:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
“ | These exceptions from the Madelung rule do not have a significant impact on chemistry, as many different configurations have very similar energies [Jørgensen, Schwarz] and these gas-phase configurations are different from the configurations encountered in ions, compounds, and solid metals [Seaborg, Barrett, Wang et al., Gschneidner review on lanthanides above] | ” |
.
For example, consider chromium. It should be d4s2 but turns out to be d5s1. Does this anomaly make a difference to the chemistry of chromium in terms what was expected v. what is observed?
I see that removing the first and second electrons from vanadium 3d34s2 takes 6.75 and 14.7 eV respectively, whereas to do the same for chromium 3d54s1 requires 6.75 and 16.5 eV. For niobium 4d45s1 the numbers are 6.75 and 14.3 whereas for molybdenum 4d55s1 they are 7.1 and 16.2
So there appears to be a premium, of from 12.2 to 7.7%, for moving past the d5 configuration. I presume this wouldn't be the case for chromium if it was 3d44s2.
To the extent that these energy costs impact the chemistry of the elements involved, it appears the anomalous electron configuration of chromium does make a difference. Does my interpretation seem reasonable? Sandbh ( talk) 01:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. There are four configurations at play, as I understand it:
Metal | (ds)6 |
Gas | d54s1 |
Ideal | d4s2 |
Cr3+ | d3 |
Removing three e− from chromium and from molybdenum to get to Cr3+ and Mo3+ takes 7–9% more energy than is the case for removing three e− from their predecesssors, vanadium and niobium. I guess, I don't know, the extra energy cost makes chromium and molybdenum less reactive than is the case if they had idealised d4s2 configurations. Sandbh ( talk) 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This
article notes a "Cr atom has a 4s valence orbital that is half empty and can act as an electron acceptor." That was news to me, and something presumably not possible with a d4s2 configuration.
Sandbh (
talk)
07:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
First I'll give my view on Sandbh's question. The configuration of the electrons in an atom is an intrinsic property. So are its ionisation potential and its electronegativity. However, most properties chemists, and especially non-chemists, are interested in are emergent properties. It is meaningless to ask "what is the melting point of an atom of silver?" Melting points are emergent properties of assemblages of atoms and I would predict that small sets of atoms would have lower melting or boiling points than bulk material: entropy winning out over whatever binding enthalpy is holding the "solid" or "liquid" cluster together. How large the cluster needs to be before the bulk value sets in, I have no idea!
Another way of expressing my view is that intrinsic properties can now be calculated pretty well for chemical substances, knowing their proposed atom connectivity/bonding, even if no-one has ever made a sample. However, you have to wait for a real sample to get an accurate value for an emergent property like a melting point. Personally I'm biased towards organic compounds because that's where my expertise lies and that's also where the concept of having a target (as-yet-unmade) structure is on a pretty firm footing whereas I presume that it can be more difficult to be sure that a new inorganic structure will actually exist in the form one imagines. Who would have guessed that carbon's humble s2p2 would in many compounds turn out to become a tetrahedral sp3 while in other compounds you would get a different linear combination of molecular orbitals including aromatic ones: so that even as an element diamond and graphite don't much resemble one another and are difficult to interconvert? Other emergent allotropes exist and even in 2020 new ones are still being touted.....
I think that the early pioneers who created various ways of laying out Periodic tables emphasised properties like ionisation potential and electronegativity which were more likely to "match the expected regular periodicity" (to quote the Spanish professor) just because they are indeed intrinsic, rather than to expect periodicity in emergent properties like (to take an extreme case) utility as a drug.
OK, so what about your dispute about group 3? I read the exchange at WT:ELEM and although I found parts informative, it was mostly tedious, repetitive and above all uncivil. I couldn't face the archive and I wondered why the whole thing wasn't on the talk page for Periodic table since that's the article that's relevant. I had a brief look on that talk page and goodness me you're all over that one as well! My analysis is that you both think that you are discussing the periodic table whereas in fact you are each discussing a periodic table: unfortunately not the same one! Your only focus should be "how can we improve the periodic table article?" (on WIkipedia there is only one). The RFC process is inappropriate because reliable external sources discuss and use both forms of the bit you are arguing about. There is no such thing as "the" periodic table, whatever IUPAC rules but there are certainly a number of interesting and useful alternative ways of laying out tables for various purposes. Wikipedia's article should reflect the many ways the table has historically appeared (as indeed it already does) and mention the Lu / La discussion. Can't you each find your best couple of sources that favour Lu or La — preferably not written by yourselves — and add a paragraph to the main article that encapsulates the debate while maintaining WP:NPOV? Michael D. Turnbull ( talk) 10:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Aside: This is a problem where someone linked a term as known to them, within the topic they were familiar with, without checking whether the linked article *actually* had anything to do with _their_ understanding of the term.
So for 13 years the article
Activation energy has had in its second paragraph a link
potential barrier. Now I know what that means in chemistry, and you know what that means in chemistry, but that linked article begins
If there is a article here at WP that does describe the chemical potential barrier, the link should be updated to point to that. If not, then the link needs to be unlinked. As it is now, the link merely confuses.
Separately, while finding the timeframe of the optimistic link, I noticed the
diagram seen here (
and found here) looks so much more understandable to the average reader than the
current diagram which presentation deters any but the already familiar.
It seems a foot-gun to make an article so technically irreproachable that it is also *unapproachable*. That really *is* a potential barrier. What was wrong with having an overview, such as seen back in 2007? Do y'all want people to hate chemistry? Shenme ( talk) 04:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
In the Wiki article for Silylene ( /info/en/?search=Silylene) the scheme has a bond between the Si-Atom and the Electron pair. This is misleading as the Electrons are located at the Si-atom and it could imply a Carbene with a Hydrogen and a Silane substituent.
{{
PD-chem}}
, which I assume is OK. Please let me know if I haven't done that right
Michael D. Turnbull (
talk)
15:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Please will an experienced person examine and assess this draft. If you are not an AFC reviewer please ping me with your assessment and I will review accordingly, otherwise please review and accept or decline according to the draft's merits. Fiddle Faddle 07:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This paper mentions that dimethyl selenosulfenate is the most abundant selenium containing species in coffee. What is the formula of dimethyl selenosulfenate? The authors refer to it as MeSeSMe, which I thought would be easy to unpack, but that seems not so, at least for me. Thank you, Sandbh ( talk) 06:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
This might be better for WP:MEDICINE, but: is there a general standard besides GNG for the notability of compounds, e.g., diphenyl-2-pyridylmethane, which I just found doing CAT:NN cleanup? Articles like this seem useful but I doubt that the majority of them have WP:SIGCOV. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 14:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello chemists! I bid y'all a warm hello. I came here today to inform thee of two Wikipedia sites that might be of interest to y'alls'. I've edited both of these pages, but since i am neither a chemist nor a college/graduate student, I came here to ask for your help. The former needs fixing from a chemist, whereas the latter doesn't have a single reference, until i put some. Additionally, the computations in the latter prove too much also for my teeny brain. Please abet me in fixing these pages, fellow wikipedians! Thank you y'all for reading this tedious query. Have a nice day! Wiswesser's rule Ionization energy Ice bear johny ( talk) 09:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh wow y'all are quick to reply! Thanks guys for the trouble :>>>. Ice bear johny ( talk) 13:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
But wait, the formula in Wiswesser's rule supports the Aufbau principle? Would you include it in Aufbau principle, or not? Is it inconsequential? I added it in my notes, and thought that it would help. Thank you for answering! Ice bear johny ( talk) 13:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh ok. You adding his paper assuages me. Thank you for helping me :>. Your help is greatly appreciated! Ice bear johny ( talk) 16:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to request your abetment. You see I am neither a chemist, nor a college student; ergo, i cannot ascertain that the information i input is 100% correct. Hence i beseech your help in the following pages: Ionization Energies, Effective nuclear charge, Core charge and Shielding effect. All of them are under referenced, and other editors that I know are particularly disinterested in editing because of the sheer hard work involved. Thanks y'all! Ice bear johny ( talk) 06:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Bruh the shielding effect-. Guys please edit that part. Literally, i cannot describe it's fathomable, facile information! Ice bear johny ( talk) 12:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The 1-Diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole article cites peer-reviewed sources which describe the compound as extremely sensitive, detonating at the slightest stimulus or for no apparent reason, but it also mentions hobbyists such as I make C2N14 in my shed who synthesized it themselves and found it far less sensitive. Should we include these amateur anecdotes? There's been some off-and-on discussion on the talk page, but it's inconclusive and would benefit from more input. – dlthewave ☎ 23:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Here (open access). About nine months in the making; I only signed off on the (eighth) proof, last night. Sandbh ( talk) 12:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
"Deprecating usage of the template {{radic}} to write root radicals" has an RfC for possible consensus. I you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 02:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
hi all, just a heads up, Jean-Pierre Abbat who was a chemist(?) is up for deletion, afd is here. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Now updated:
Periodic table
---
Sandbh (
talk)
07:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
How does the R1 Plasmid impact multi-drug antibiotic resistance in its host cell? Vbam25 ( talk) 22:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
9/30/2020 Vbam25 ( talk) 22:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
A quick ping here too: Validation of CAS numbers; collaboration with Wikidata? -- Egon Willighagen ( talk) 08:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
After almost two years of waiting, there still exists no reference in this article proving that "Lasri condensation" is an actual thing (I'm not talking about the chemical reaction, but the term itself). On superficial literature search, I found no paper using the term "Lasri condensation". I have the strong feeling that somebody from Lasri's group is trying to establish this term using Wikipedia. The users contributing to the article and uploading figures are named after former colleagues and PIs of Lasri. The second figure in the article is taken from Lasri's 2018 publication. Lasri himself is refering to the Wikipedia article on his website to suggest that the "Lasri condensation" exists. I suggest renaming this article to something without "Lasri" in it. What does everybody else think? -- Hbf878 ( talk) 12:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
While reading we come across so many new wordings and phenomena, which was not in wikipedia. How to add this to the page with proper references? Not only chemistry but also every new thing we found? Preethanuj Preethalayam ( talk) 07:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I just switched polar solvent to redirect to protic solvent. Protic solvent has sections on polar aprotic solvents and polar protic solvents (slightly redundant?). Would someone else look at protic solvent and make sure that these important links are ok? Do we need to create a self-standing polar solvent? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
In the right hand figure “H2O” should read “H2O”. In addition, it overlaps with an arrow. Anyone volunteering for fixing or re-drawing? Please note that there is a version with a higher resolution in the file history. -- Leyo 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Good day! I really liked the navbox Template:Phosphides that ties together articles about phosphides in parallel to Template:Phosphorus compounds. Since it was missing, I made a similar template about arsenides ( Template:Arsenides) which also works in parallel to Template:Arsenic compounds. However, when I tried to update the template about nitrides Template:Nitrides (to make it look like this draft) I was not sure how to proceed. Updating the current version of the nitrides template to make it look like the phosphide and arsenide templates may change it significantly and I don't know whether it will disrupt any of the 300+ pages that link to the template. First, I don't know whether I should update the template. Is it used in some articles? I didn't find it on articles it links to. Second, I don't know how to check whether the update would disrupt the pages linked to it. I would greatly appreciate advice on the matter. -- ElMagyar ( talk) 21:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Changes in article names based on one's ideas of proper or correct nomenclature should be discussed. Such as discussion has been underway on the carboxylic acids. Chemists often call R-S-R thioethers, still. R-Se-O-H are called selenenic acids. Maybe some committee decided that they should be called SeO-Selenoperoxols. Wikipedia is respectful of such committees but we are not necessarily obedient to them. In the end, changes are made by consensus.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Per title, what shall I do? -- Ktsquare (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Now
If possible, all the inorganic salts, carboxylic acid and carboxylate can be skipped altogether. Also, if the cracking in the last step is economical and can be done in large scale, recycling polystyrene can be possible because paravinyl phenol monomer is structurally similar to styrene. In other words, Cracking_(chemistry) make benzene and acetylene from polysytrene waste. hydrogenate some of the acetylene product to ethene to support the ethenolysis in previous step. I know already someone is going to say these are all fantasy from the very beginning... :) --- Ktsquare (talk)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 54 |
Hello. I can't find a single mention of Polonol online in a reliable source. Can someone please check the book sources cited? Thanks. Capewearer ( talk) 20:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
On periodic trend grounds I am already rather sceptical that this exists. Due to relativistic destabilisation of the 6p3/2 orbital Po is actually significantly more metallic than Te and it should be quite unhappy in the −2 oxidation state. doi: 10.1002/9781119951438.eibc0182 might be useful (it's a 2011 review of organopolonium chemistry): it is quite short (as expected for the subject), but it looks like what is known is mostly dialkyls/diaryls as well as tetravalent compounds of the form Ar3PoX and Ar2PoX2. Nothing about polonols that I can see. Double sharp ( talk) 15:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The reference "Chemie des Poloniums" turns up in other Polonium articles in equally suspect ways. Polonium hydride: "Experiments conducted on the trace scale show indications that the reaction between polonium metal and nascent hydrogen may produce polonium hydride", nascent hydrogen huh? -- Project Osprey ( talk) 20:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
IUPAC definition of a salt: "A chemical compound consisting of an assembly of cations and anions." ( https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/S05447)
Tetramethylammonium hydroxide is a salt.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
An apparent styrene leak in India has killed 13 people and injured many more. As such there's been a sudden surge in editing on the 'Health effects' section of that page, not all of it to our usual standards. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 08:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Both of the references in this article mentioned that Cl2O5 is non-existent. -- Leiem ( talk) 04:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I have some sad news to report ... Ronhjones, a prolific member of this project, passed away on 7 April last year, the day he made his last edit. Tributes are at his talk page. Graham 87 05:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I came across the Crisscross method article. To me it seems like an almost trivial method, with just a single source (a textbook that mentions it on one page). Is this method notable enough to satisfy WP:N (and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK)? — Bkell ( talk) 18:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Could somebody check my work for cannabigerolic acid -- first time I've done a chemistry article, I think. I'd like to include the structural formula File:CBGA molecule.svg in the infobox. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I did NOT nominate this article for FAR-- just the doing nominations that were not done by the editor who did.
User:Kurzon has nominated Atom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I’m working with User:Egon Willighagen from Wikidata and others to compile a list of what we consider to be the one million most important chemicals. This list will be used to prioritize what we look at for both Wikidata and Wikipedia, and possibly other external groups that interact with us. These chemicals could include things like the elements and other basic substances you would encounter in your chemistry education, chemicals encountered in everyday life (e.g. in detergents, food additives or hair gel) as well as more niche substances such as pharmaceuticals, polymers, pollutants, biologically important materials, etc. Are there any specific collections of substances you would recommend us to look at? Please post any suggested lists or databases below. I'll also post on WT:Chemicals. Many thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 18:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The first two refs in this article use templates that have nothing to do with chemistry. I think some of the links in the chembox are wrong also. This is way beyond me. Can someone here take a look at. Thanks. MB 02:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I've been asked (by Eugen Schwarz) a half-scientific question, as follows:
I've never heard of " The Two Cultures" concept. I've heard of " Paradigm shift" and " Scientific revolution" but that is only from reading what Scerri has said about the development of scientific knowledge per A tale of seven scientists.
Are there any real and computational chemists here, who could take a stab at Eugen's question?
Thank you --- Sandbh ( talk) 00:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Schwarz is a theoretical chemist. I believe he was referring to a “bangs and stinks” chemist. Sandbh ( talk) 12:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that computational chemists are not real?Exactly my thought too when I read the question at the top of this thread. "The Two Cultures" originally referred to the split between the humanities and sciences. So I guess this has been extended to a perceived split between theoretical/computational and experimental chemists. I have done both, so I suppose that I am in a somewhat unique position to comment. I personally do not see a conflict between the two. The goal of theoretical/computational chemistry is to explain and predict experimental results. As long as both sides keep in mind that
All models are wrong, but some are useful– George Box, then there is no conflict. Contributions from both sides are also essential for Paradigm shifts and Scientific Revolutions. Boghog ( talk) 14:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I've passed those comments on to Eugen. Sandbh ( talk) 06:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This RFC may be of interest. Double sharp ( talk) 10:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Do anomalies in d/e actually make a difference to the chemistry of the elements concerned?
I understand this is the case with silver which, according to the idealised Madelung Rule, should be d9s2 in the free atom but is in fact d10s1. This discrepancy seems to, at least in part, contribute to the predominance of its main group chemistry.
Teixidó (2019, in Spanish, here) an Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Barcelona, says that these anomalies impact the elements concerned such that, "their compounds, have properties that do not match the expected regular periodicity. This is the case of Cu, Cr, Pd, Ag, Rh, Pt, Ave or Uno, to name a few." He does not elaborate.
thank you, Sandbh ( talk) 07:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I guess this is somewhat breaking my promise not to argue with Sandbh on such things due to its futility. You see, there has been a long-running argument on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements since December regarding the composition of group 3. It's the old chestnut, whether Wikipedia should show lutetium or lanthanum under yttrium. Since lanthanum accidentally happens to be [Xe]4f05d16s2 with no 4f electron in the gas-phase ground-state, the relevance of this has been dragged in.
Of course on Wikipedia the first thing should be the relevant sources, which focus on the issue, and they mostly support lutetium with strong argumentation. The fact that most elementary general chemistry textbooks persist in showing lanthanum is not as consequential per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, considering that such books rarely cover the heavy 4f and 5d elements at all. In fact the more I read about this dispute it looks more and more like the situation hypervalent molecules like PCl5 are in: there is no 3d component to the bonding from phosphorus, and that has been well-known for decades, but good luck finding an elementary general chemistry textbook that tells you that. Same situation for Lu under Y. Articles have been published from the 1920s(!) to the present explaining why that is the correct placement, but good luck finding it in general chemistry textbooks.
But, I suppose it is natural that the scientific argumentation gets involved at some point. So, on came a lot of discussion on the science. None of it succeeded in changing Sandbh's mind despite how overwhelming the evidence was. Hence my decision to not argue with him due to its futility. I'm drafting an RFC on the matter anyway, since at WT:ELEM we already managed an incredible 5-1 consensus against La under Y, and no one but Sandbh seems to be convinced by his lines of argumentation.
So, take this as a reply to the others involved.
It makes actually basically zero difference. Smokefoot is completely right that it has no bearing on chemistry. For two reasons:
But, don't just trust me. I am not a chemist. Nevertheless I got this from an actual chemist, Andrey Kulsha = Droog Andrey, who dropped by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 38 and said the same thing I'm saying right now.
“ | Ground electron configuration of a neutral atom says too little about its chemistry (unless we have a noble gas). Chemical bonds are about 1 to 10 eV, so that's the scale we need to take into account when talking about chemistry. For many elements, especially for f- and d-block ones, ground state is one among dozens of states within a few eV. Neutral atoms are rarely encountered in compounds, so we probably need to look at dications or smth else. The participation of subshells throughout the forest of excited states depends on that electric charge. So, my opinion is that no "conclusive argument" could be based only on ground state configurations of neutral atoms. Droog Andrey (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC) | ” |
That's especially true for things like the inner 4f subshells: they get more active as charge goes up. That's why neutral lanthanum has 4f16s2 at 1.88 eV, but La2+ has 4f1 only at 0.89 eV. Or why neutral gadolinium has 4f86s2 at 1.36 eV, but Gd2+ has 4f8 only at 0.30 eV.
Sandbh points to silver adding a s electron added from the previous element, as opposed to the d one gold does. (Pd [Kr]4d10, Ag [Kr]4d105s1; Pt [Xe]5d96s1, Au [Xe]5d106s1.) He suggests that the discrepancy contributes to it having predominant main group chemistry. But this is clearly neither necessary nor sufficient. Technetium adds an s electron from the previous element, rhenium adds a d one. I do not see any sign of "predominant main group chemistry" in technetium. Quite the opposite actually given how easy it is to have it convert between its different oxidation states. And most f elements, along with the heavy members of groups 3, 4, and 5, have predominant main group chemistry in that they have only the group oxidation state as the stable one and are quite electropositive and basic. Yet their differentiating electrons from the previous elements are usually d or f electrons, not s or p electrons.
Even for physical properties, there aren't pure atoms in solid metals, there aren't atomic wavefunctions, as Droog Andrey also explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 33. What you look at there is band occupancy. But even there it does not match the configuration in the gas-phase neutral atoms. In fact it spectacularly doesn't match it even for the first two metals. Lithium and beryllium both have 2p band occupancy despite having no 2p electrons as gas-phase atoms chilling out by themselves! As you go further into the periodic table you will almost always have some sort of fractional average occupancy of subshells that matches neither the Madelung rule's prediction nor the gas-phase ground-state configuration. The simple fact of the matter is that the energy required for such rearrangements is chemically easily achievable and therefore the accident of which electron configuration happens to be the ground state in a gas-phase atom chilling out by itself is irrelevant because in chemical environments the same atom may easily take a different configuration!
Finally here are three quotes from noted chemists making exactly the same point. Christian Jørgensen:
“ | The two major reasons why this series intended for gaseous atoms strongly bewilders chemists is that undue emphasis is made on irrelevant irregularities (such as the chromium, rhodium, palladium . . . . , atoms) and that the lowest level of two different configurations, such as [Xe]4f96s2 and [Xe]4f85d16s2 are only separated by 285 cm−1 in the terbium atom, much less than 1% of the spreading of J-levels of each of the two configurations, and quite negligible for chemical purposes. | ” |
— Christian Jørgensen (1988), Influence of Rare Earths on Chemical Understanding and Classification |
“ | It is important to realize that the electronic structures listed in Table 6 are those of the neutral (unionized) gaseous atoms, whereas it is the electronic structure of the ions and compounds that we are chiefly concerned with in chemistry. The relationship of the electronic structure of the gaseous atom of an element to that of its compounds can be rather complicated. For example, in the case of the actinide and lanthanide elements, one would not necessarily predict the predominance of the III oxidation state from the electronic structures of the gaseous atoms; there are usually only two so-called "valence electrons," the 7s or 6s electrons, which might indicate a preference for the II oxidation state.
Apparently, specific factors in the crystal structure of, and the aquation (hydration) energies of, the compounds and ions are important in determining the stability of the III oxidation state. Thus, the characteristic tripositive oxidation state of the lanthanide elements is not related directly to the number of "valence electrons" outside the 4f subshell, but is the somewhat accidental result of a nearly constant small difference between large energy terms (ionization potentials on the one hand, and hydration and crystal energies on the other) which persists over an interval of fourteen atomic numbers. Therefore, if we could somehow have a very extended Periodic Table of Elements containing numerous "f" transition series, we might expect that the 5f, rather than the 4f, elements would be regarded as more nearly representative of such f series. |
” |
— Glenn T. Seaborg (1994), Origin of the Actinide Concept |
And W. H. Eugen Schwarz, whose question Sandbh asked here one section ago:
“ | The second reason for differences between chemically bound transition-metal atoms and free atoms in vacuum is that the electronic motions in free atoms are not disturbed by adjacent atoms. Most free atoms have open valence shells, where the electrons can arrange differently. The orbit−orbit and spin−orbit angular-momenta couplings result in a large number of different electronic states with different energies. For instance, the 3d54s1 configuration of a free Cr0 or Mo0 atom comprises 504 different states with 74 different degenerate energy levels, scattered over several hundred kJ/mol. ...
'The qualitative behavior of chemical elements can be rationalized with the help of the dominant electronic valence configurations of the atoms embedded in a molecular or crystal environment. These may be correctly called the “electronic configurations of the chemical elements”. However, what is listed in respective tables of chemical textbooks under this headline is something else, namely, what physicists call “the configurations from which the J-level ground states of free unbound atoms in vacuum derive”. ... 'The third exception concerns the free neutral transition-metal atoms in vacuum, including the f block. Their ground-state configurations depend in an involved manner on the often-discussed averaged d−d and d−s Coulomb-repulsion energies and also on the individual orbit−orbit (term) and spin−orbit splittings, even if the latter are small. The correct quantitative explanation is vital for the interpretation of atomic vacuum spectra, but exceeds the scope of general chemical education. There are only a few special topics in chemistry that require the correct understanding of free atoms in vacuum (e.g., atom-molecular gas-phase reactions) or of orbit−orbit and spin−orbit couplings of bonded open-shell atoms (e.g., the chemistry of the transition, lanthanoid, and actinoid metals; spin-flip enhanced reaction mechanisms; so-called spin-forbidden processes). [Nota bene, bonded open-shell TM atoms show different configurations from ground-state free ones.] 'Finally, it is misleading to present free atoms as prototypes for the microscopic description of chemical elements in compounds. The common qualitative textbook explanations of the atomic ground states (correctly: J levels) are incorrect. Therefore, we plead for teaching the correct atomic-orbital order (sequence 6) together with the regular exception, sequence 8, for the s block. One need no longer apologize for irregularities. |
” |
— W. H. Eugen Schwarz (2010), The Full Story of the Electron Configurations of the Transition Elements |
In particular this situation also applies very well to the group 3 dispute. In his very last article doi: 10.1016/bs.hpcre.2016.07.001, Karl A. Gschneidner Jr. ("Mr. Rare Earth") presented this figure showing the melting points. He also showed "pseudo-La" on the figure showing what the melting point of metallic lanthanum would be expected to be if 4f were not involved in it. (Of course 4f has no involvement in lutetium.) This kind of thing is why I've been noting that the scientific and source-based support for lanthanum as an f block element is overwhelming. The lack of a 4f electron in the gas-phase ground state of La does not stop it from using its 4f shell to make bonding MOs from.
Oddly enough, Sandbh is perfectly willing to accept the need to go beyond gas phase configurations when it comes to thorium, which is [Rn] 5f0 6d2 7s2 in the ground state gas phase, yet has clearly been shown to have 5f band occupancy in the metal. For lanthanum he just will not do it. There is a lack of consistency here. Of course by now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements he is calling the raising of the thorium double standard a "zombie that will not die" argument: it indeed won't die as long as he doesn't logically address why on earth thorium is so different from actinium, that thorium with zero 5f valence electrons in the ground-state gas phase may be allowed in the f block, lawrencium with zero 5f valence electrons in the ground-state gas phase may be allowed in the f block, but actinium also with zero valence 5f electrons may not. No consistency.
I have repeatedly been saying this stuff, with the quotes, with the sources. So has Droog Andrey. For months now. Sandbh has refused to change his mind about the relevance of these anomalies in the face of all of this evidence. Double sharp ( talk) 03:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Smokefoot, Project Osprey, and Graeme Bartlett: Forgot to ping you, sorry. Double sharp ( talk) 03:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Sandbh ( talk) 14:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Sandbh may call it what he wants. The fact of the matter is that I backed up everything I said with reliable sources and quoted them at length to show what they said. If that is called a "diatribe" of "rehashed clutter", so be it. Reliable sources, if raised by me and helpfully bolded to emphasise what answers his question, do not seem to be wanted, as was evident from the fact that these sources addressing the issue have been raised countless times in archives 42, 44, and 46 of WT:ELEM, and is now again evident from the fact that he calls my statements "biased hyperbole" even though I said exactly what Smokefoot said: that it has no bearing on chemistry. Replying to his contribution, even for the other parties, was evidently a mistake on my part. Even if everything I say is supported by reliable sources, it is simply not a productive activity because he doesn't accept the answer I and by extension the sources I raise give him.
He may indeed enjoy discussing such matters with me. I used to enjoy it in the past. You can see from this part of why I no longer do. I respect him as a person, but this conversation is clearly not productive. Double sharp ( talk) 14:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
“ | These exceptions from the Madelung rule do not have a significant impact on chemistry, as many different configurations have very similar energies [Jørgensen, Schwarz] and these gas-phase configurations are different from the configurations encountered in ions, compounds, and solid metals [Seaborg, Barrett, Wang et al., Gschneidner review on lanthanides above] | ” |
.
For example, consider chromium. It should be d4s2 but turns out to be d5s1. Does this anomaly make a difference to the chemistry of chromium in terms what was expected v. what is observed?
I see that removing the first and second electrons from vanadium 3d34s2 takes 6.75 and 14.7 eV respectively, whereas to do the same for chromium 3d54s1 requires 6.75 and 16.5 eV. For niobium 4d45s1 the numbers are 6.75 and 14.3 whereas for molybdenum 4d55s1 they are 7.1 and 16.2
So there appears to be a premium, of from 12.2 to 7.7%, for moving past the d5 configuration. I presume this wouldn't be the case for chromium if it was 3d44s2.
To the extent that these energy costs impact the chemistry of the elements involved, it appears the anomalous electron configuration of chromium does make a difference. Does my interpretation seem reasonable? Sandbh ( talk) 01:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. There are four configurations at play, as I understand it:
Metal | (ds)6 |
Gas | d54s1 |
Ideal | d4s2 |
Cr3+ | d3 |
Removing three e− from chromium and from molybdenum to get to Cr3+ and Mo3+ takes 7–9% more energy than is the case for removing three e− from their predecesssors, vanadium and niobium. I guess, I don't know, the extra energy cost makes chromium and molybdenum less reactive than is the case if they had idealised d4s2 configurations. Sandbh ( talk) 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This
article notes a "Cr atom has a 4s valence orbital that is half empty and can act as an electron acceptor." That was news to me, and something presumably not possible with a d4s2 configuration.
Sandbh (
talk)
07:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
First I'll give my view on Sandbh's question. The configuration of the electrons in an atom is an intrinsic property. So are its ionisation potential and its electronegativity. However, most properties chemists, and especially non-chemists, are interested in are emergent properties. It is meaningless to ask "what is the melting point of an atom of silver?" Melting points are emergent properties of assemblages of atoms and I would predict that small sets of atoms would have lower melting or boiling points than bulk material: entropy winning out over whatever binding enthalpy is holding the "solid" or "liquid" cluster together. How large the cluster needs to be before the bulk value sets in, I have no idea!
Another way of expressing my view is that intrinsic properties can now be calculated pretty well for chemical substances, knowing their proposed atom connectivity/bonding, even if no-one has ever made a sample. However, you have to wait for a real sample to get an accurate value for an emergent property like a melting point. Personally I'm biased towards organic compounds because that's where my expertise lies and that's also where the concept of having a target (as-yet-unmade) structure is on a pretty firm footing whereas I presume that it can be more difficult to be sure that a new inorganic structure will actually exist in the form one imagines. Who would have guessed that carbon's humble s2p2 would in many compounds turn out to become a tetrahedral sp3 while in other compounds you would get a different linear combination of molecular orbitals including aromatic ones: so that even as an element diamond and graphite don't much resemble one another and are difficult to interconvert? Other emergent allotropes exist and even in 2020 new ones are still being touted.....
I think that the early pioneers who created various ways of laying out Periodic tables emphasised properties like ionisation potential and electronegativity which were more likely to "match the expected regular periodicity" (to quote the Spanish professor) just because they are indeed intrinsic, rather than to expect periodicity in emergent properties like (to take an extreme case) utility as a drug.
OK, so what about your dispute about group 3? I read the exchange at WT:ELEM and although I found parts informative, it was mostly tedious, repetitive and above all uncivil. I couldn't face the archive and I wondered why the whole thing wasn't on the talk page for Periodic table since that's the article that's relevant. I had a brief look on that talk page and goodness me you're all over that one as well! My analysis is that you both think that you are discussing the periodic table whereas in fact you are each discussing a periodic table: unfortunately not the same one! Your only focus should be "how can we improve the periodic table article?" (on WIkipedia there is only one). The RFC process is inappropriate because reliable external sources discuss and use both forms of the bit you are arguing about. There is no such thing as "the" periodic table, whatever IUPAC rules but there are certainly a number of interesting and useful alternative ways of laying out tables for various purposes. Wikipedia's article should reflect the many ways the table has historically appeared (as indeed it already does) and mention the Lu / La discussion. Can't you each find your best couple of sources that favour Lu or La — preferably not written by yourselves — and add a paragraph to the main article that encapsulates the debate while maintaining WP:NPOV? Michael D. Turnbull ( talk) 10:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Aside: This is a problem where someone linked a term as known to them, within the topic they were familiar with, without checking whether the linked article *actually* had anything to do with _their_ understanding of the term.
So for 13 years the article
Activation energy has had in its second paragraph a link
potential barrier. Now I know what that means in chemistry, and you know what that means in chemistry, but that linked article begins
If there is a article here at WP that does describe the chemical potential barrier, the link should be updated to point to that. If not, then the link needs to be unlinked. As it is now, the link merely confuses.
Separately, while finding the timeframe of the optimistic link, I noticed the
diagram seen here (
and found here) looks so much more understandable to the average reader than the
current diagram which presentation deters any but the already familiar.
It seems a foot-gun to make an article so technically irreproachable that it is also *unapproachable*. That really *is* a potential barrier. What was wrong with having an overview, such as seen back in 2007? Do y'all want people to hate chemistry? Shenme ( talk) 04:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
In the Wiki article for Silylene ( /info/en/?search=Silylene) the scheme has a bond between the Si-Atom and the Electron pair. This is misleading as the Electrons are located at the Si-atom and it could imply a Carbene with a Hydrogen and a Silane substituent.
{{
PD-chem}}
, which I assume is OK. Please let me know if I haven't done that right
Michael D. Turnbull (
talk)
15:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Please will an experienced person examine and assess this draft. If you are not an AFC reviewer please ping me with your assessment and I will review accordingly, otherwise please review and accept or decline according to the draft's merits. Fiddle Faddle 07:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This paper mentions that dimethyl selenosulfenate is the most abundant selenium containing species in coffee. What is the formula of dimethyl selenosulfenate? The authors refer to it as MeSeSMe, which I thought would be easy to unpack, but that seems not so, at least for me. Thank you, Sandbh ( talk) 06:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
This might be better for WP:MEDICINE, but: is there a general standard besides GNG for the notability of compounds, e.g., diphenyl-2-pyridylmethane, which I just found doing CAT:NN cleanup? Articles like this seem useful but I doubt that the majority of them have WP:SIGCOV. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 14:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello chemists! I bid y'all a warm hello. I came here today to inform thee of two Wikipedia sites that might be of interest to y'alls'. I've edited both of these pages, but since i am neither a chemist nor a college/graduate student, I came here to ask for your help. The former needs fixing from a chemist, whereas the latter doesn't have a single reference, until i put some. Additionally, the computations in the latter prove too much also for my teeny brain. Please abet me in fixing these pages, fellow wikipedians! Thank you y'all for reading this tedious query. Have a nice day! Wiswesser's rule Ionization energy Ice bear johny ( talk) 09:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh wow y'all are quick to reply! Thanks guys for the trouble :>>>. Ice bear johny ( talk) 13:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
But wait, the formula in Wiswesser's rule supports the Aufbau principle? Would you include it in Aufbau principle, or not? Is it inconsequential? I added it in my notes, and thought that it would help. Thank you for answering! Ice bear johny ( talk) 13:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh ok. You adding his paper assuages me. Thank you for helping me :>. Your help is greatly appreciated! Ice bear johny ( talk) 16:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to request your abetment. You see I am neither a chemist, nor a college student; ergo, i cannot ascertain that the information i input is 100% correct. Hence i beseech your help in the following pages: Ionization Energies, Effective nuclear charge, Core charge and Shielding effect. All of them are under referenced, and other editors that I know are particularly disinterested in editing because of the sheer hard work involved. Thanks y'all! Ice bear johny ( talk) 06:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Bruh the shielding effect-. Guys please edit that part. Literally, i cannot describe it's fathomable, facile information! Ice bear johny ( talk) 12:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The 1-Diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole article cites peer-reviewed sources which describe the compound as extremely sensitive, detonating at the slightest stimulus or for no apparent reason, but it also mentions hobbyists such as I make C2N14 in my shed who synthesized it themselves and found it far less sensitive. Should we include these amateur anecdotes? There's been some off-and-on discussion on the talk page, but it's inconclusive and would benefit from more input. – dlthewave ☎ 23:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Here (open access). About nine months in the making; I only signed off on the (eighth) proof, last night. Sandbh ( talk) 12:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
"Deprecating usage of the template {{radic}} to write root radicals" has an RfC for possible consensus. I you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 02:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
hi all, just a heads up, Jean-Pierre Abbat who was a chemist(?) is up for deletion, afd is here. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Now updated:
Periodic table
---
Sandbh (
talk)
07:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
How does the R1 Plasmid impact multi-drug antibiotic resistance in its host cell? Vbam25 ( talk) 22:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
9/30/2020 Vbam25 ( talk) 22:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
A quick ping here too: Validation of CAS numbers; collaboration with Wikidata? -- Egon Willighagen ( talk) 08:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
After almost two years of waiting, there still exists no reference in this article proving that "Lasri condensation" is an actual thing (I'm not talking about the chemical reaction, but the term itself). On superficial literature search, I found no paper using the term "Lasri condensation". I have the strong feeling that somebody from Lasri's group is trying to establish this term using Wikipedia. The users contributing to the article and uploading figures are named after former colleagues and PIs of Lasri. The second figure in the article is taken from Lasri's 2018 publication. Lasri himself is refering to the Wikipedia article on his website to suggest that the "Lasri condensation" exists. I suggest renaming this article to something without "Lasri" in it. What does everybody else think? -- Hbf878 ( talk) 12:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
While reading we come across so many new wordings and phenomena, which was not in wikipedia. How to add this to the page with proper references? Not only chemistry but also every new thing we found? Preethanuj Preethalayam ( talk) 07:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I just switched polar solvent to redirect to protic solvent. Protic solvent has sections on polar aprotic solvents and polar protic solvents (slightly redundant?). Would someone else look at protic solvent and make sure that these important links are ok? Do we need to create a self-standing polar solvent? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
In the right hand figure “H2O” should read “H2O”. In addition, it overlaps with an arrow. Anyone volunteering for fixing or re-drawing? Please note that there is a version with a higher resolution in the file history. -- Leyo 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Good day! I really liked the navbox Template:Phosphides that ties together articles about phosphides in parallel to Template:Phosphorus compounds. Since it was missing, I made a similar template about arsenides ( Template:Arsenides) which also works in parallel to Template:Arsenic compounds. However, when I tried to update the template about nitrides Template:Nitrides (to make it look like this draft) I was not sure how to proceed. Updating the current version of the nitrides template to make it look like the phosphide and arsenide templates may change it significantly and I don't know whether it will disrupt any of the 300+ pages that link to the template. First, I don't know whether I should update the template. Is it used in some articles? I didn't find it on articles it links to. Second, I don't know how to check whether the update would disrupt the pages linked to it. I would greatly appreciate advice on the matter. -- ElMagyar ( talk) 21:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Changes in article names based on one's ideas of proper or correct nomenclature should be discussed. Such as discussion has been underway on the carboxylic acids. Chemists often call R-S-R thioethers, still. R-Se-O-H are called selenenic acids. Maybe some committee decided that they should be called SeO-Selenoperoxols. Wikipedia is respectful of such committees but we are not necessarily obedient to them. In the end, changes are made by consensus.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Per title, what shall I do? -- Ktsquare (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Now
If possible, all the inorganic salts, carboxylic acid and carboxylate can be skipped altogether. Also, if the cracking in the last step is economical and can be done in large scale, recycling polystyrene can be possible because paravinyl phenol monomer is structurally similar to styrene. In other words, Cracking_(chemistry) make benzene and acetylene from polysytrene waste. hydrogenate some of the acetylene product to ethene to support the ethenolysis in previous step. I know already someone is going to say these are all fantasy from the very beginning... :) --- Ktsquare (talk)