Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kendrick mass/unit
Line 289: Line 289:


The table in [[Alkyl#Nomenclature]] would benefit from adding a row containing the number of isomeric forms of each alkyl group. I could, however, only find data for alkanes in literature, not for alkyl groups. --[[User:Leyo|Leyo]] 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The table in [[Alkyl#Nomenclature]] would benefit from adding a row containing the number of isomeric forms of each alkyl group. I could, however, only find data for alkanes in literature, not for alkyl groups. --[[User:Leyo|Leyo]] 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

==Resolve POV Fork: Kendrick Mass and Kendrick Unit==
Request comments on proposed merge of [[Kendrick unit]] into [[Kendrick mass]] and mend a [[WP:POVFORK|POV fork]]. In 1963, Kendrick proposed a scale based on the mass of CH2 = 14.0000.[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac60206a048] This scale is useful in organic [[mass spectrometry]], particularly in high resolution mass spectrometry of hydrocarbons (see [http://dx.crossref.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0805069105]). A Kendrick unit has not been proposed, although a paper published last month uses “Ke” in a manner parallel to the [[Dalton]] unit.[http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-1039-2010] The basis of the merge is that the Kendrick unit article goes beyond what is stated in the literature and is therefore [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]. Kendrick mass is widely accepted and a balanced discussion of a Kendrick unit is appropriate within the Kendrick mass article. Additional discussion on [[Talk:Kendrick_mass]]. --[[User:Kkmurray|Kkmurray]] ([[User talk:Kkmurray|talk]]) 13:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:40, 24 September 2010

WikiProject iconChemistry Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Article alerts

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Miscellany for deletion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(3 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(48 more...)

Discussion of the WikiProject Chemistry - Please add your comment and discussion here. Older discussions are archived.

Shortcut

This discussion page is about the Chemistry project itself, for detailed, in-depth discussions about specific topics, you'd be best served at the talk page of the specific subject, e.g., Chemicals, Chemical infoboxes, etc. There is also an image request page which might be of interest to you.

Trying to make a concrete illustration of "activity coefficients"...

Click image for larger version. A hypothetical reaction A- + A- → A22-, in pure water (left) and saltwater (right). As the two A-s approach, they experience a stronger and stronger repulsive electric force (orange arrows). However, the repulsion is always much weaker in saltwater, because a cloud of Na+ cations can screen the charges. Therefore the reaction enthalpy is different, as are the equilibrium concentrations. This means NaCl has changed the activity coefficients of A- and A22-.

Hello! I tried to make an illustration that would show a very concrete pedagogical example of "activity coefficients" -- an example where activity (which determines equilibria, etc.) is very obviously different from concentration. I came up with the diagram and caption on the right. I knew from the start that it wouldn't be very clear, and now Petergans (talk · contribs) has pointed out on my talk page that it's also incorrect! (Or at least misleading.) Can anyone suggest improvements to salvage this animation? Or, I can do something completely different from scratch. (Making this animation only took 20 minutes, using MS Powerpoint, no big deal.) What is the simple picture that you imagine when you think about activity coefficients affecting some chemical process? Or another way to put it: When you think about a non-ideal solution, what does the non-ideality look like in your mind's eye, and why does it alter equilibrium concentrations? I was thinking of dissolved chemicals originally, but a gas (fugacity) example would also be worthwhile.

The textbooks I've seen so far don't have the kind of concrete pedagogical examples I'm looking for, they just go through formal derivations.

Thanks! :-) --Steve (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me a non-ideal solution is one whose overall Gibbsian energy at equilibrium is a complex function of the concentration of the involved species. This could be for many reasons -- some kind of geometric frustration in a species which might have a preferred arrangement being disrupted if the ratios of the two species are wrong; complex docking type behaviours. I think trying to sum up all of these as the single "cause" is nearly impossible -- you might be able to provide examples for known highly nonideal cases; (this could well be a boat-load of work..) but attempting to provide a single graphic that encompasses all reasons might be tricky. User A1 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, it can't and shouldn't be all reasons. It's an example, and will be clearly labeled as such. ("This is an example of one situation where activity is very different from concentration...")
Docking and geometry are generally very easy to depict, but I'm not quite sure what you're referring to (Are you talking about solid crystal structures, or something else?) Thanks! --Steve (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe I could show pure water, and then add more and more lipids, and then at some point they start forming micelles? Maybe I could show pure octane, and you add more and more acetic acid, and at some point they start forming dimers? Something like that? --Steve (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue of a very general nature here, that is, the near impossibility of reconciling thermodynamics with molecular structure, especially when dealing with equilibria in aqueous solutions. It comes down to the difficulty of separating enthalpy and entropy components of delta G. petergans (talk · contribs)


Here's my second try, to the right. Any suggestions? Concerns? (I'm trying to convey a very very simple idea here.) Thanks! :-) --Steve (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple example of a non-ideal mixture between two liquids A and B. In this example, the attraction between A and B molecules is similar to between B and B, but the A-A interaction (red arrows) is very unfavorable (repulsive) by comparison. At higher concentration of A, the A-A interactions become more frequent, so the activity coefficient of A (free energy per molecule of A) goes up.

Expert help please

Would a polymer process expert please take a look at Cobalt mediated radical polymerization and Catalytic chain transfer. They look like notable subjects but need bringing up to snuff per MOS etc. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help at bullvalene

I've been doing a little editing of the bullvalene article and noticed something I don't know how to fix. In the section bullvalene#semibullvalene the following synthesis is given:

Scheme 3. Semibullvalene synthesis

The accompanying text states that the "compound was first prepared by photolysis of barrelene in toluene with acetone as a photosensitizer". But, looking at the scheme, we have the substance (CH3)2CH2CH2CH3 which can't possibly exist (note the pentavalent carbon). I don't know if this is meant to be toluene (to match the text) or is mis-written methylbutane or what... can the scheme be edited, or failing that replaced, and does anyone know what the correct chemistry is? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is one of those days: someone spots a mistake in a chem image, automatically assumes that the fundamental rules of science are violated and cries murder Check the original article (first page for free!) and it will simply tell you isopentane is meant. Fundamentally big mistake?, I disagree. Check the author name, it will tell you it is Howard Zimmermann who happens to be a Wikipedia editor so you could have asked him directly instead of complaining here. Unfortunately no mechanism exists for correcting images because it is not possible to get an agreement on a single free-access graphics editor within the Wikipedia chemistry community. I for one am not going to correct the image for the simple reason that I am annoyed V8rik (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I recognised the possibility that the formula might have been intended to be methylbutane (isopentane), but was puzzled as the text refers specifically to the reaction being carried out in toluene, so was having trouble reconciling a clearly impossible formula with a name that was not even close to what the formula might plausibly have been meant to be.
  2. I have now corrected the url provided and read the article... it says 1 - 2 % isopentane solutions of barrelene, so I remain unsure as to why the WP page says the reaction is carried out in toluene.
  3. I neither assumed the fundamental rules of science were violated, nor screamed bloody murder. I simply and politely asked for assistance. I was not in any doubt that the formula was simply incorrect but I was not certain what it should have been.
  4. "Check the author name ..." - are you serious? Go looking for the author of a nearly 45 year old paper on the off chance that he or she might have a WP account under their own name?
  5. It is a shame that correcting images is not possible, thanks for at least answering this part of my question.
  6. "I for one am not going to correct it ..." - what a childish attitude, given that you are the originator of the image and thus likely have the source file. Since you admit that there is an error in the image, is the better outcome to simply remove it from the encyclopedia? I will correct the text to note isopentane rather than toluene is the solvent. I hope someone else can come up with a better solution to the diagram issue than leaving it with a mistake or removing the diagram entirely.
  7. I truly hope you are simply having a bad day, because otherwise your attitude could do with some improvement, in my opinion.
EdChem (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a CC/GNU released free image PNG. Simply download it, edit it in Microsoft Paint or MacPaint or what have you, and reupload it at commons under the same name, with an edit summary stating your fix. If you're careful with font sizes and placing the edit box, overwriting the error with new text is simple. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mood has improved since yesterday thank you. I have corrected the image, I have included the source file in the commons section. My general advice, next time you see pentavalent carbon in an image assume an error was made. The best place for notifications of this type is the talk page that goes with the article. V8rik (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your reply and the updated image, and I am glad for you that your mood is improved. I should have considered posting at talk:bullvalene, I accept that. I brought it here because of my confusion about how the mention of toluene fit with the structure, but my choice can certainly be criticised. No matter what, I am glad that the article content is now consistent with the underlying reference. Regards, EdChem (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metadynamics

I just wrote a stub on metadynamics. If anyone wants to jump in and help, just do! --Cyclopiatalk 15:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Did you know?" help

I started the article gold-sulfur bond. I want to expand and improve over the next few days, and add elaborations and numerous sources, and of course pretty images, but it is difficult with my current workload. I do wish to make the five day deadline...thanks! John Riemann Soong (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice effort but the contents should probably be folded into Self-assembled monolayer (SAM) and into gold. Otherwise the article is pretty naive, relative to the principles of coordination chemistry. "This bond that has puzzled chemists for centuries," "The electronics of this bond between is not exactly clear" "Spectroscopic work has been key in studying this bond" are naive and unintendedly approach pseudoscience, IMHO. In general, the issues raised are associated with SAMs (whether the H is still on the surface-bound thiol). The article suggests to readers that certain ligand-metal combinations are very special, which can be very misleading and even unhelpful, IMHO. The article on gold needs help on the chemistry front, e.g. the great resilience of its thiolate derivatives. Possibly a rewritten section in that fundamentally important article could be highlighted in the DYK. For some reason the gold business has motivated the launch of several very strange articles, such as gold chalcogenides, which was converted into a redirect, and gold cluster, jargon of some sort that required complete rewrite. As a side note, the DYK business needs to be careful about attracting unvetted articles by enthusiastic authors who are uncalibrated in chemistry.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I make thiol-functionalised gold nanoparticles all the time that are not SAMs. In particular the question I am currently dealing with is whether Au-(H?)S-R is susceptible to attack by hydrogen peroxide; does the thiol detach from the surfaceas sulfonic acid, or does the Au atom it is attached to remove most of its kinetic reducing power? Gold-sulfur linkages are very popular but to me there are two alternate ways of (strongly) linking something to gold, albeit more experimental.
I am rushing a project now so I don't have time to elaborate with good sources -- I hope someone can do that for me, such as previous work and the literature on the hypotheses. I am particularly interested in the gold-sulfur interactions and not SAMs; a comparison of gold's interactions between thiolate, thiol, thiol radical and thioethers, as well as a direct comparison to bonds between Au(I) and thiols and thiolates. John Riemann Soong (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You just made the case that this article is original research (or a merit badge project for the Boy Scouts). The problem with the gold-sulfur bond article is that it is promotes naive perspectives and requires major clean-up. There are more prosaic topics needing help that require less creative writing and more reporting on facts. Like gold.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure most of what I'm doing is not OR, but things that people do all the time. We order these things from a company. ;-) At the moment there's a lot of weasel words because I don't have time to search the lit and pull the appropriate authors and papers. I am told research in gold-sulfur bonding goes a long long way back -- even the sources in the journals I cited in that article tell me that. John Riemann Soong (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's your lesson for the day, right there: get your sources ready before you write an article!

I am interested in gold and sulfur, so I'll make a draft article on Au-S chemistry and you can see how I would go about it.

Then you can pinch any good bits of my draft and use them to expand Gold-sulfur bond.

Ben (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First attempt: User:Benjah-bmm27/Au-S
Ben (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water of crystallisation

There's some stuff in this article I'm concerned about, like this:

Other types of water that may be present in a crystal are anion water (with hydrogen bonds to anions), [1]

lattice water (no direct bonding with an ion) and constitution water (water present as hydroxyl groups). Zeolite water is water that occupies vacancies (empty sites in the crystal lattice) and may be removed without changing the crystal structure. [2] [3][4]

Classically, "water of crystallization" refers to water that is found in a crystalline framework of a metal complex but that is not directly bonded to the metal ion.

Anion water and constitution water anybody? User_talk:Wickey-nl has been going round linking things to this page which I'm not sure are appropriate. Anybody else have any opinions? Furthermore, they've changed the redirect at Epsom salt from Magnesium sulphate to Epsomite, which is technically not incorrect but not useful, since all the medicinal uses of Mag Sulphate are at the former. Am tempted to revert.... Chris (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get this editor to become a little more communicative. So did others. Tone deaf + determined + not necessarily expert = difficult situation.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I commented out the section I disagree with. It comes from this source here, but this does not actually say that the things mentioned are Water of Crystallisation. It also says "Coordinated water: Water forms a chelate ion in a chelate complex", which is just plain nonsense. In my opinion, as a reputable source this is useless (I suspect it's just a bad translation from the Japanese). I also reverted the Epsom salt redirect. Epsomite should be a page about the mineral, and Magnesium sulphate about the chemical. Chris (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture help

Can anybody undistort the picture in the infobox at 2,2'-bipyridine so that the rings are hexagonal? Ta, Chris (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the image file to another one available on commons. EdChem (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never thought of that. Chris (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACS Boston meeting

Is anyone else from here attending the Boston ACS meeting next week? I'll be there, and giving a talk about chemistry on Wikipedia (CHED session, Sunday afternoon), so you can come along and heckle me if you like. User:ChemSpiderMan will also be there, and probably others too. We could maybe meet for lunch or something. Please be sure to say hello, at least! Walkerma (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Atomic Mass Unit article to Dalton (unit)?

As a result of a decision made in 2005, the article Dalton (unit) was merged into and redirected to the article Atomic mass unit. Since then the standards bodies appear to have changed their stance. I have proposed that the Dalton (unit) become the definitive article and that Atomic mass unit consists of a redirection. Please comment on this proposal at talk:Atomic mass unit.

This notice appears at both the Physics and the Chemistry Wikiproject pages. Martinvl (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI: volunteers needed

There’s a good number of people, e.g. Kww (talk), Tim Vickers (talk), Coren (talk), among many others, who have expressed desire to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia for writing on the subject of the “human molecule”, efforts of which resulted in a one year ban on me, back in 2007. To exemplify one objection, as expressed by Coren earlier this year: “You seem to ignore, Mr Thims, that Wikipedia is not the proper venue to document your novel theories.” The central problem here is that this is not “my novel theory”; but rather the theory dates back over two hundred years, with over ninety different people publishing content on this subject:

There have been at least six books written on the subject, one painting, four aluminum Molecule Man statues (one 100-foot tall), movie mentions, articles, over a dozen videos, many debates, posters, as well as college courses (dating back to 1894) taught utilizing the human molecule perspective as a basis. What seems to be the case is that either: (a) I have been mis-labeled as an editor with aims of self-promotion over that of an editor with a genuine interest in a subject (that very few people write on or know about); or (b) the subject is an anathema to many editors (and as such are using the various bylaws of Wikipedia in their favor to block the subject from Wikipedia)? To give a bit of history of my failed efforts to write neutral overview article on the subject:

Article EoHT article Deletion #1 Deletion #2 Desired neutral article
Human molecule (human molecule) AFD (I requested deletion) redirect to nanoputian (10 Oct 2007) Delete per WP:CSD#G4 (11 Jun 2010)

What I am looking for, at this point, being that there obviously exists some form admitable of conflict of interest (being that I wrote a history book on the subject of the human molecule in 2008 and that I seem to be one of only three people, including Robert Sterner and James Elser (2000), who have every made an attempt at the calculation of the molecular formula for one person), is for a minimum of about two or three neutral volunteer editors to write up a one page article (or even stub paragraph) on the subject of the “human molecule” (encompassing its derivative terms human atom, social atom, human chemical, human element, etc.), and I will confide my contributions or guidance of the article to the talk page. The topic, to note, is very controversial being that it is at odds with many cherished theories, particularly those of religion as well as many secular theories, such as life, free will, choice, purpose, etc.

My interest in having a Wikipedia article on this subject is so that children, age 15 or younger, will know that there is an alternative viewpoint out there on what it means to be a “human” (in contrast to the dogma of outdated subjects such as religion or other secular philosophies), and that this subject has been tossed around for at least 200-years now. At a minimum I would like to see:

(a) the mention that French philosopher Jean Sales (friend of Voltaire) coined the term in 1789 as follows: "we conclude that there exists a principle of the human body which comes from the great process in which so many millions of atoms of the earth become many millions of human molecules."
(b) the Sterner-Elser 2002 published calculation for the empirical molecular formula for one “human molecule”, as found in their Ecological Stoichiometry textbook, where they define a human (a publication which has been cited over 750-times): [5]

It is my view that the ban of this topic from Wikipedia is equivalent to the hysteria that results in acts of book burning of olden days or the inquisitions of Galileo for believing in the work of Copernicus. As Physchim62 (talk) put in on 11 Jun 2010 "It seems like the witch hunt is still on, more than eighteen months after the original events". I would like to think that there are more than myself and Physchim62 amenable to having a short stub article on the subject of the human defined atomically. I will post this help-message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry talk pages. Comments welcome. --Libb Thims (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons needs YOUR help

More "chemistry" Admins to Commons

As you see on that deletion "debate" here I encourage you to candidate for an admin on commons. I will also do that and I will support you. We have plenty of pictures to maintain, update - or - decide deletion debates by person with some deep knowledge in chemistry and biochemistry, respectively. Not to speak of those categories...--Yikrazuul (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No update from WolterBot for five months?

Hello all, I am new here, but have always had an interest in chemistry and have poked around Wikipedia a good bit. I noticed the cleanup list was last updated on March 23, 2010! After looking at a few entries I realized how very outdated it was, many of the articles there no longer require attention etc. Is it normal for this much time to elapse between updates?

Also, what is the general direction of the project at this point? Have the stated goals on the main page been met?

Excited to hear back! Scientific29 (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems others have encountered this difficulty as well, and a new bot is currently being tested. Please do respond to other questions though!!! Scientific29 (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a sample list at User:CleanupListingBot/Test Reports/WikiProject Chemistry. I'm in the process of recoding/optimizing the bot, so it will be another week before its good to go. Enjoy.Smallman12q (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you! Scientific29 (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pi interaction

Pi interaction is a nearly orphaned article, i.e. very few other articles link to it. If possible, work on it. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical commentary

The Chemistry section of this incubator article is beginning to fill in. Is any one willing to give me some constructive feedback? There's a strong possibility that this very-controversial 25-page article will end up in afd. As many will remember, in 2007, I was banned for an entire year for attempting to write on this subject, particularly through the efforts of biochemist Tim Vickers's whose efforts to smear my name, painting a picture of me as a fringe theory conman, has resulted to turn me into a Wikipedia demon, not only in Wikipedia but in conversations with other physicists and chemists outside of Wikipedia. --Libb Thims (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like steaming horse manure reeking of pseudoscience and cloaked in scholarly gobbledygook. Tim Vickers is one of the most skillful editors in Wikipedia-Chem. Wikipedia is, however, host to many articles on farces and fringe theories.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christoph Wieland called the same topic “nonsense and childish fooling around” and a “truly horrible” subject, exactly 200-years-ago. The key term in my last post, however, was "constructive feedback". Vickers may be a skillful editor, but he certainly is no genius. The subject of deriving theory on the view that people are molecules, however, is a subject worked on by geniuses: Voltaire (IQ=190), in 1777, Johann Goethe (IQ=225), in 1808, Humphry Davy (IQ=185), in 1813, and Christopher Hirata (IQ=225), in 2000. Hirata, in fact, wrote up his first theory "Thermochemical Approach to Relationships", just four years after becoming the youngest person (age 12) to win the International Physics Olympiad in 1996. The central equations used by Hirata are:
where X and Y are females and males, respectively. Goethe, likewise, the central pioneer of this subject, according to both Tony Buzan's (Book of Genius, 1994) and Catherine Cox's (Early Mental Traits of 300 Geniuses, 1926) is said to have been the most intelligent person to have ever lived. This is corroborated by the fact that Goethe's 52-volume collected set of works represented the largest portion of Einstein's personal library (wherein Einstein kept a bust of Goethe). The central equations used by Goethe are:
where A and B, in the topic equation, are people, and A in the bottom equation is chemical affinity. Goethe, in his own words, considered his this theory to be his "greatest work", out of his total 52-volumes of published work. I find it very disingenuous, therefore, Smokefoot, to resort to childish mudslinging on a subject worked on by four of the world's greatest geniuses. In any event, what matters, from the point of view of Wikipedia, is that subject is referenced and established. Aside from disagreeing with the subject, does anyone have any feedback, as to the Wikipedia-five piller aspects of the article? --Libb Thims (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific progress is neither based on "I think my theory X is my best" (no matter how famous the person is) bor on "famous person Y has a copy of X his library". Everything must stand or fall on its own actual merits. Nobel laureates can have crackpot ideas, hilariously ridiculous writings can be popular for that reason alone among scholars, etc. DMacks (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for us to decide whether or not someone’s theory is “crackpot” or not. An established reference would be needed for such an assertion, i.e. Goethe’s theory is crackpot[1]; Hirata’s theory is crackpot[2], etc. --Libb Thims (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to read the comment above (IQ is irrelevant there, as it does not measure the ability of non-chemists do develop a chemical theory), but not the article - it is overly long and unfocused. Materialscientist (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding IQ, although this is not immediately relevant, I bring the fact up to wake up some debate on this topic. Why, for example, do the economists, such as MIT-trained philosophy professor Alan Nelson, have entire articles and book chapters written on the theory that economic agents are "human molecules"?; why have the limnologists been the ones to do the first stoiciometric calculation for the molecular formula for a human?; why has the literature department (Goethe (1809), Adler (1977), Fink (2001), been the ones to develop human chemical reaction theory?; why have the historians and sociologists been the first to apply thermodynamics (Adams, 1910) and thermochemistry (Carey, 1858) to human molecular theory?, etc., etc., etc., all the while, we chemists sit around and sling mud at each other calling the subject pseudoscience? --Libb Thims (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article being “overly-long and unfocused”, I have been forced into this predicament, out of necessity. My very first edit to Wikipedia, in 2005, of over 10,000 edits (and 100+ new articles) was a stub on “human thermodynamics” a subject defined by C.G. Darwin in 1952 as the statistical mechanics of systems of “human molecules”. This was soon driven out of the village as pseudoscience. I attempted a similar stub on “human chemistry”, in 2007, a subject defined by Henry Adams in 1885 as the study of the attraction of equivalent “human molecules”. This was again driven out of the village as witchcraft, for which I was burned at the stake. On June 10th, of this year, deciding to forgo attempts at re-writing an article on either human chemistry or thermodynamics, I attempted a simple 5-reference stub on the 2002 published calculation for the molecular formula for one “human molecule”, by Sterner and Elser, cited over 750 times, with a short mention that others have attempted chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics formulation of this subject. This was quickly driven out of the village by User:Tim Vickers (the same person who drove me out of the village in 2007) on the grounds that the article human molecule is “hoax/fringe”, and that I was simply writing this article to promote my books. I am thus sick and tired of getting driven out of the village to be burned at the stake, by people like Tim Vickers, and am thus slowly adding enormous numbers of references to substantiate, what in any other non-controversial article, would have been appeased with ten or fewer references. --Libb Thims (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to express yourself within a few lines, maximum, would help, and talking about writing should not substitute writing. Answers to "why" above would be self-serving. Materialscientist (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kww

Try getting permanently banned for doing such mundane things as mentioning, by suggestion, that photon exchange is a component of heat, or writing a stub on "human chemistry", and possibly you won’t be writing such short defensive statements? Re: "Answers to "why" above would be self-serving", I don't know what this means? --Libb Thims (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats are forbidden on Wikipedia. Either cite it and let's address that behavior, or explicitly retract that accusation immediately. DMacks (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take the following three in-context comments by admin kww directed at being representative of his view of me:

  • Delete and salt and ban author: Another in the web of "human chemistry' garbage perpetrated by Sadi Carnot. No real notability, an involvement with a fringe pseudoscience that is so far on the fringe that it nearly seems to be an analogy, no good third-party sources, and the only Wikipedia editor that has taken any interest in him writes dishonest self-promoting articles as a hobby. Kill the article, ban the author." Kww (12 Oct 2007)
  • "Glad to see that I didn't have to wait for the heat death of the universe to get someone to agree that he is deserving of a ban. I'll ask again ... what is the proper forum to discuss banning him?" Kww (15 Oct 2007)
  • "The one I wish I had handled better was Sadi Carnot. I allowed myself to get goaded into anger. I learned from that. I may still get angry at times, but you'd have a hard time seeing it from the words I write." Kww (06 Jun 2009)

These are three of dozens directed at me by Kww all for writing a stub article that “human chemistry: the study of the attractions of human molecules” (Henry Adams 1885 definition). Kww was the one who improperly speeded my 2010 attempt at a rewrite of the human molecule article. Hence, I do not take lightly these types of attacks on me personally regarding this subject, especially by someone, who, in Kww's own words, "wields a few of the magic admin buttons", and improperly uses them against topics he doesn't like. --Libb Thims (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You cannot comprehend the difference between "heat death of the universe" and wikipedia bans/blocks vs a death-threat? I see no death threats against you. Retract your statement or I will indef-block you for gross incivility. This is not a personal attack on you, this is merely a direct response to your on-wiki behavior here now and whether you are making a good-faith effort to contribute collaboratively here. Go spend time working on the article as others mentioned. DMacks (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have retracted my comments, per your order. Given that you do not see the full picture of Kww's campaign against me personally, I will assume you do not see the big picture and are being polite. But, for the record, I'll take Kww's admittedly "anger"-filled comment "kill the article, ban the author" to mean something uncivil. If this was a one-time comment, this would certainly be no big deal, but I have been digging through some of the 100-pages of archives of Kww's three-year campaign against me, and I see this as sentence "in-context". --Libb Thims (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"kill the article, ban the author" most certainly does not mean "kill the author". I suggest you retract that at once. You are your own worse enemy as you were in the past. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have retracted the comment. But, as I have commented at the Admin noticeboard, I do not think admins should be talking about killing anything, however one takes this comment. --Libb Thims (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any issues with the article?

I apologize to everyone if I seem on edge, but I have been persecuted to no end, since my very first (2005), with mention of anything and anyone who has developed theory about the behaviors of "human molecules". At one time, Bduke and I used to be on good terms. I assume everyone in the WikiProject chemistry now hates me? Whatever the case, everyone's dislike of me aside, does anyone have any feedback as to why, potentially, the human molecule could get deleted? --Libb Thims (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we were on either good terms or bad, and that remains so. Above, I was simply objecting to your claim that an admin had threatened to kill you. You do not get friends by making such a claim. My objection to the article is summed up by the editor on the section "Nothing but WP:SYNTHESIS?" on its talk page, which I see you utterly failed to address. As a consequence it is far too long and gives undue weight to a fringe subject. I am also concerned that you have a massive conflict of interest in view of your books and your own wiki. I suggest you leave it to others. If this fringe topic is notable someone else will add something about it on WP. However, I certainly will not do so. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your attention and consideration

I found this article while categorizing uncategorized pages. Its a word for word copy of an EPA.gov webpage. At minimum it needs an extensive rewrite. It may even need to be AFDed but I don't know enough about the subject matter to be comfortable with nominating it for that. Which is why I'm bringing it to you.*Kat* (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can tag it as containing PD text from [3], but IMO, it is not encyclopedic and it is not reasonable to have such a twinned article. Thus suggest speedy delete it as copyright violation instead. Materialscientist (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table of molecules ?

This seems... well, it seems more like a literature review than an encyclopedia article. Very good sourcing, but I'm dubious about whether it's salvageable -- on the other hand, all I have is a bachelor's. Opinions? DS (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it reads like an outline for an article in Journal of Chemical Education, where it would be more at home than on Wikipedia. The idea of a periodicity of molecules as something separate from the periodicity of the elements is not mainstream chemistry, but it is worthy of scientific discussion, especially if it helps teaching the myriad of different relationships. However, before submitting his/her ideas to a more suitable forum, the author should thoroughly revise his/her section on the basis of the current periodic table, as at the moment it is factually incorrect (as a hint, the author might like to mention the name Pauli at least once and probably several times). Physchim62 (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is salvageable; the main problem is that it contains references but doesn't explain what's in them. (Listing references without exposition is, I think, a common problem for new scientific articles on Wikipedia, because it is considered acceptable in a journal article, but is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article.) What the article needs is for someone to skim the references and explain in the text what all of these different systems are. Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 19:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to make the caption visable in a picture in a Chembox

How to make the caption visable in a picture in a Chembox I put a picture in a Chembox (see the following), how can I make the caption visable? Thanks

WikiProject Chemistry
alt=Alpha crystal form ....
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).

Electrochemistry

I was just reviewing articles that have been selected for the Version 0.8 release, and the article on electrochemistry caught my eye. The content looks to be very good, IMHO, and probably in 2005 we'd have assessed it as A-Class. However, it doesn't have any inline citations, and there is only a handful of general references. Would it be possible for someone who knows the field (i.e., not me!) to give this a thorough review so we can keep it as at least B-Class. I hate to demote something to C-Class just because of references, when there is a clearly a lot of nice content. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the sections in this article have main articles associated with it, find the inline citations there I would think, no need to do all the work twice. General references suffice V8rik (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I hadn't noticed how much of it refers to "Main" articles. I've been too inactive on WP lately, I'm missing obvious stuff like that! I'll try to work on it this weekend to import some refs, but I also see that most of those sub-articles are similar - often just a couple of refs for a long article. I'll check original sources as much as possible, but I may have to try and dig out some books from our college library too! Thanks for checking it over. Walkerma (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Chemistry articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Georgia – Graduate Chemistry Class Project

This class will be working on some contributions in the area of transition metal chemistry:

I will post an update once I see how the students’ articles are shaping up. Regards, ChemPunk (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be interested to see what your students have to say about aurophilicity, as I've published in that area ;) Physchim62 (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of isomers of alkyl groups

The table in Alkyl#Nomenclature would benefit from adding a row containing the number of isomeric forms of each alkyl group. I could, however, only find data for alkanes in literature, not for alkyl groups. --Leyo 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve POV Fork: Kendrick Mass and Kendrick Unit

Request comments on proposed merge of Kendrick unit into Kendrick mass and mend a POV fork. In 1963, Kendrick proposed a scale based on the mass of CH2 = 14.0000.[4] This scale is useful in organic mass spectrometry, particularly in high resolution mass spectrometry of hydrocarbons (see [5]). A Kendrick unit has not been proposed, although a paper published last month uses “Ke” in a manner parallel to the Dalton unit.[6] The basis of the merge is that the Kendrick unit article goes beyond what is stated in the literature and is therefore WP:SYNTHESIS. Kendrick mass is widely accepted and a balanced discussion of a Kendrick unit is appropriate within the Kendrick mass article. Additional discussion on Talk:Kendrick_mass. --Kkmurray (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Example: Anion water in gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O) and hemihydrate (CaSO4·1/2H2O)
  2. ^ Hiroaki Masuda,Kō Higashitani,Hideto Yoshida: Powder technology handbook CRC Press, 2006 (google books)
  3. ^ Kazuo Nakamoto: Infrared and Raman Spectra of Inorganic and Coordination Compounds Part B Wiley-Interscience, 2009 pp. 57-60 (google books)
  4. ^ Wells, A.F. (1984) Structural Inorganic Chemistry, Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-855370-6.
  5. ^ Sterner, Robert W. and Elser, James J. (2002). Ecological Stoichiometry: the Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (human molecule, pgs. 3, 47, 135). Princeton University Press.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry&oldid=386743196"