User talk:Dirac66

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notice: If you leave a new message on this page, I will normally reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

User talk:Dirac66/Archive 1 (2006-2010)

User talk:Dirac66/Archive 2 (2011-2012)

User talk:Dirac66/Archive 3 (2013-2014)

User talk:Dirac66/Archive 4 (2015-2016)

Metal ion hydrolysis[edit]

I have started a new section for this on my talk page. As I do not follow all articles which include metal ion hydrolysis, may I ask you to post a simple message there, so that I can follow your edits. Petergans (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything on your talk page since my edit there on Dec.18. Are you referring to your recent edits at Talk:Acid dissociation constant?
In any case my recent relevant edits are at (1) the article Acid dissociation constant, and (2) the infoboxes for LiOH, NaOH, KOH, RbOH, CsOH and Mg(OH)2. To come: Ca(OH)2, Sr(OH)2 and Ba(OH)2. Also note that you can follow my (or any user's) edits by going to my page or my talk page, and clicking on User contributions (in the left-hand column, at least in my setup). Dirac66 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong number - I put it at Talk:Acid_dissociation_constant#Metal_ion_hydrolysis. Petergans I have to say that I am very skeptical about the (unreferenced) values for NaOH and KOH given by Chem Buddy. The value for Li of pKb = -0.36 is perhaps credible, but it needs verification to a primary source. The problem is that a pKa> 14 is out of range for determination by potentiometry. It's just possible that it was determined by nmr; a very concentrated solution of LiOH may, perhaps, show evidence of ion-association in a 7Li nmr signal. I'll see if I can find anything in the literature. (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I have searched the SC-database and found these entries for LiOH (lg K = pKa)

Method Medium Temp. Ionic str. Lg K values Comment reference
nmr R4N.X 25°C 3.4M K1=-0.1 method: NMR Li-7 K Popov,L Lajunen,A Popov et al; Inorg.Chem.Comm.,5,223 (2002)
EMF NaClO4 25°C 3.00M K1=-0.18 At I=0 corr.: K1=-0.1 H Ohtaki; Acta Chem.Scand.,18,521 (1964)
EMF NaClO4 25°C 3.0M K1=-0.2 *K1=-14.4 Method: H electrode Personal Communication etc; Chem.Soc.Spec.Publ.,no.17 (1964)
EMF none 25°C 0 K1=0.17 Method: H electrode F Gimblett,C Monk; Trans.Faraday Society,50,965 (1954)

Both Popov and Ohtaki are usually reliable. The last entry should also be reliable, but the value appears to have been extrapolated to zero ionic strength.

Inorganic Chemistry Communications, Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2002, Pages 223–225

7Li 23Na 39K 133Cs NMR comparative equilibrium study of alkali metal cation hydroxide complexes in aqueous solutions. First numerical value for CsOH formation

K. Popova, L.H.J. Lajunenb, A. Popovc, H. Rönkkömäkib, M. Hannu-Kuureb, A. Vendiloc

Abstract

NMR spectrometric comparative study of 0.05 M alkali metal chloride hydrolysis in aqueous solutions

at 25 °C is performed. It is found that chemical shifts of all nuclei involved are sensitive to variations of ionic strength and pH.

Stability constants for Li+, Na+, K+ and Cs+ are found to be −0.04 (0.05), −0.93 (0.04), −0.7 (0.2) and −0.8 (0.1), respectively.

The stability of CsOH is estimated to be the same as that of NaOH and KOH within an experimental error. No evidence of chloro-complexes formation was found.

Petergans (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC

Metal ion Hydrolysis, continuation[edit]

I agree that Chem Buddy is not really a reliable source, as it does not cite or evaluate the primary sources. This is also true of the” Das Periodensystem online” source cited in the infoboxes for hydroxides of Rb, Cs, Mg, Ca, Sr and Ba. I cited Chem Buddy because it was better than no source at all as was the case previously. However (some or all of) the primary sources you have found would be preferable, especially if the articles actually specify the equilibria to which the infobox values refer.

For LiOH as the first case I have some questions on the values you cite:
  1. I have searched the SC-database and found these entries for LiOH (lg K = pKa). Since the values are close to 0 and not 14, should this be pKb?
  2. Column Lg K values: Does K1 here mean Kb? Or pKb since the heading says Lg.
  3. Why are the stability constants different from Kb? Or pKb?
Clearly I am still confused on the exact meaning of the constants here. I think it will help readers if you can specify in the text the exact reaction to which the cited value corresponds for the case of LiOH: Li+(aq) + OH-(aq) = LiOH(aq)? LiOH(s)?? LiOH(OH2)5(aq)?
Also since you have read these sources and understand them better than me, it seems best that you edit the infobox and add explanatory text in the LiOH article. Dirac66 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. The relation between pKa and pKb is derived at Acid_dissociation_constant#Bases_and_basicity: . The problem with making the conversion is that the value of pKw is ionic strength and temperature dependent. Its value should be taken from the original publication but the value is not in the abstract. Using a value of 14 will introduce an error of unknown magnitude.
  2. lg stands for log10. pK(x) = -log10(x) = log10(1/x)
Ideally each value in an infobox should be accompanied by the relevant temperature and ionic strength values. In the case of lithium hydroxide the phrase "(dissociation of OH–)" next to the value is meaningless. The equilibrium expression relating to pKa is
Li+ + H2O ⇌ LiOH + H+
which identifies the reaction as an hydrolysis reaction. pKb refers to the association of Li+ and OH-
Li+ + OH-⇌ LiOH
and is more clearly related to base strength of LiOH. I don't want to get involved in editing infoboxes...Petergans (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for finding primary sources which I agree are better than ChemBuddy. For the infoboxes I think it is simpler to use one value without the experimental uncertainty, so I propose to use the Popov values which are the more recent of the two which you say are usually reliable. I’ll start by inserting a value for LiOH. If you agree with my way of doing it, I will continue to NaOH, KOH and CsOH. And then we can worry about Mg(OH)2 etc.
Just to be certain we agree on the interpretation: I take lg K = −0.04 as referring to Li+ + OH = LiOH(aq), since stability constants are usually defined for solution species.
Above you wrote that pKb refers to the same reaction, but I think that is backward, as Li+ is a Lewis acid and not a base. It should be LiOH ⇌ Li+ + OH, which leads to KaKb = Kw as it should. So the basicity of LiOH(aq) = Li+ + OH is lg Kb = +0.04, and the infobox parameter pKb = −0.04. This is what I meant by “dissociation of OH−” but perhaps it would be clearer to just write Li+ + OH.
Also I don’t know why the SC database quotes Popov as saying pKb = −0.1. I found the Popov abstract with Google and it definitely says −0.04. Dirac66 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have changed the LiOH infobox now. Is that an improvement? Dirac66 (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Magnesium hydroxide[edit]

Actually, I don't remember making that change. Either I have been commandeered or accidentally made it. The record says I did. I apologise, it was not intended. JSR (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is extensive data on stability constant values for Mg(OH)+ at Donald A. Palmer and David J. Wesolowski, "Potentiometric measurements of the first hydrolysis quotient of magnesium(II) to 250°C and 5 molal ionic strength (NaCl)",Journal of Solution Chemistry, February 1997, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 217–232. Absolutely no evidence for a second constant due to low solubility of Mg(OH)2. c.f. the infobox for magnesium hydroxide. Petergans (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the term stability constant is used for solution species only. I agree that the paper of Palmer and Wesolowski considers only Mg2+ + H2O = MgOH+ + H+ in solution, while referring to Mg(OH)2 in the solid state only so that its stability constant cannot be obtained from the data in the paper.
However basicity (as opposed to stability constant) can also be a property of a solid; Mg(OH)2 (s) is usually considered a strong base which dissolves to give OH ion. Perhaps the best entry for basicity is just Strong base with no numerical value, and citing a general chemistry text. Similarly for Ca, Sr, and Ba hydroxides.
Actually if Mg(OH)2(aq) is not observed (in this or any other experiment – I have not checked), its stability constant would be (close to) zero and therefore its basicity constant Kb = 1/K(stab) is very large, so that it is a strong base in solution as well. The situation is analogous to that of HCl(aq), which I doubt has actually been observed in aqueous solution, so again its stability constant is (close to) zero and here Ka is very large so we call it a strong acid in both solution and gas. In effect it is too strong an acid to exist in solution.
The Dasperiodensystem online source does say that its pKb value is for Mg(OH)2, but this compilation may not be reliable. In addition to not citing primary sources, it lists about 700 reactions with pKb values accompanied by a pKa (pKs in German, found by clicking on the molecule name which links to a data page for the element), and in all cases pKb + pKa is 14.00 exactly! As you have said this is not valid, and I presume that in each case the authors just took one value (pKb or pKa) from some primary source and calculated the other assuming pKw = 14.00. Dirac66 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Bond angle in water[edit]

Hello! Thank you for the notification. I'll modify the picture as soon as possible, probably in a few hours. Riccardo Rovinetti (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Optical isomers[edit]

Looks good! Maybe that will appease the sock-drawer. Or not... DMacks (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Conservation of energy. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Weburbia (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Context/content extraction from a source - Apelblat[edit]

Hi, Dirac66! What more context, useful for the article apparent molar property and insertable there, have you noticed when having browsed the source Citric Acid by Alexander Apelblat? Thanks.--82.137.9.225 (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Molecule vs material[edit]

The reason that I replaced "molecule" in the Raman article was that one could record such a spectrum from nonmolecular species. I often seem to encounter the situation where stuff is described as molecules, but most stuff is not molecular, being polymeric, ionic or both. So I am just writing this note to explain myself. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I have seen polarizability values for molecules though. Perhaps we should refer to both molecules AND solids in this context. Dirac66 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Intelligibility of some notation involving derivatives[edit]

Hi, Dirac66! I ask your input about the intelligibility of some notation of derivatives used in chemical thermodynamics such as in the Gibbs-Duhem equation that is mentioned at talk:Gibbs-Duhem equation. Some user says that the notation is unintelligible or wonky! How do you think and what possible improvements can be made to have a higher level of intelligibility?--82.137.10.139 (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

After looking at this article, I agree with you that there was insufficient reason to remove the section on ternary systems. The notation is intelligible to readers who understand partial derivatives, and is based on a reputable journal article which should not be described as nonsense. I have restored it with some very minor revisions, such as u sing cite journal to show the article title and DOI link which allows the reader to click and see the first page of the source article.
I will suggest however that you register with a verbal username. In the Wikipedia community, registered users with fixed names are taken (a little) more seriously than users with numbers which are constantly changed by the computer system. Dirac66 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll open a new section about ternary systems sources encountered. (Re a verbal username I think at the possibility as Electrochem-Al attached to IPs 82.137....)--82.137.8.95 (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Re the cited author, L.S. Darken, I've just found some biographical info at Darken's_equations#Biography. This recently encountered wikiarticle also mentions other contributions by Darken, especially re the connection between free energy and mobility/diffusivity in a journal called Trans. of AIME. (ElectroChem-Al(NiCuZn))--82.137.15.76 (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ternary non-ideal mixtures[edit]

Hi, Dirac66! How do you think of the sources re non-ideal ternary systems from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2017_October_21#Ternary_ideal_mixture_obtained_from_non-ideal_binaries? (Electrochem-Al)--82.137.8.95 (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The lecture notes are not a very satisfactory source because they are anonymous, so we don't know if the author should be considered reliable. Also, they are not a permanent publication, so someday they may well disappear from the Internet without warning. They may help you answer your question today, but I would not cite them in a Wikipedia article which is supposed to be permanent.
On the other hand, no.4 is a Russian journal article in English, which is perfectly acceptable. The only problem is that as noted it is behind a paywall, so most of the paper is not freely accessible to all readers. However in this case the accessible part is fairly long and main contain useful information.Dirac66 (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Re the first (non-permanent) mentioned sources indeed they are somewhat problematic but lacking something else more qualitative it is better than nothing to have them cited, at least temporarily.
The paywall issue seems to be present also in case of Glueckauf reference recently mentioned on talk:Apparent molar property. May it happen that you have access to the full text of 1955 Transactions of the Faraday Society article?--82.137.14.210 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my university does not seem to have access to TFS. Dirac66 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

How about the access to Journal of the American Chemical Society, encountered in the case of the article by Darken, cited at Gibbs-Duhem equation, what is the situation at your university? (ElectroChem-Al(NiCuZn)--82.137.15.76 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

My on-line access to JACS goes back to 1996, but this article is from 1950. The university library does have paper copies from before 1996 which I will look at when I am at the university; I'm not sure how far back they go. Dirac66 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the details!--82.137.10.99 (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
So, how far back does JACS on paper go?--82.137.8.200 (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
My university on-line catalog says they do have a complete paper collection of JACS from 1879-1996 (plus more recent on-line), so I can look for Darken's 1950 (JACS, v.72, p.2909) paper next time I am there. But please remind me what you wanted to know about his paper. On looking at Gibbs–Duhem equation and its talk page I don't see a question that needs an answer. Dirac66 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be some unclear aspects about intermediate steps in derivations of the formulae from the first and beyond the first (visible) page, as well as the final formula and conclusions of the article by Darken. It is useful that these aspects be checked in the paper article, including some additional formulae (presumably from final part of the article by Darken) that I'll insert in article from a NONEng source that mentions Darken article, source from where the first expressions have been also extracted. On the other hand on the first page visible in the link it seems to be a discrepancy in the starting value of x2 (denoted N2 in the Darken article) when integrating x2=1 or 0 to simply x2 that could be checked further in the rest of the article.--82.137.10.169 (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Given the title of this section, I put here two encountered journal articles links, useful to the problem of ternary systems data from binary data, both from the same journal:

--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

These are from Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 1971 and 1972. As mentioned below, I only have full access to that journal from 1997 to now. Dirac66 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I′ll open a new section below re article access through WP:REREQ.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Biographical article re Darken by text transfer[edit]

Hi! How do you think, can the bio info re Darken along with the cited source from Darken's equations#Biography be transferred in a stand-alone article for this physical chemist?--82.137.10.99 (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea. I found a NY Times announcement of his death here. Dirac66 (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Dirac66. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

NB bilingualism photo[edit]

Hi there, just reverted your rev and came here to apologise for misspelling your name. Oops, I wish revision comments were editable! Anyway to elaborate on what I said in the comment, any place can have bilingual signs welcoming tourists. I see it all the time at shopping malls in New England, for example. But the NB "tag" is unique (?) in Canada in being bilingual. So it illustrates well the point being made. --Cornellier (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Other edits[edit]

If you get the time, I made some big edits on cyclobutadiene, i.e. it is not really "unstable" in a more formal sense. But I did not edit the article well with respect to electronic structure. I removed a lot of content about excited states, which seems not very relevant, but then relevancy depends on the energetic accessibility of those states (e.g. triplet). Other major edits involve steric effects, a huge topic. The residual issues in my mind are inter- vs intramolecular steric effects.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added a few suggestions at Talk:Cyclobutadiene. Steric effects I will leave to the organic chemists as I am a physical chemist. Dirac66 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
How about physical organic chemistry? How can steric effects be approached in a general physical chemistry procedure? --213.233.84.31 (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Some general information on steric effects is in the section Physical organic chemistry#Conformational analysis. Dirac66 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Peter A. Rock source[edit]

Hi, Dirac66! Are there any mentions in the source Peter A. Rock Chemical Thermodynamics 1969 (which is available to you) re three-liquids mixtures/systems like, say, water-glycerol-ethanol in connection with the expression of apparent molar propertyes for these systems? Thanks! ElectroChemAl--82.137.10.138 (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Rock's index does not include Ternary systems, and it only includes one mention of Apparent molar properties pointing to p.227-230 which considers binary systems only. His example is water-ethanol, but there is no mention of glycerol or any other third component. Dirac66 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Law of dilution for strong electrolytes[edit]

Hi! I have just noticed that the article law of dilution does not present the situation for strong electrolytes where instead of concentrations appearing in the expression of the law, activities would be needed. I also see that the simple version of the law mentions a connection with conductivity (electrolytic) for determining the degree of (self)-dissociation of pure liquid solvents like water. How do you think about this situation (in re with some possible sources encountered)? Could the strong version of the law, containing activity coefficients, also maintain the link with electrolytic conductivity? (for example for highly concentrated solid electrolytes solution or liquid potential electrolytes like hydrochloric, nitric acid where the degree of dissociation cannot be assumed to be 100% (at least? from some concentration upwards))--5.2.200.163 (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a section on stronger electrolytes would be useful. However it is not entirely obvious which equations are valid: the equilibrium constant probably should involve activities rather than concentrations, while conductivity could be described by the Debye–Hückel-Onsager equation. Best would be to find a good reference, perhaps a book on electrochemistry. Dirac66 (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Just encountered this source by Gilbert Newton Lewis from the time when the puzzle of strong electrolytes demanded new approaches like the activity[3]. The title is very interesting.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
A book of electrochemistry appears with the link, Electrochemistry, Past and Present with a chapter by Keith J. Laidler.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
What other electrochemistry book comes to your mind?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I have now rewritten the section on Limitations and clarified the situation for strong and weak electrolytes separately. Dirac66 (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Could a presentation/variant of the law of dilution including activity coefficients be inserted in article? (based on sources of course)--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Another aspect, re articles by G. N. Lewis : What significant difference in content is present in the 1921 paper, cited in wikiarticle, and that from 1912 in the same journal?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Encountering a new electrochemistry source by Delahay, being mentioned on articles talk, it occurred to me that DHO is somehow a linking between equilibrium and transport properties? Some thoughts?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Another electrochemistry source [4]--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC) and another mentioned in a review [5]--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Solvated hydrogen atom[edit]

Hi! I have recently noticed a very puzzling detail about hydrogen atom when reading some text in a source re the solvated electron. The surprising fact encountered there concerns the rather unusual state of a hydrogen atom (not proton) to be solvated in a solvent like water. This solvated state of the hydrogen atom is generated by the reaction of the hydrated electron e-(aq) with water as it can be seen on the first page of an article by Jortner and Noyes (1966) about some properties of the hydrated electron [6] .--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC) I think it would be interesting to double check this presence of atomic hydrogen in some reactions of the hydrated electron with another source from Radiation Research Supplement 1964 involving water radiolysis and subsequent generation of hydrated electrons [7], especially Baxendale article p 114-138 [8] and Addendum p 139-140 (preview not visible).--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that also interesting is the addendum article by Jortner p 24-34 re a conjecture on electron binding in aqueous solutions [9].

The question is thus: could it happen that you have access to the full text of Radiation Research Supplement 1964 at your institution library? (Thanks)--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm. I know nothing about hydrated electrons or hydrated H atoms, but I did manage to access the Baxendale article at my institution library. I'll read it over (eventually) and see what I can figure out. And perhaps the Jortner article too which I will also be able to access. Dirac66 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Some essential aspects to verify in these sources would be: 1) the numerical values and some determination methods details of some properties of the hydrated electron like standard electrode potential and free enthalpy of hidration, equivalent conductivity and diffusivity, radius and charge radius, 2) comparison of these values with those of atomic hydrogen, if mentioned in these (1964) sources. (Thanks)--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering[edit]

Hi! How do you consider the profile of this journal Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering articles as Wikipedia sources, especially for the problem of thermodynamic data of ternary and multicomponent systems in relation to binary ones?

By the way, is somehow this journal available at your institution library?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(It seems very unusual that the online archive of this journal begins with vol 36 from 1958 year.)--5.2.200.163 (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Our library has full-article access to this journal only from 1997 (vol.75). Presumably that is what our library decided to pay for.
For 1958 to 1996 I can see the title and résumé of each article, but access to the full article requires individual payment.
But as you found, there is no information at all prior to 1958, not even titles. My guess is that the publishers decided not to bother putting earlier articles in their computer data base. Everything costs someone money, so they may have decided that the earlier articles are not consulted often enough to be worth the cost. Dirac66 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Something similar seems to happen also to the Canadian Journal of Chemistry [10].--5.2.200.163 (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
But the situation for the Canadian Journal of Mathematics is different [11].--5.2.200.163 (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
These 3 journals may all be Canadian, but they have different publishers. So perhaps each publisher makes its own decision as to how far back to convert the journals into electronic form. Dirac66 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:REREQ access to sources[edit]

Could articles from journals like those mentioned above (about ternary systems, etc) be requested on WP:REREQ to verify and cite them on some articles? Have you used WP:REREQ at least once?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I have not yet used WP:REREQ. Actually I was not previously aware of it. But it appears to be equally open to all Wikipedia editors, so why don't you try to use it to request a copy of the article you are interested in? Dirac66 (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

For requests there I should provide an email address, perhaps attached to a registered account?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Re journal access I want to ask you if can access journals like Journal of Solution Chemistry, Food Chemistry (journal) because I have recently examined more closely some articles in these journals and encountered some text excerpts which would be useful to be read by more than one person in order to verify the meaning in connection to some definitions of apparent quantities in ternary systems. If your access to these journals is somehow limited, I think I′d send you (by email?) some specific articles (I could accessed in my neighbourhoods libraries) for double verification to see if the meaning is as it seems to me.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I can access Journal of Solution Chemistry from 1997 to now, and Food Chemistry from 1980 to now. However my interest in this topic is limited, so it would probably be best not to wait for my comments. I suggest you just go ahead as well as you can, and if you have doubts about specific points then mention them on the article talk page (rather than on my talk page). That will invite other editors also to add corrections or comments. Dirac66 (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Harned and Owen Physical Chemistry of Electrolytic Solutions 1958 source[edit]

Hi! Could it happen that this source, mentioned on talk:Ion transport number, be available within your reach, in your university library? (It is useful to know for an eventual occasion to extract some info from it, possibly also for other pages as well like the law of dilution page, dissociation constant, Grotthuss mechanism, etc.)--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, this book is not in our library catalog.Dirac66 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Giguère works[edit]

Hi (again)! I have noticed some recent edits of yours connected to Paul-Antoine Giguère (in the context of Léo-Pariseau Prize) and I want to ask if you what could be the article by this author (and what journal) which deals with non-planar structure of hydrogen peroxide (mentioned in the bio notes from the J. Sol. Chem.), as evidenced by IR spectroscopy. Thanks!--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is Paul A. Giguère, "The Infra‐Red Spectrum of Hydrogen Peroxide", Journal of Chemical Physics 18, 88 (1950); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1747464. The open-access abstract does not mention that it is nonplanar, and I don't have access to the full article. However, I did access a much later short review by Giguère himself: Paul A. Giguère, J. Chem. Educ. 60, 399 (1983) "Molecular Association and Structure of Hydrogen Peroxide" https://doi.org/10.1021/ed060p399. This review states in the section Molecular Structure of H2O2 that the structure is a skew-chain [non-planar] configuration, as shown first by a quantum-mechanical calculation by Penney and Sutherland in 1934, and then confirmed by IR spectroscopy referenced to his 1950 paper cited above. So I suggest that for the Wikipedia articles on Giguère and on H2O2, we can cite both the 1950 primary source and the 1983 secondary source. Dirac66 (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree it is an excellent suggestion.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. Dirac66 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Another (interesting) aspect (and suggestion) would be to cite more details from the article by Giguère (in JACS 1980) re spectroscopic study of hydrogen fluoride hydrogen-bonded ion pair of the proton-transfer complex and its influence on acidity/activity coefficients/reduction mechanism of activity coefficients of hydronium. Thanks!--5.2.200.163 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There are already some details at Hydrogen fluoride#Acidity. Dirac66 (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that some additional quantitative details could be added, as I have proposed also on the just encountered section on talk:Hydrogen fluoride#Acidity--5.2.200.163 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Dirac66. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Dirac66. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)