User talk:Smokefoot

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

For older material, see


Oxidation of Molybdenum Disulfide in Ambient Conditions[edit]

Hey Smokefoot,

I realised you got rid of an edit on MoS2 regarding the 'relatively unreactive' nature of MoS2. The thing is, MoS2 very clearly degrades in ambient (the role of light admittedly has not been researched for this material as of yet). It is not unreactive. It can be affected by oxygen (it oxidises) and there may be H2SO4 produced (so some more complex reactions). So this sentence is simply wrong, and one needs to appreciate this fact.

That being said, I completely agree with your removing of the citations, but I think you need to reconsider putting back some relevant citations to tackle this legitimately wrong assertion of 'relative unreactive-ness'. Waiting for reviews in my opinion is silly, when it is so obviously wrong right now, and a reference or two in lieu of a review reference (which can be updated at a later point) should be totally OK. In fact you could include the 2019 review on oxidation of 2D-TMDs ("Recent advances in oxidation and degradation mechanisms of ultrathin 2D materials under ambient conditions and their passivation strategies"), but this reference does not appreciate that photo-oxidation may be occurring also. It's at least a start...


TheMaddeningScientist (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

organic fertilizers[edit]

Hi Smokefoot,

Thank you for your kind response on the page Organic Fertilizers. As you can see, I've been trying to add some sections into this. I am truly sorry if this annoys you, as you say it is textbook-like. However, i am doing this for my chemistry class, as the assignment asks me to add some details on one Wikipedia page. So please, let it be on Organic Fertilizers page for 2 weeks since I did quite a lot research to gather these things together. Again, thank you for your comment and edit. Please let it be for a week or two so that my work can be graded.

Sincerely, (Psvo277 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)) Organic Fertilizers

Ruthenium tetroxide[edit]

You can sneer if you like Smokefoot but for Wikipedia to be telling people that RuO4 is a colourless liquid is inexcusable misinformation. The info on the Ruthenium Tetroxide page even contradicts the info on the Ruthenium page. So I hope you feel proud of "correcting" my edit.

And the physical state (solid at 25C). I fully understand your points regarding self citation and primary sources. However, I would not personally regard the ACA Journal of Physical Chemistry as an "obscure" source. The subject of the paper is obscure, not many people get to prepare, handle and use RuO4 in quantity, I did, as an academic and a consultant to the Johnson Matthey company (23 years ago as you accurately point out). You won't find a description of how RuO4 reacts in neutral aqueous solution in any textbook, in real inorganic chemistry (not organometallic) these change with glacial speed. Nevertheless, for many chemists and in many practical situations a knowledge of how a compound behaves in contact with water is a fairly fundamental consideration. Think about it at least. HNM

@H.n.mcmurray:. I am not sneering, especially after reading your message. I am a regular here, and Wikipedia is just bombarded by so-called do-gooders whose only editing contributions involve self-promotion. So I am sick to death of that shit. It is just relentless. Hence my reminding you (at talk:ruthenium tetroxide) that there are 1000+ citations to RuO4, so why should any individual specialized article be cited above the other 999? These one-time editors always claim to be in love with the concept of Wikipedia and often pledge to future editing activities. None of which comes to fruition. So I am mad, not just angry, mad about the predicament. There are about a dozen or two editors holding this fort, and 1000 losers trying to break it down. So there.
We have very few people who can offer any industrial perspectives, which are invaluable. So I am sorry if I soured you on this project, and I apologize. If it is any consolation, I am committed to stating the correct appearance of chemicals. It is one of the singular jobs here. Last night I revised an article that claimed something (4-Aminobiphenyl) was purple, when in fact it is white. So I will repair the RuO4 article.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Smokefoot - that is the spirit. HNM

RN 15293-86-4[edit]

Hi Smokefoot, Since you removed the incorrect RN for anhydrous Chevreul’s salt (which I got from PubChem and also appears in CRC handbook) do you want to fix ? I suspect the anhydrous form does not exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Graeme: I thought that I was doing a service, so you are okay with the change. Yes, an endeavor will be made to edit the Wikidata. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
You are doing a good service, as I have no access to the official CASNo listings. I am happy with your change as it is based on what the primary database actually says rather than tertiary sources with errors. I have not managed to get errors on the Pubchem site corrected yet. However chemspider is very responsive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Fluorosulfating reagent:[edit]

Smokefoot, I think (I really do!) that the synthetic use of sulfuryl fluoride is far more important than its use as bug spray. This is a very active area of recent publication, and IMO leaving out these new hot recent syntheses makes wiki more Omni - and less Nature. If you get a chance please read those papers; they're really good, novel cutting edge stuff. Even the ones that don't use gaseous SO2F2 probably do have it as a transient intermediate. Best regards-- --Tiptopper

@Tiptopper:. Dismaying, but your heart is in the right place.
1) About your comment "synthetic use of sulfuryl fluoride is far more important than its use as bug spray." Maybe you will once discover that banal topics like "bug spray" can be a big deal, possibly more influential than a short note in a specialized journal.
2) This narrowness is the reason that Wikipedia guides editors, unsuccessfully in your case, with WP:SECONDARY, [{WP:NOTNEWS]], WP:NOTJOURNAL, etc. Many thousands of chemistry articles appear every year and Wikipedia does not aspire to record them.
Oh well... sigh. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is by policy designed not to jump on cutting edge just-published results and trust the original publiations to be dispassionate, but to rather wait for secondary reports (review articles by others, etc) to help us write (and our readers to understand) the context and comparison. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent reversions[edit]

I am at a loss to understand your recent deletions with cis-platin and carboplatin. The deleted references are to up-to-data reviews and are authored, in the case of Lippard, by a world-leading authority. The cis-platin reference is directly on subject as its title includes the words of the article title. Please explain to me the rationale for your action. Petergans (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If the goal is to provide recent reviews on these topics, thank your for good intentions.
Taking as an example, the suggested review that you inserted and I deleted from carboplatin: there are many reviews. According to Chemical Abstracts, 64 reviews on the topic of "carboplatin" have appeared in 2017-2018. But it almost appears that your goal is to enhance the wikipedia article but to cite a particular book series (Metal Ions in Life Sciences), which is somewhat obscure (the series is one that failed to achieve notability sufficient for its own Wikipedia article). I am at a loss to see such a talented and valuable editor as yourself is distracted by citing this series. Finally, the review is not really even on-topic, being entitled "Cisplatin and Oxaliplatin: Our Current Understanding of Their Actions", so carboplatin is not the focus.
I hope that this exchange does not discourage your continued service to Wikipedia. Few or no editors have your level of awareness in solution chemistry.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that this is an up-to-date review by an eminent author. One of the problems with WP is what to do with old citations when they are effectively superseded, as in this case.
The book series is not as obscure as you appear to think. For example, my local university (Leeds) library has a subscription. The chief academic editor of the series (Helmut Sigel) was full professor at the University of Basel (Switzerland). He can be considered to be one of the founders of bio-inorganic chemistry. I have known the Sigels for a long time as we meet at ISMEC conferences most years.
I am not distracted by citing articles from the series. Quite the opposite. An important function of WP is to cite the most recent sources for detailed information on the current state of knowledge and this is what I'm trying to do.
Please undo your reversion. Petergans (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No way: as I explained above, it is a minor book series and the review is not on topic. Maybe we can work together to find a review on carboplatin?--Smokefoot (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
This is incomprehensible. The title of the article which I cited (pp 1-42, not the whole book) is ""Cisplatin and Oxaliplatin...". How can this be off topic for the WP article entitled cisplatin? I give up. Petergans (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


Hey, Sorry but there's already a redirect for Aerosol OT. I meant Aerosol-OTs as a pural, there are various grades (Aerosol-OT 75, Aerosol-OT 100 etc) all the same thing [see here].--Project Osprey (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I should have figured out that you were pluralizing. I was just so thrilled that some other editor could contribute to the article. I guess the plural doesn't matter. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
To be fair tradenames are often an alphabet soup. I keep meaning to tackle out surfactant pages but its a big job and hence I procrastinate. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about which science websites you recommend for citing[edit]

Hello, I would like to know what are the best websites for citing in scientific/chemistry articles. Ericeleven (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ericeleven: Most of the editors here are professional scientists with access to on-line books and review journals. So that situation might put you at a disadvantage, but not defeated. Some options:
  • check out an advanced chemistry textbook from the library, if possible. Be mindful that a lot of great chemistry is described in other technical books, such as those on cooking, cosmetics, "natural products", polymers, dyes (my personal favorite for factoids).
  • if your library is not well-stocked, then find someone who has access to a college library.
  • Some review articles are "open-access" which means that the authors paid for the public to read their work. Really great reviews are found in "Chemical Reviews" (US) or "Chemical Society Reviews" (UK).
  • Sometimes certain books are available on-line. Some are probably illegal photocopies, in which case you need to use your judgement. The classics are "Chemistry of the Elements". Many organic and biochem texts are probably available. You can glean info from googlebooks.
  • is free and open-access. Recipes for many organic compounds with additional insights on history and reagents.

My other advice is to not cite websites. Cite books and technical reviews.

Good luck and feel free to ask more questions, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to help you with the monofluoro- and difluoro phosphoric acids[edit]

I would like to help you with the creation of the monofluoro- and difluoro phosphoric acids articles :D. If you would like me to help you, please give detailed instructions of what I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericeleven (talkcontribs) 21:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hydrogen bond[edit]

Only bad thing with this "advanced" section was that it had bad name. It should be main part of article, which is otherwise terribly outdated and repeats archaic misconceptions. It's the rest of the article which should get additional review. Mithoron (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I encourage you to revise the article according to your understanding of the state of the art, keeping the references general. Major misconceptions should be removed. My focus has been on examples, not theory. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for ranting a bit ;) It was mainly the "high school" definition that was ticking me off. It kinda negated newer discoveries like partial covalent character or C-H...O bonds. Mithoron (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
We are all ranters at heart. In any case, I reinstated that part that worried you and separated theory from observation.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please Help[edit]

I am officially asking for help from the wikipedia community. An Editor (who has twice flagged my home page as an attack page, so I will not name him here. Seems to be camping my edits (even on TALK PAGES for God's sake!!!) and reverting or criticizing them with very little to go on, other than (apparently) a distate of me garnered from a mistake I made years ago trying to delete a wikipedia category. He also holds cleear and apparently inviolable personal opinions on metallurgy and related matters. For the past year or more I have actually stayed clear of him and his "favorite, personally owned" feifdom pages and subjects. Recently he has decided to just offer snide remarks:

[like this one]

I have attempted to make personal contact through his home page, and he mostly just deletes it. He's even reverted changes I've put in my own home page because he considered them "attacks"! I would like it if someone in authority could please get him to back off. Any help out there?

I am completely willing to plead my case, and I'm open to any arbitration I can get. Let me know what to do - I'll do it!

Riventree (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I looked and didnt see anything seriously problematic. We all can get wound up about things that later seem to be unimportant.... In my case, beer helps. Good luck. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right: Beer may be the answer. Cheers.
Riventree (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Notes to self[edit]

phthalocyanine (student work)

We need to remove those projections[edit]

Hi, I was wondering do you know of a fast way to delete all those diagrams (polygon model) you mentioned on the chemistry group? The editor has already admitted a COI, the idea isn't accepted and frankly it is but shameless self promotion. EvilxFish (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I can think of a few heuristics to detect them and a few one/two-click or *maybe* scriptable ways to remove at least most of them. I'd like to wait the rest of today to see if anyone supports keeping them just to be sure. DMacks (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I was trigger happy and removed many already. But if the consensus shifts, my work could be undone.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I plead guilty to being trigger happy as well and removed a load more. Though I would be surprised if anyone except a sock puppet would add support. EvilxFish (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
By the time I got a chance to check, I couldn't find any more to remove. Thanks all! DMacks (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi Smokefoot, I noticed you deleted the primary citation from Hunter as a COI; thank you for that. The contribution from that paper was the specification of 3,4,3-(LI-1,2-HOPO) as an octadentate ligand used for the bifunctional chelators. If I delete that bit from the sentence you removed, so it looks like this– "These chelate complexes often employ the usage of hexadentate ligands such as desferrioxamine B (DFO), and octadentate ligands such as DTPA.," and cite Caravan et al. for DTPA and PMID 1334954 (Evaluation of desferal as a bifunctional chelating agent for labeling antibodies with Zr-89) for DFO, is it okay to re-add the sentence? Jsa951624 (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. You might check desferrioxamine B and DTPA in Scifinder and get a secondary ref on their use. It was the combination of COI and primary that caught my attention. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: Tetrahedral silicon[edit]

Hi Smokefoot, thanks for the tip. I tried to fix that in silicate and/or silicate mineral. But I am still working on those articles....

Good to see that you are still around. Things are fine here. I have neglected Wikipedia for the last 4 years because I have been watching closely the cryptocurrency scene; but it is getting too boring, and I intend to get back to Wikipedia for a while, to "detoxify the mind". All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Phosphoric acid: Uses: SAlT (NaA)[edit]

Hi, Smokefoot. Line 154 of an edition you saved on 2014-01-01 of "Phosphoric acid" added a table with one entry containing an unclosed parenthesis: "SAlT (NaA". After I closed the parenthesis I searched the internet for some connection between SAlP and NaA but found none. For that reason I'm removing "(NaA)" altogether. If I'm in error, please revert my change and close the parenthesis yourself, perhaps also adding what "NaA" stands for in an editorial remark. Adelphious (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: COI[edit]

Hi Smokefoot,

I have no problem following Wikipeia regulations, especially now that I've been informed of them. My commitment here was to introduce our research of the past few years into wikipedia. The self-citation rules, however, make it quite challenging to write about your own research on wikipedia at all, which is unfortunate. And admittedly, it simply takes a lot less effort and feels more reliable to cite from own work which I know very well. Feel free to remove whatever you deem unfit for wikipedia, I can only learn from it.

On a side note, comments like the one given below are not necessarily aimed directly to 'enhance wikipedia' either I reckon.

"bursts onto the Wikipedia scene with edits to 4 or so articles. Citing who else? Max Bols papers. His commitment to enhancing Wikipedia or to enhancing Max?"

regards, Max — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxBols (talkcontribs) 00:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There is some truth in what you are saying. Nonetheless, it is unfortunate that new editors are disinterested in helping the project. The only aspects of the four articles to which you contributed were that they failed to cite your work. And it is amazing how many editors are struggling with your dilemma: If I dont cite me, who else will? I wont try to deal with that question, but the earth will continue to rotate on its axis if we miss a few cutting edge papers.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Pivotman319. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hexafluorophosphate without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - pivotman319 (give me a heads up thru user talk.) 13:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pivotman319. Thanks for the note. I always leave some edit notes, but for large changes, the edit notes are insufficient. I will leave an explanation on the Talk page. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Questions regarding Superoxide[edit]

Hi, I saw that you made some recent edits at Superoxide and you seem knowledgeable which I am not. I left two questions at Talk:Superoxide regarding points that I find confusing/contradictory in that article. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Calcium colour[edit]

Regarding this: Greenwood and Earnshaw (p. 112, 2nd ed.) write "Be and Mg are silvery white metals whereas Ca, Sr and Ba are pale yellow (as are the divalent rare earth metals Eu and Yb) although the colour is less intense than for Cs (p. 74)". I'm nevertheless not aware of any other source that gives that colour, and certainly the picture looks silvery (and not pale yellow). Strontium does seem to look more yellow in this picture. These are all reactive metals and it may be that the observed colour depends strongly on the degree of corrosion. I think your change was good, keeping colour out of the lede; later in the article I've changed it to "Calcium is a very ductile silvery metal (sometimes described as pale yellow)". It would be great to have more sources on this as we do for the colour of Cs, though. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I blew it. I consulted the image in the chembox, which appears silvery and not yellow. I will revert my edit until we achieve some consensus. Thanks for the note.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for your work on that article! I might try joining in if I get the time. You've certainly reminded me that many of the old element GAs in the d-block need a good rewrite to strengthen their coverage of chemistry (I just checked the first one and was greeted with stubs instead of subsections). I could start trying to pull the green pluses off them, but I think it'll be more fun and rewarding to actually fix them instead. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I plan to leave a note on the elements project page. You are always welcome to help out. BTW, I need to get back to you on the color of Ca. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


It is nice to see the Tungsten article expanded. You left out a couple of the full references, so the reference list is getting red error messages like "The named reference Holl was invoked but never defined". Thanks for looking into this. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Specialized Methods on TiO2 production[edit]

I was wondering if you have a source or article about the reaction you described here. I am thinking about using this reaction but would like to know the synthesis parameters.

Ti(OEt)4 → TiO2 + 2 Et2O

The method should be cited. Probably Ullmann's encyclopedia has it. My guess is that the method is CVD, i.e. contacting the vapor with a hot surface. Might be easier with titanium isopropoxide.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

For deletion?[edit]

Please look at silicic acid. All your good work has been undone by user:Jorge Stolfi. There is no experimental evidence that I can find for the existence of any silicic acid. Petergans (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I dont understand his obsession with these and related compounds. And his obsession risks distortion, such that nearly fictional aspects are amplified, see WP:UNDUE. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


Greetings Smokefoot,

How are you? I noticed hours ago that User:Riventree helped out adding a source for his past edit; my second request was denied. As that user comment on you on hir user page, I come you ask for an idea. Was he or she irritated in reacting removing my post? -- Mountainninja (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Some things just get on his nerves for reasons that I don't understand. Riventree is a versatile editor who knows a lot and cares a lot. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mountainninja! I was not irked. Smokefoot is correct: I am personally a bit prone to fly off the handle, so you were NOT wholly without reason to think I'd gotten upset, but this is truly not the case. I encourage you to just cut-and-paste my reference onto the page you wish to annotate. In truth I was recently threatened with a Wikipedia censure by another editor who is vastly senior to me and more prolific than I am. I'm taking his threat seriously and have been trying to "stay within my own borders of expertise". I am worried he might bait me with a sock-puppet into doing something that would strengthen his case, and that is the only reason I balked at editing the page you asked me to edit. I was worried that a person with Ninja in their name was asking me to edit "distant" pages dealing with a very dangerous substance, and was being overly cautious. No hard feelings, no worries. I love your work on chemistry pages. Keep up the good work!
Riventree (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Gratitude for Bis-oxadiazole[edit]

I noticed your edits on the page and I appreciate the changes. It's a much cleaner read now, so thanks for your work.

Epark251 (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Epark251: Thank you for the note. It is a really nifty subject that you brought to Wikipedia. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Organic fert / biosolids[edit]

Hello Smokefoot - We've both been updating parts of the Organic fertilizer article. Fraid I upended some of your work regarding biosolids. I need another day or two to add a couple of references. Let me know if you have significant concerns.

Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Ullmann's entry for thorium dioxide[edit]

Hi Smokefoot,

I started a thorium monoxide article, and I see that you added a note to the thorium dioxide article that pyrolysis of the dioxide gives the monoxide, cited to:

  • Wolfgang Stoll "Thorium and Thorium Compounds" Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry 2012 Wiley-VCH, Weinheim. doi:10.1002/14356007.a27_001

Someone asked for clarification of the "extremely high temperatures" involved. Long ago someone wandered off with my copy of Ullmann:( Could you check the actual reaction conditions, or see if there is a journal cite that I could track down? DMacks (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Well re-reading that section makes me regret that I implied that ThO is well characterized in bulk. This is what Ullmann's says "Two compounds, ThO and ThO2, exist in the oxygen – thorium system. The black compound ThO, which crystallizes with the sodium chloride lattice, is known only from coatings on the metal. It is probably an interstitial compound ..."
  • I searched thorium monoxide in SciFinder. Of the 77 hits, the top one is this:Order of Magnitude Smaller Limit on the Electric Dipole Moment of the Electron By Baron, J.; Campbell, W. C.; DeMille, D.; Doyle, J. M.; Gabrielse, G.; Gurevich, Y. V.; Hess, P. W.; Hutzler, N. R.; Kirilov, E.; Kozyryev, I.; et al Science (2014), 343(6168), 269-272. The Std. Model of particle physics is known to be incomplete.  Extensions to the Std. Model, such as weak-scale supersymmetry, posit the existence of new particles and interactions that are asym. under time reversal (T) and nearly always predict a small yet potentially measurable electron elec. dipole moment (EDM), de, in the range of 10-27 to 10-30e·cm.  ..."
  • Several other papers are focused on the dipole moment of gaseous ThO, which is relevant to physics that I do not understand.
  • Within the 77 SciFinder hits, I sub-searched for 'crystal structure' and got this hit, which is probably the basis for the Ullmanns info and also seems to be consistent with the remark on the extraordinary temps involved: "The reaction occurring on thoriated cathodesBy Hoch, Michael; Johnston, Herrick L. From Journal of the American Chemical Society (1954), 76, 4833-5.The vapor pressure of ThO2 was detd. by the method of Knudsen, between 2398 and 2677°K.  ThO2 vaporizes mostly undissocd., the heat of vaporization being ΔH°298 = 170 ± 1 kcal./mole.  Of the material, 2-10% vaporizes as ThO.  No reaction occurs between ThO2 and W.  The study of the reaction Th(l) + ThO2(s) ↹ 2ThO(s) by a high-temp. x-ray diffraction technique showed the formation at 2150°K. of solid ThO.  ThO has a cubic, face-centered lattice, with a = 4.31 A.  The formation of thorium on the thoriated cathodes is thus due to the decompn. of the ThO2 to ThO at 2500°K. and above; the ThO disproportionates to Th and ThO2 on cooling to 2000°K."
  • So ThO is real, but barely so. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd also only found it in other experiments, also of the matrix/gas-jet/mass-spectrometer types of conditions typical for esoteric compounds. Though they agree with the fcc lattice and that ThO is formable but ThO2 is more stable, which is nice consistency. I updated the dioxide article. My original interest was probably based on the physics aspect, which is also not my area...just a comment in another article about the unusually high electric field strength in the Th–O bond. DMacks (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Perplexed what to do with CORM article[edit]

I ended up at the article because the editor who has been adding so much also added a carbon monoxide statement (unreferenced) to the Vitamin C article, which I had raised to GA. I believe Ketoacids is editing in good faith, but has no idea whatsoever for what qualifies as appropriate references. I left Talk comments at the CORM article and K's Talk, but I really do not want to get involved with a topic I know nothing about. David notMD (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The editor is a researcher who is promoting his/her area of scholarship. The topic aspires to be of clinical significance, but is not close. Lots of primary references, often to narrow journals and no user page are indicators of a COI editor. Unfortunate case, but not worth losing sleep over unless the editor tries to link the article too aggressively. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I did deletions according to my understanding of Wikipedia standards. Ketoacids quickly reverted. I left a comment in talk. I do not intend to do any more editing of this article. I will watch the nutrient articles Vitamin C, Vitamin C megadosage, etc., to deter links to those. David notMD (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


Please have a look at carborane. I have done a major expansion, but reference 6 (from the old text) is clearly not right for WP and I don't know what to do about it. Petergans (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I will turn my attention to these needful articles. The community must be grateful for your removing so much dubious material, (amphoteric behavior of BH3 for example). --Smokefoot (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi, some time ago you wrote in 2,3-Dihydrothiophene that it has "characteristic fragrance of thioethers". I am not a native speaker of English, but dictionaries suggest this means something like a sweet/pleasant odour. I would not expect such compounds to have a pleasant smell, and the thioether article mentions that they "have foul odors", which in my understanding means an unpleasant smell. Could you please clarify/correct this contradiction? Thanks, Szaszicska (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done I wish that my understanding of other languages was as sharp as yours. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

On "textbook compounds" and "bigfoot compounds"[edit]

Hi Smokefoot, you wrote in a talk page that you believe Wikipedia should only "record settled knowledge". Well, my view is somewhat broader: I would say that it should "make accessible information that is reliable, timeless, and useful to enough readers". Where "enough" can be quite a low number, even a few thousand all over the world and over decades. That seems to be the standard for articles in other areas.
Like every other Wikipedia editor, I contribute as a hobby -- when I can, because I like doing it. Needless to say, part of the pleasure is knowing that my articles are useful to the readers.
However, for that reason, Wikipedia should not set among its goals complateness and uniformity -- whether of coverage, of depth, or of style. In those aspects, it cannot compete with commercial encyclopedias and handbooks. For the latter, those goals are both achievable and desirable, including for marketing purposes. Wikipedia, on the other hand, will always be uneven and incomplete. Thus, any article that is good and useful will add to its value -- even if its topic is much less important than that of many other missing articles.
Thus, like most other editors, I don't feel I have much obligation to prioritize "important" topics over less important ones; in particular, about "textbook compounds" like sodium hydroxide over "bigfoot compounds" like mercurous sulfide and cobalt trichloride. I have written and edited articles on both types of compounds; I chose them for random reasons, like when I stumble on an article that obviously needs work, or when I look up a compound but Wikipedia has nothing about it.
That was in fact the case for cobalt trichloride and mercurous sulfide. I don't remember where or why I ran into them; perhaps they were mentioned in science forums as "disputed". But I was rather disappointed when Wikipedia did not even say that -- it just said "no such article". I went looking for papers, and once I found some, It would be a waste not to write the articles.
Speaking of textbooks, I have Greenwood & Earnshaw and still like to browse it sometimes. From it and all other common sources, I knew that there were only three oxides of carbon: CO, CO2, and C3O2. I was quite surprised when I stumbled on mellitic anhydride in Wikipedia. That motivated me to find out how many oxocarbons there were really. The answer was "lots", including many stable and partly stable ones. In fact, because of polymeric C3O2, there is an infinte number of them. Surely there may be many more. (I bet that there is an oxygen analog of sulflower, for example; but apparently no one has thought of trying to synthesize it yet.) That is just one example where I think that Wikipedia is better than textbooks at their own business.
Anyway, congratulations for your contributions to Wikipedia, and thanks for your criticisms.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Well we are all free to contribute in our own way. I seem to have taken the opposite approach to you. I try to provide a modicum of information on common compounds and commercial formulations that are too boring to attract scholars who specialized in hot topics. My goal is identify common materials that are missing and then write something informative. I want normal people to see how pervasive and integral chemistry is in their lives. The problem with focusing on "bigfoot" compounds is that one is often forced to rely on weak or obsolete literature and to make judgements about technical themes that are difficult to evaluate. One is forced to play god, admittedly over a small world, although the consequences are not great. Good luck and best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


Hey, there now seems to be an overlap between Phosphoramides and Phosphoramidate, both seem to refer to (HO)2P(=O)NH2. The former page, which you've been editing, does have the Goldbook backing it, however Google scholar gives a similar number of results for either name. We might also have to change Template:Organophosphorus. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

{ping|Project Osprey}} I was trying to create something from nothing with Phosphoramides, not realizing that we have Phosphoramidate. This is an area where you are probably more expert than I am, so you can merge in the direction you think is best. I dont think that we need to poll editors because obviously this type of compounds is a neglected area. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I certainly don't feel like an expert in these matters but I'll do what I can. --Project Osprey (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I've straightened it out as best I can. The IUPAC definition was key, as it differentiates between the two. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


As you have done significant editing to the Folate article, just wanted to bring to your attention that I have started a serious overhaul in attempt to get it closer to being ready for a Good Article Nomination. You are welcome to get involved. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Vitamin E[edit]

Compared to other vitamins, the Vitamin E info box is sadly short. Would you consider improving on that, or else recommending other editors with the appropriate expertise. Because it ain't going to be me.

P.S. In looking at your Contents list, some of the entries were appearing as subsets of others because section headers were bracketed by only single "=". I changed all to double "==". If the singles were intended, I apologize profusely. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


I'm currently in the process of editing the article on tellurophenes. It is by no means finished, and I'm continuing to add text and more (and better) references. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make such drastic changes while I'm still working on it. Thanks. Also, I only uploaded those HOMO/LUMO diagrams that I calculated using GAMESS because it agreed with the orbital calculations from the peer-reviewed journals I cited, and I said they agreed in the article. All it takes is 5 minutes to look up the articles I cite and compare the diagrams from those papers and those that I calculated using the same basis sets the authors used (albeit with a different computational program). Articles from last year's class also uploaded students' own calculated orbital diagrams (e.g. Decamethylsilicocene, Iminoborane) which aren't from peer-reviewed journals and yet you haven't deleted any of their work even though it's a finished article? Hyehwang Kim (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hyehwang Kim: @Beetstra: Hyehwang: All unpublished work will be removed from the previous articles to the extent that the figures are not reproductions with copyright release. If you want to show figures of published research, then you are can request permissions from the journals to reproduce their figures, but I would be surprised if the journals cooperated. Bottom line: Wikipedia simply does not report unpublished results, theoretical or experimental. Wikipedia, unfortunately or fortunately depending on ones perspective, does not exist as a homework site. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Smokefoot: So I'm confused. The orbital diagrams from those two articles from last year are fine and mine aren't? What is the distinguishing factor here? Thanks.Hyehwang Kim (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hyehwang Kim: My guess is that all previously posted OR figures (last year's too) will be removed. Beetstra started with you since so that your fellow students do not waste time putting such figures into Wikipedia. We just do not publish new stuff. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Smokefoot: I see, this makes a lot more sense. Thanks.Hyehwang Kim (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Disperse Orange 1. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for contributions on chemistry related articles, specially to nitric oxide ones. It was helpful. Rafael Kenneth (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Smokefoot. 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)

Chembox assistance[edit]

Howdy! Robert McClenon suggested that I reach out to you. I'm working on building a {{Infobox}} based replacement for {{Chembox}}. I have a working proof of concept at {{Infobox chemical}} but am looking for some expert feedback. For example, some of the labels are a bit long and verbose so I'd like to try to condense them. I'm no good with chemistry so I want to make sure I keep the important things. Anyway, if you are willing to work with me, I'd sure love the assistance! Thanks!!! (P.S. Happy thanksgiving if you are in the USA!) --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Links in chem equation[edit]

I might be incorrect, but somewhere there is or was a rule/guidline (or I am "losing it") that discourages links within chem equations (as well as headers). Hence my messing with your edit on neohexene. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind indicate to me that the rule or guideline? -- Ktsquare (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ktsquare: Sorry for the delay: In Wiki-Chemistry articles, "Compounds and atoms in reactions should not be wikilinked. These links should be in the surrounding text.". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry. I think that relates to your question--Smokefoot (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sulfur vulcanization[edit]

Regarding your edit to sulfur vulcanization, do you have any references stating that S8 is rarely used? My access to the literature is imperfect, but several sources I do have access to talk about vulcanisation using S8 and accelerators.--Project Osprey (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Project Osprey: I hope to get some refs, but readers can now see why blooming is an issue with the wrong kind of sulfur. Give me a couple of days. A quick search of insoluble sulfur gives preliminary hits. e.g. Similar sources and presentations can be found from Japanese, PRC, US, and Polish companies. In general the vulcanization area is difficult to learn about because either the formulaters are secretive or don't really understand organoS chemistry very well. And they publish in obscure places, so I am unsure if I can find a good review on the non-use of S8. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. It was a tricky page to rewrite, the topic has its own private language and doesn't seem to have undergone any major changes in decades, which makes modern reviews harder to find. --Project Osprey (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Project Osprey: Still no luck with a great ref but if you Google "Crystex" ("Crystex™ HD OT 20 is a non-blooming vulcanizing agent for unsaturated elastomers...."). --Smokefoot (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks to be amorphous sulfur, formed by rapidly cooling molten sulfur so it doesn't have time to form S8 rings. Allotropes of sulfur would imply that the structure is a chain of sulfur atoms arraigned in a helix. Eastman notes that "Crystex HD OT 20 is a metastable product which can revert to soluble sulfur if not stored under proper conditions". The key seems to be that its insoluble and thus cannot bloom, they use high shear-mixing to disperse it in, essentially forming a colloid I guess.--Project Osprey (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Btw. Happy New Year :) --Project Osprey (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Same to you across the pond. Our conversations have been fun.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Polymorph titanium[edit]

Polymorphism can be found in TiO2, there are three crystal structures: anatase, rutile, brookite. TiO2 is an inorganic substance and polymorphism is true, but the main issue is the crystal structure. --Sailamarja (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that polymorphism is the more precise term. TiO2 exists as three polymorphs. Although many people, students especially, use the term "crystal structure", is it defined? That is what I am thinking. Your thoughts? --Smokefoot (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

My background includes crystallography (single-crystal X-ray diffraction) and theoretical chemistry. I think it is good to mention also the crustal structure. The crystal structure is important, because it explains the other properties. Rutile is more thermodynamically stable in structure than is anatase.Sailamarja (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


Why Fe(II)sulfate instead of Fe(II)sulfate penta hydrate? The solution is cooled and iron crystallizes and it is spinned out of the solution as iron(II)sulphate penta hydrate. Sailamarja (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sailamarja: You're right. I thought you were referring to the solution phase, where the pentahydrate is questionable. But if the material is being crystallized ... --Smokefoot (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I understand now and agree with you. In solution surely Iron(II)sulfate and there are in the solution plenty of other metalsulfates also, but not so much than iron. Only ironsulfate crystallizes, when cooling.

Happy new year! Sailamarja (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


Happy New Year Smokefoot!

Thank you for creating many new chemical pages.

I have noticed that in your new chemical pages there is often a "| CASNo_notes = hydrate" line. For Methanedithiol is that really a hydrate? None of the sources I can find mention a hydrate. Secondly "CASNo_notes" is not a valid parameter, and perhaps you should be using CASNo_Comment, with an update to whatever template you are using to start off the chembox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever attended Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/IRC discussions?[edit]

Per title. In essence, how do chemistry content workers communicate? I believe email is also a venue too if is not suitable. -- Ktsquare (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

--Smokefoot (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Hi there. No I have no attended these discussions. I am still working full time, so regular meetings during office hours (US) are awkward for me.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


Hey, your image of the dimer of Reuterin seems to have one too many carbon atoms in its tail group. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Project Osprey:. Thank you. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nitroprusside article and article merging.[edit]

Thanks for the merging of the nitroprusside reaction stub. Also, could you tell me how did you do everything about disambiguation and linking? It would help me with any future edits and merging.
--Light Code (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Light Code: I barely understand formatting. A lot of very experienced colleagues keep me and my edits in line. So I am the wrong person to ask about anything, except for chemistry. When I am forced to do something mildly fancy, I just try to replicate (i.e. copy) what more savvy editors do.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Image at lithium borate[edit]

Is the chemical structure at lithium borate (File:Lithium tetraborate.svg) wrong? Looks like nonsense to me. Inorganic compounds are out of my area of expertise, so I thought maybe you can have a look. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like other language wikis are using the same flawed image. The give-away is the B=O, which never exists, akin to Si=O. Thanks for catching this.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I will nominate the image for deletion on Commons. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Pentamethylcyclopentadienyl ruthenium dichloride dimer image[edit]

Hi Smokefoot,

Not sure if you prefer to be pinged about commons images here or on commons, but it's about an image used here on en.wp...

Regarding File:Cp*2Ru2Cl4clearer.png as a replacement for File:Cp*2Ru2Cl4.png I agree that it is clearer (bond-overlap problem in original). But does it now have a stray bond from the right ruthenium to one of the carbons of its Cp* ring? DMacks (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't have access to doi:10.1002/9780470132609.ch52; does it have a crystal structure with coordinates listed? But [[doi:10.1002/1521-3773(20000901)39:17<3077::AID-ANIE3077>3.0.CO;2-B]] that I can access suggests that the structure actually has the two Cp* rings at opposite rotations as each other. Both current diagrams have both rings rotated with a CMe forward and a ring MeC=CMe back (molecular C2 symmetry about an axis through the two bridging chlorine atoms). If instead the right ring is rotated to put its CMe in the back (analogous to staggered rather than eclipsed ferrocene forms), that might solve the bond-alignment problem and also be closer to the literature. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh crap. I'll fix that mistake. Good eye! --Smokefoot (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Different degrees, different perspectives[edit]

Mine was in nutritional biochemistry (PhD, MIT '81), so of course, for the minerals that are also essential nutrients, interested in and editing to the biological content. And not exactly a bias, but for those, also for vitamins, macro-nutrients, and all the non-nutrients marketed as dietary supplements, aiming a critical eye at the inadequately substantiated health claims content. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I buy that you are well intentioned. We both are. But I fear (maybe unfoundedly) that you are propping up fringe science that is, IMHO, best ignored rather than rebutted full throttle. Your response might be exactly what that that nutty community wants. And in terms of the Chromium article, I am very strongly in disagreement and saddened that when someone with a keen but specialized interest edits to the extent that the panorama changes and what is big (metallurgy, Cr(VI), mining) becomes dwarfed by what is fringy. I cant stop you, so please be prudent. Pretty busy at this end, so catch you later.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Page View Analysis[edit]

Also a good link for page views: "Sulfur". Wikipedia. Periodic behavior suggests that people go to sleep on weekends. Regards. Tachyon (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the data trend is reminiscent of the [[Keeling [curve]. The periodicity probably reflect work schedules. The alternative theory is that students are the dominant users, but essays and homework reports are probably written during the weekends. Whatever. The main thing is impact. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

caboxymethyl etc.[edit]

Hi Smokefoot! I won't dispute your reversion of the acetic acid article. However, the reason I added that line is that I tried to describe the structures of porphyrins, and I was unsure how to call the side chains like –CH–CH
. I tried asking that question on a reddit chemical forum, but half the answers emphatically contradicted the other half... 8-)
I believe that the purpose of Wikipedia should be to answer such questions from such readers as myself. Maybe the head section of acetic acid article is not the right place; but where should that information go, then?
By the way, methinks that there are some items in the chembox that are much less useful, and for which your objection would apply even better. For instance, the "hazards" section (a link to the official MSDS should be enough, and much safer), and the "related compounds" section (xenon hexafluoride is related to cellulose, no? They both have electrons in orbitals... 8-)
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Jorge: Well thank you for taking my slightly aggressive deletion of your list of functional groups derived from acetic acid. I expected to be reverted or challenged. It takes so much will power not to react negatively to having work reverted. I was just thinking that someone less experienced than us start listing all of the functional groups" (or substituents) that could be derived from propionic acid or salicylic acid. My feeling is that these lists could get long, and no one would find them.
Good luck dealing with the hazards sections but I am not optimistic. We agree on that aspect. For many editors, if they could not edit about safety, they would have nothing to say because they dont know very much real chemistry.
Good luck with the porphyrin project. You see that I added bilane to help you. In the bilane article is a source that could be helpful for organizing this area: "Nomenclature of tetrapyrroles". I am no fan of formal nomenclature, but this article lists every possible porphyrinoid, which would be a good target for Wikipedia.

Thank you again for your comments. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Orthosilicic acid[edit]

The recent edit includes the statement

The condensation of two equivalents of mono-silicic acid gives di-silicic acid:

2 Si(OH)4 → (HO)3SiOSi((OH)3 + H2O

is wrong. This reaction was not used to make Si(OH)4 in the cited work.

The original WP text was based on a reading of the cited publication.

The conversion of mono-silicic acid to di-silicic acid

2 Si(OH)4 → (HO)3SiOSi((OH)3 + H2O

is a dehydration reaction, not an acid-base reaction… (links removed). Dicilicic acid was not synthesized by dehydration of the mono-acid.

I used the term "sub-millimolar" intentionally. The solubility of SiO2 is ca. 1mM at RT. The original statement makes more sense in the context of the hydrothermal synthesis of large silica (quartz) crystals, which has occurred in nature. The point that I was trying to make is that it is difficult to determine exactly what species are present in aqueous solution when their concentrations are so low. Petergans (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I have further revised the section on silicic acids. However an issue remains with this article. I suggest that "oceanic silica" should be transferred to silicon dioxide. Please do it if you agree. Petergans (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


Answer to your message left here: User_talk:Shinkolobwe#Superplasticizer

Hi Smokefoot,

Thank you very much for your kind message and for the two references on the superplasticizers. My attention on phosphonates was drawn in a Sika data sheet of a concrete retarder I was looking for. Therefore, my search for more information on phosphonates and my contribution to the phosphonate page. I confirm that phosphonates are commercially used as concrete retarder, at least by Sika. I aggree with you that phosphonates are not commercially available superplasticisers, but sometimes, I find research papers on their potential use to fullfill this function. The most performant and most recently commercialised superplasticizer family are the Poly-Carboxylate Ether (PCE): their action mode to increase the dispersion of cement particles is not based on the electrostatic repulsion between clinker mineral/cement particles (as it is the case with melamine sulfonate (SMF) and naphtalene sulfonate, SNF) but is due to the steric effect produced by the lateral chains grafted on their main polymeric skeleton. I have adapted in consequence the section dealing with concrete admixture in the phosphonate page. Superplasticizers is also a field evolving fast and also often covered by industrial secret and intellectual properties.

With kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Molybdenum cofactor[edit]

Hello. Molybdenum cofactor has become a dab. A layman can easily confuse the two meanings, so any clues as to how to disambiguate the incoming links, especially in {{Enzyme cofactors}} and {{Metabolism of vitamins, coenzymes, and cofactors}}, would be appreciated. Thanks, Certes (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Nonstoichiometric semiconductors[edit]

I was about to respond to your comment on Nonstoichiometric semiconductors when you removed it. I suppose you could be bold and just start renaming. I note that there is no iron(IV) sulfide article, which is just as well, but there is pyrite. But this hardly has chemical description anyway. Perhaps there can be redirects though. Cosmetically I don't much like the oxidation state in brackets, and I think we should be sticking to common names where they exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Linoleic acid[edit]

Hello, I noticed your recent edit on Linoleic acid, where you stated that linoleic acid is an oil. In my opinion, this statement is quite ambiguous, since oils and fats usually consist of triglycerides (put aside mineral oils, which mainly consist of alkanes). Assaiki (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Oils are viscous liquids. The point is to demystify the nature of this fatty acid. Thanks for the note. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"Triphosphene" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Triphosphene. Since you had some involvement with the Triphosphene redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 08:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

--Smokefoot (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)== OS refs ==

OS refs[edit]

Hi Smokefoot,

You should probably get consensus at WT:CHEM before you go too far with converting {{OrgSynth}} to {{cite journal}}, especially given your use of |author= is throwing a diagnostic for misuse. DMacks (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that. --Smokefoot (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Cinnamic Acid Synthesis[edit]

Hello! In Your edit You now state that the industrial route for the synthesis is via the Perkin reaction. This only trivially supported by the source, which only states that it is the oldest commercially used method. I would not be confident enough to give this as a timeless fact. --Lpd-Lbr (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and for getting this re-analysis going. I was sure surprised to read that the original prep use AcCl.

Indeed, it is difficult to know for sure how cinnamic acid is made industrially. It is slightly a moot point because the market for the acid is probably small. It is the esters that sell as fragrances, and these are almost certainly or very likely made from an esterified precursor. By the same token, the acid might even be made by saponification.

You are welcome to take another crack at the article. My suggestion is that we not dwell on sourcing the nearly unknowable. Readers digesting the article should have confidence that they know the range of methodologies and, hopefully, the good sense that proprietary methods are in the end proprietary. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank You for the reply and invitation. When looking at it again, it was not much that I wanted to add. Thank You also for clarifying Your rationale. Cheers --Lpd-Lbr (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)