Talk:Electride

Incomplete, errors

One item which is in error is the mention of the blue color independent of what metal cation is used. Different metals give different colors if the ammonia solution is kept in quartz rather tha Pyrex. In Pyrex it is the sodium for the sodium silicate which leads to cation exchange and the common blue color.

The important work toe James Dye is totally overlooked.

THIS WAS MY ERROR. tHE COMMENTS WERE MEANT FOR THE ARTICLE ON "SOLVATED ELECTRON" ==Hez (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

If the distinction between the electride and solvated electrons pretends to be a scientific one (not based on an inconsistent terminology), then I can't realize it. Wikipedia does not have more than one article per ion even for ubiquitous and very important anions. The hydroxide article is not separated to "hydroxide compounds" and "solvated hydroxide". Even Bisulfate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and HSO4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are redirects to sulfate, although HSO₄⁻ is definitely a compound different from SO₄²⁻. But for this exotic anion we have two articles, not counted yet another electron article about the underlying particle. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the two articles should be merged because each is incomplete without the other. Solvated electron should be the parent and electrode converted to a redirect. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though, it would be particularly amusing to read about solid insulating high-pressure forms of alkaline metals in an article titled "solvated electron". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on electrides deals mainly with the solid ionic compounds, while the article on solvated electrons deals mainly with solutions. This is a subject I'm currently reading about for my degree and in my opinion the distinction makes the whole thing easier to understand, so personally I wouldn't recommend merging the articles. Eewawoowa (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the sense of the distinction? If the only difference is solid/liquid, then an established practice of Wikipedia is to merge these unless WP:article size become too big. Two or more distinct articles for different phases (such as water, water vapor and ice) are permitted for most important compounds only. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this discussion has gone cold. Let's merge these two articles for the sake of readers. So unless I hear otherwise, I will merge electride into solvated electron. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a late entry here but these aren't pages I watch. Solvated electron, electride merge? But what about F-center where does that topic fit in? - merge the first two - then you have to merge F-center if you agree with previous comments- after all the three topics are about the stabilisation of e^– in solid or liquid phases. But then readers would be accessing the topics from three separate directions- and large articles with just a relevant paragraph are a pain when you need an answer, so no merge please- just a cross reference.Axiosaurus (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cautionary note. I also am sympathetic to your preference for shorter articles. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal dropped per the advice above. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anionic radius

What is the value of the anionic radius of the electron in electride and how could it be measured?--86.125.189.40 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "anionic radius" of an electron in an electride is about 150-170 pm according to Gary Wulfsberg's intro inorganic textbook. I think it's approximated by X-ray diffraction experiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.172.232 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wild claim deleted

I'm deleting this for now:

> The existence of these salts of the electron as anion indicate a non-zero electron ionic radius, in contrast with the assumed status of point particle assigned to the electron.

It seems to be saying that electrides contradict the normal wisdom regarding the electron being a point particle. There's no source for this claim. If what's meant is simply that the electron's wavefunction is smeared out in electrides, this isn't "in contrast with the assumed status" of the electron, and this remark should be written more clearly. John Baez (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to specify what are the (theoretical) reasons for the normal wisdom regarding the electron being a point particle and if there is any tacit assumption on which this wisdom is based. It would be also interesting to specify details of electron's wavefunction being smeared out in electrides. Ionic radius is a corpuscular aspect, not an undulatory one. Ionic radiuses of usual ionic compounds like lithium chloride can be determined by means of diffraction for instance by x-ray diffraction. What special factors make electrides different than usual ionic compounds with finite non-zero ionic radius?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the extensions of Debye-Huckel theory of electrolytes point to non-zero ionic diameter of ionic compounds by the link between ionic activity coefficient and ionic diameter. How these extensions apply to the case of electrides? These would be good additions to the article.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some theoretical representations for these electride anions: the cluster theory and the electron cavity theory. They are mentioned by Joshua Jortner in a 1959 article from the Journal of Chemical Physics.--109.166.136.37 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cation - anion radius ratio in electrides

What are/is the values of cation-anion radius ratio in electride(s) and how could it be determined?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2D Electride?

WARNING - NOT A SCIENTIST

Just read an article on a recent publication in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, where a team of researchers have created a "2D" electride. Thought that this might warrant some discusssion in the Wiki entry?

I'm new to this so apologies if this is not the correct process to suggest an addition to an article.

REFS:

http://phys.org/news/2017-01-scientists-d-electride.html

Daniel Druffel et al. "Experimental Demonstration of an Electride as a 2D Material." Journal of the American Chemical Society. DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b10114 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.122.160 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tens of thousands of articles are published each year, most with fascinating titles and topics. Wikipedia does not try to keep up or record that stuff, focusing on its role as a source of settled knowledge.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only settled knowledge?--46.97.169.55 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]