Talk:Electrochemistry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

The article states:

For example, oxygen has 6 positively charged protons, and thus in the neutral state would also have 6 (negatively charged) electrons. In dihydrogen monoxide (ie, water), each oxygen atom can be viewed as surrendering two electrons, one to each of two hydrogen atoms. The oxidation state of each oxygen atom in water then is -2, and of each hydrogen atom in water is +1.

In the nomenclature of chemistry, the substance losing electrons is said to be the reductant and is oxidized' by the the other substance(s) in the reaction which gain the electrons.

The substance gaining the electrons is said to be the oxidant and is said to be reduced (by the reductant).

Now I always thought that the oxygen takes (rather than gives up) two electrons from the hydrogen atoms. Thus the oxygen has a negative charge, and the hydrogens have a positive charge. I believe the article is contradicting itself as it current stands. Can someone who took chemistry more recently than me comment on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ansible (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 February 2002 (UTC)

I think ansible is correct. I looked this subject up in my college chemisty text. ("Chemical Principles and Properties" 2nd Sienko & Plane, p135) From the section on oxidation numbers:

"What are the oxidation numbers of hydrogen and oxygen in H20? Oxygen is the more electronegative, and so, according to the first rule, the shared electrons are counted with the oxygen, as shown by the line in figure 4.3. The hydrogen appears to have a charge of +1 and is assigned an oxidation number of +1. Since the eight electrons are counted with the +6 oxygen kernal (nucleus plus inner shell electrons0, the apparent charge of oxygen is -2. Oxygen, therefore, has an oxidation number of -2 in H2O."

I think the original entry writing simply reversed the situation with the electons apparent location and could be corrected as below:

For example, oxygen has 6 positively charged protons, and thus in the neutral state would also have 6 (negatively charged) electrons. In dihydrogen monoxide (ie, water), each oxygen atom can be viewed as apparently capturing two electrons, one from each of the two hydrogen atoms. The oxidation state of each oxygen atom in water then is -2, and of each hydrogen atom in water is +1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.50.13 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

I think you are right, and it should be: each oxygen atom can be viewed as getting two electrons, one from each of two hydrogen atoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.52.232.84 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 January 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that the focus of the whole article is wrong, because it deals with redox reactions and oxidation states. A better definition of electrochemistry would be: Electrochemistry is the science of the reactions that can take place at the interface of an electronic conductor (the electrode, which can be a metal or a semiconductor including graphite) and an ionic conductor (the electrolyte). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.52.232.84 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 23 January 2003 (UTC)

WHERE IS THE Electrochemistry? that's redox!!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.23.10 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 January 2004 (UTC)

Agree with last comment. It is really stub article. Need to be re-writed. Kaverin (talk · contribs) 10:34, 10 February 2005 (UTC)

I added some introduction to start the article to deal with electrochemistry. But still it is a bad stub, which focuses on oxidation and reduction instead on the main points which would inclulde an electrochemical cell with electrodes and electrolyte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.52.232.84 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 February 2005 (UTC)

It is getting somewhere

The article is getting into a more serious level now. Opportunities for further improvements still exist. Feel free to add (or better to condense: it's rather long). Would it be a good idea to leave out some subsubheadings, to give better overview? Wim van Dorst 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

Friedrich Ostwald

Should Friedrich Ostwald perhaps refer to Wilhelm Ostwald, formally named Wilhelm Friedrich Ostwald? There isn't a reference to a contribution to electrochemistry in that article, though. Wim van Dorst 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

I have fixed the link to Friedrich Ostwald to Wilhem Ostwald by pipe link. According to http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/History/late-nineteen.htm states that Friedrich Ostwald , 1909 Nobel Laureate, is especially known for his contributions to the field of electrochemistry, including important studies of the electrical conductivity and electrolytic dissociation of organic acids.HappyApple 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Balancing equations

I don't think this article is the appropriate place for instructions on balancing redox reaction equations. Maybe it should be moved to redox reaction (as opposed to chemical equation), because that article is lacking. --CDN99 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You should probably add it to the redox reaction page, but redox is still very important in the electrochem world... maybe I should do some adding/editing in my free time... OH WAIT! I NEVER HAVE ANY!~guest, 20:38, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Suggestion

I suggeste this article can refer to more about in Leider(Leidler?)'s Physical Chemistry textbook. He and the other authors in it wrote many newer articles discussing for cells and those of invetions.--HydrogenSu 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Solid state rewrite?

I found this passage a little odd.

Although solid state batteries are frowned upon nowadays, it is likely they will someday become a reliable source of electricity.

It seems to me that solid state batteries are exteremely common. Maybe this should be reviewed a little. CompIsMyRx 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Article is too big

This article is 54 kilobytes long and the limit is 32 kilobytes (see Wikipedia:article size); plus it has over 100 downloads, it is 20 pages printed, and takes several minutes to download dial-up. I would suggest that someone do a big shop-up on this article and distribute non essential material to other pages.--Sadi Carnot 01:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed a ridiculous situation, given that much of the material is already in an external "main article" page for each section. The whole point of that is to include only a few sentence summary here. The Electrochemical Cells section is about 5 times as long as the Electrochemical cell article! DMacks 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

There's an entire area that's little more than links to different pages and brief summaries with pictures; perhaps someone should simply move the contents to the actual pages and delete the entire section? I am referring the sections: Battery, Dry Cell, Mercury Battery, Lead-acid battery, etc what goes up, better doggone well stay up 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong cell

The picture with caption "A modern cell stand for electrochemical research..." is inappropriate, or at least in an inappropriate place. This piece of equipment is used for voltammetry or electrolysis using a potentiostat which applies a voltage to the cell and measures the resultant current. It is presented in the context of equilibrium electrochemistry, where galvanic cells give rise to a voltage but little or no current flows. A picture of a potentiometer and a 2 electrode cell is called for, rather than a potentiostat and a 3 electrode cell. This pic would be more suitable for the entry on cyclic voltammetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfhogan (talk • contribs) 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrosion Section

When discussing the mechanism for iron corrosion, i.e. rust, a chemical formula describing the formation of iron oxides appears after the numbered list. However, before that, someone made a very bad editing choice and wrote this somewhat curious phrase after the colon but before the formula: "thats wrong its the other way using oxygen". I removed it from the section, but, someone who has some experience in the matter of rust should double-check the formula in question. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the chemistry of rust to address the issue myself. StellarFury 15:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneity of Redox systems

This section needs a one-sentence intro to give the reader some hint as to what it is about. At the moment the first sentence makes little sense. Tim Vickers 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

New section added

Greetings. I didn't see any section about applications of electrochemistry, so I was bold and added it. I hope it helps the article. Twicemost 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Eternal Life

A section of this article states: "The 16th century marked the beginning of the electrical understanding. During the 1550s the English scientist William Gilbert spent 1700000 years experimenting with magnetism and, to a lesser extent, electricity.

And i thought the oldest living man was just over 100. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.58.180.166 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Geez, i believe that must be caused by an annon vandal, obviously he didn't lived that long. HappyApple 03:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Electrolytic bath

I wonder is there any buffer or compound need to be added to the solution of electroplating, in order to prevent the formation of porous metal? The article haven't mentioned about that.123.202.215.202 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-Contact Electrochemistry

Hi, I'm debating about my first contribution and wanted some comments on this outline for possible incorporation into a page such as the Electrochemistry page,

User:Nerdseeksblonde/Marchywka_Effect

I have several conflicts as noted but this is an interesting documented result of some practical importance ( ability to use electrochemical etching is often associated with contact via a continuous conductor which this entry points out incorrectly restricts the range of utility). Thanks, Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

will there be a chemical reaction between steel knuts and bolts and brass clamping brass washers used in the installation of a wind turbine? Jean Stark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.19.134 (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Some text copied to 1800–1809

Hi, folks! A while back, I copied some text from this article over to 1800-1809. This isn't a field that I have expertise in, so further editing of the work in context from other editors here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- RobLa (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with updating Captain Kidd information

Hello. I am the Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Children's Museum of Indianapolis, which is opening a new permanent exhibit this weekend that includes Captain Kidd's Cannon as one of its central artifacts. They are placing QR codes to Wikipedia articles in the exhibit and were interested in a few articles being updated with more specific information about electrolytic reduction in regards to iron and salt water. The museum has a lot of research & videos regarding the conservation of the cannon and we'd like to share these with Wikipedians to update appropriately (perhaps here, in the redox article, and in the William Kidd and Captain Kidd's Cannon articles.) Is there someone available with enough basic knowledge to be able to write intelligently about this? Thanks so much. LoriLee (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Electrochemical series

Why Nsk930 (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)