Talk:Non-stoichiometric compound

Sigh ... full of defective grammar

... like holes in a semiconductor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.20.75 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professor's suggestion regarding the definition

I suggest that the definition of the nonstoich[iom]etric compounds is misleading[, defining it] in terms "well-defined natural numbers". The article stresse[s] the cause of the nonstoichiometry as due to the solid defect. However, according to Cotton-Wilkinson, the nonst[o]ichi[o]metry [can be a]scribed to three reasons: solid-defect, formation of metal cluster compounds[, or] a mixture of st[oi]chiometric compounds. So, let[s] define the nonstoichi[o]metr[i]c compounds as those which contain a metal atom with fractional-valency number, as be deduced [by] determination of ~~the~~ oxidation states. Samir S Kandil, Associate Prof. Inorg. Chem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.38.163.83 (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for legibility today. Adding this to further reading. Le Prof. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intro too technical

the second half of the introduction is too specific in its examples. To be precise: I can't understand the second half if it. It should name the phenomenon, describe it in precise but general terms, then do the details in the body of the article. 84.227.228.68 (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. -Zandkass

Typos in intro corrected

I fixed some obvious typos in the second part of the intro. Skeletoroforange (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks clarity with regard to pyrrhotite and non-stoichiometric compound aspect

This article references the pyrrhotite article, but there is no specific mention in that article that it can be considered a non-stoichiometric compound. Adding this talk section, and tags to each article, until the messages in the articles are consistent. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity? Seems this is over-reaction. Yes, that article can be edited to add non-stoichiometric to the discussion of crystal structure there which does basically discuss it without using the non-stoichiometric term. If it bothers you - go fix it. Vsmith (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in my experience such over-reactions are not uncommon among chemists who have been told in Ch101 that Dalton was absolutely right, even though he was not. Vsmith. The very concept Non-stoichiometry creates a lot of cognitive dissonance in their thinking. I added a blurb about notation to try and make it a little clearer that anything that has a parameter in the chemical formula is essentially a non-stoichiometric compound. I wonder if there should not be more said in relation to covalent/ionic versus metallic bonding. Stoichiometry is caused either by the formation of discrete molecules or by the requirements of electrical neutrality. As soon as you go to more heavily delocalized systems, even more so electron deficient ones (aka metals) stoichiometry is not really required, although it may still happen in an amalgam like DyHg or so (CsCl-structure but metallic). Another point is whether the story should not point out that the concept "pure substance" really loses its meaning when dealing with this stuff. Concepts like phase and crystalline symmetry become more useful replacementsJcwf (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]