Talk:Silane

Negative heat of formation

According to http://pdf.aiaa.org/jaPreview/JPP/2006/PVJA17996.pdf reported negative heats of formation of silanes are incorrect. A table is given in http://www.senkyo.co.jp/ists2008/pdf/2008-a-10.pdf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.101.176 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is silane theoretical?

Does this compound even exist, or is it theoretical? The introduction leads me to think the latter, since there is no definite information about it. I'm adding a request for expansion. Fuzzform 15:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... the introduction doesn't seem to imply silane being theoretical to me, and the following production and application sections (along with the definite details in the sidebar) make it clear that it does exist. What sort of info do you want, given your request for expansion? JiBB 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Silane exists. It is used in a number of industries (semiconductors being a primary user). There are a number of gasses (normally called Process Gasses) like it used in the manufacture of semiconductor chips. Regards. UgaChacka 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trimethoxysilanes and triethoxysilanes

Shouldn't we include uses of trimethoxysilanes and triethoxysilanes for derivatizing glass? --Kupirijo 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for new Category: Silanes

What is the people's oppinion about creating a new Category: Silanes? --Kupirijo 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is what needs to be done. As it stands now, the article doesn't make much sense. It tries to simultaneously talk about "silane" as one compound, CH4, while also talking about "silane" as a category of compunds, including silanol, etc.

In the "production" section, and the "properties" section on the side, they are just talking about CH4. But then in the "application" section it goes back to talking about silanes as a category of compounds. There simply needs to be two separate articles. Deepfryer99 (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is silane theoretical? No it's not

I remember reading somewhere about silanes as rocket propellants , shouldn't it be included in this article?

Silane has been proposed as rocket fuel but it is probably too dangerous. Have been working with it for 2 years now and it's fun stuff. Even small volumes diluted in nitrogen and argon explode on contact with air. Messed up a pump of ours and nearly blew up the lab once when trying to attach it to a vacuum line. Very small amount leaked and sounded like a shot gun blast when it went off. Smells a bit like sulphur before it blew up around me! Afn 14:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.senkyo.co.jp/ists2008/pdf/2008-a-10.pdf.

Silane may be more dangerous in earth's atmosphere, but on the moon the fact that it ignites spontaneously with oxygen may make it safer. Also, silicon is plentiful on the moon, unlike carbon. I've read suggestions to import alkanes from earth to convert them to silanes on the moon. You could of course use the alkanes directly as a rocket fuel, but that would be wasteful. Since carbon is so rare and potentially useful on the moon and transporting it is very expensive it may make sense to do the conversion. Transporting only the hydrogen is less efficient per kg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.101.176 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silane picture

The picture shown in the SiH4 (monosilane) page is not that of silane; it is from a parent product totally different from the family of silicon sold by Dow Corning. Silane is a high pressure gas sold in cylinder or larger containers.

Yes, the picture of blue container labeld Z-6011 Silane is not Silane (SiH4). It is Dow Corning Z-6011 Silane gamma-Aminopropyltriethoxysilane. As stated above, silane is transported in various size high pressure gas cylinders up to and including "tube trailers" or ISO Containers.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.115.13 (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is this lovely molecule. I'm moving the photo here so it can be put somewhere more appropriate.

Ben 08:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superconducting at room temperature under high pressure?

Could someone who has more physics and/or chemistry knowledge check this article out? It states that a new room temperature superconductor based on silane was discovered. I won't do this because I am not strong in physics or chemistry. Jesse Viviano (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The superconductor in question is not a room temperature one, so I removed `room temperature' from the article (sorry, wasn't logged in at the time.) dougmc (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple comments about the eetimes article mentioned above. First, a reliable source of information about the experiments on high-pressure metallic silane is the Science article cited. Second, the statement by professor Tse is a based on modeling of metallic hydrogen. In the field of superconductivity it is notoriously difficult to make any realistic prediction about the superconducting transition temperature. Furthermore, metallic hydrogen (unlike hydrogen-containing compounds like Silane or methane) should, according to models, form a metallic solid at very high pressures (above 400GPa). However, those pressures cannot be achieved in the lab. As for room temperature superconductivity -- these's no experimental support for that. As for the editor's comment in the eetimes article, that is just silly. I work in low-temperature physics and I don't know s/he is implying about supercooling. Perhaps it means that the temperature is above that of liquid helium (4.2K). In the Science article the maximum superconducting transition temperature of Silane at high pressure (200GPa) is 17K. Other compounds have similar transition temperatures while not under pressure, eg. Mg B2 aka magnesium diboride. BSCCO, a high-temperature superconductor, holds the current record, about 150K. One cannot conclude that metallic silane will superconduct at room temperature and the peer-reviewed Science article does not imply so. p.s. this is my first comment, so my apologies if I have made format or etiquette mistakes.--Snydersmecken (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article http://reducedmass.com/2008/03/22/superconductors-at-room-temp-not-reached-comments-from-researcher-inside/ , they were basically misinterpreted.

The temperature they found it to superconduct at was actually 16K (around 280K would be room-temperature), at a pressure of 120 Giga-Pascal, and as Dr. Tse said, ” A good understanding of the mechanism may lead to the design of materials with even higher T_c”.

Which is a far cry even from claiming some form of metallic hydrogen would be room temperature superconducting (the news-blurb should be something like "hydrogen found to be superconducting", nothing to do with room temperature). I still feel the section as worded is misleading:

Silane has recently been shown to act as superconductor under high pressures, regardless of temperature. It is the only known compound to exhibit this property. [2]

Can we alter it please? Also, the reference is to an article that has not corrected its error, but other articles on the subject have. I'm removing the reference now. Here is that initial reference: Room Temperature Superconductor Robbiemuffin (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "room-temperature superconductor!" link to EE Times from the article, now that the EE Times article has been modified to not even mention the original false claim, and also the "superconductor regardless of temperature" claim from the article. It would be nice if someone who has a Science subscription (and the background to assess this stuff) could check out the article and make sure that "transition temperature of 17 K" really does mean "vortex glass transition temperature (i.e. critical temperature) of 17 K". Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it looks like Snydersmecken has a Science subscription and works in low-temperature physics, and agreed with me above --- just didn't bother to edit the article himself. Maybe he was afraid his edits would be reverted. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so what exactly is silane made of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.95.238 (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Toxicity Claims

Under the "Safety and precautions" section, a claim is made that "silane is also fairly toxic", but in the table along the right side listing various properties and characteristics of the compound, in the "Harzards" section, the phrase "low toxicity" appears. Either one claim is right, or additional clarification is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Aquinas (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References to Magic(Mars Sand) and masonry treatment should be removed

The compound used to treat sand to produce Mars sand is trimethylsilanol (aka trimethylhydroxysilane because it is formally a substitued silane) - as such the reference is inappropriate in an article dealing with silanes Si_nH_2n+2.
Also the reference quoted for masonry protection ("antigraffiti treatment" protectosil) does not disclose the compound used - only saying "trade secret" and elsewhere under BASF "silicon compound". The article implies that the active ingredient is an unsubstituted silane which while it may be true (but personally I doubt it as this seems to be an example of a silanization which use substituted silanes) it is not supported by the reference. --Axiosaurus (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silane is not just a silicon hydrogen bond

The article would imply that silane refers to a Si-H bond exclusively. However silicone carbon bonds are included in the naming rules. Many students are making this mistake. For example, tetramethylsilane, tetraethylsilane, and tetrachlorosilane are still "silanes" but do not have one single Si-H bond. A "silyl hydride" is usually the exclusive name for a bond between silicon and hydrogen.--theslave (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

vague sentence

In the "Applications" section the following sentence is vague or meaningless, please fix or remove. "About 300 metric tons per year of silane in the late 1990s" 77.138.224.125 (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more vague or grammatically wrong sentence I found - "Due to weak bonds and hydrogen silane is a pyrophoric gas (capable of autoignition at temperatures below 54 °C or 129 °F)." We can remove the "and" and it should be "Due to weak bonds, hydrogen silane is a pyrophoric gas (capable of autoignition at temperatures below 54 °C or 129 °F)." It is the second line in "Safety and precaution" section. 160.238.93.200 (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather it should be just silane or silicon hydride. 160.238.93.200 (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]