Jump to content

User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come in 317

[edit]

Two of the following three citation types:

1) An advanced textbook such as Wells’ “Structural Inorganic Chemistry” (must be cited for structures of inorganic cmpds) Greenwood and Earnshaw “Chemistry of the Elements” Holeman and Wiberg “Inorganic Chemistry” March’s “Advanced Organic Chemistry”

2) Citation to an entry “Inorganic Syntheses” or “Organic Syntheses” (the latter is on-line).

3) Citation to a review such as: Chemical Reviews Angewandte Chemie, International Edition (review part only) Progress in Inorganic Chemistry Advances in Organometallic Chemistry Advances in Inorganic Chemistry Comprehensive Coordination Chemistry

Three balanced equations: At least one for the synthesis At least one for a reaction

Address questions I have posed in comments

Thanks to you & your students

[edit]

Hi,

I just reviewed silver(II) fluoride and looked at a couple of other of your students' articles, I wanted to say thanks for doing such a nice job. AgF was my second ever contribution to Wikipedia, and I always planned to write an AgF2 article, so it's particularly nice for me to see that one appear, done so nicely! Walkerma 17:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stille reaction

[edit]

Hey Smokefoot, I read that you were looking for Stille reaction references. These three places are excellent sources of information on organic reactions:

Good luck, ~K 02:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~K, thank you very much, I just hope that the leads - and the examplary work - that you provided will nucleate a useful entry. We'll see.--Smokefoot 06:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium trioxide

[edit]

Scans of some of the papers reference to support the existence of UO3 gas (as opposed to particles is posted here: [1] I am not all that sure that they have been properly interpreted by the author of that section. You might want to look at them yourself. --DV8 2XL 14:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should thank you really. I stated the topic after I came across an article describing yellowcakes. I had been under the impression that this had a single make-up but I learned that in fact it is a generic commercial term used to describe the first intermediary in uranium refinement regardless, and several different types exist. (Perversely of course, they are hardly ever yellow.) I then rewrote yellowcake to reflect what I had learned and put in the references.
Then I found myself staring at a large number of red-links on uranium compounds and took it upon myself to start (at least) a topic on each of them.
I am a metalurgest, but I'm weak on actinide chemistry, so this is my long way of asking if you would look through those stubs listed in the Uranium compounds category and vet them for any glaring errors I might have made. - That is if you have the time and are interested, of course. --DV8 2XL 20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the editor that put in the gas section that you commented out, put it back in again. --DV8 2XL 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
beats me what is going on with Nrcprm2026 and UO3, some sort of joke or strong views on poor old oxide. What in heck is a "narrow atom"? --Smokefoot 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The joke is hereWikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles and the punch line is hereWikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles/UO3 vapor. --DV8 2XL 01:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see... people with some sort of agenda. Tempting to tangle with them, but I'll defer. A correllary to NPOV is balance, and I thought that the heavy emphasis on UO3(g) seemed strangely unbalanced. --Smokefoot 04:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I don't blame you, I've served notice I won't engage there anymore myself. The other uranium compouds I mentioned above are not part of this issue, and I would still ask you to look at them if you have the time. --DV8 2XL 15:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interfering with U03! I will help when the dispute is over. I will try to follow the discussion, but I am away for a week.Stone 15:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you look at this: Difference between revisions for the article Uranium trioxide and ask youself if it is for nonsense like this that you contribute to Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with NPOV or depleted uranium politics, or Gulf war syndrome, and everything to do with one idiot who knows nothing about chemistry inserting his crackpot ideas into this topic. He miss quote his sources and misinterprets there content to support his belief that 'clouds of toxic radioactive UO<sub)3 gas' are blowing about the Mid East.
I have done my best to keep this editor at bay, and he is the subject of an ArbCom case, but his argument is that it is my word against his on this issue. I need some support, not at ArbCom, it's under control there, but in the Uranium trioxide article space itself. I have edit-warred over this too long now and I risk loosing my own credibility if I continue alone. --DV8 2XL 00:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpionate ligands

[edit]

Hi, about the scorpionate ligand. I noticed that you have commented on the page. I freely admit that I do not know everything about Tp and Tm chemistry. I know something about the organometallic chemistry of Tp and Tm, the organometallic compounds are important. It is very important to note that the second row transition metals are more easy to work with so a lot more organometallic chem hets done using them. About Tm and the Hill group, I freely admit that I have cited the Hill group quite oftein but there are not many people working on the Tm ligands. I think that much of what has been done with the Tm ligands (other than the formation of B-M bonds) is very close to the Tp chemistry.

my own view is that the article should focus on TpH itself (organo-B stuff), the pioneering work of Trofimenko, and simple cmpds vs. specialized stuff. But hey, it's Wikipedia and whomever goes first rules the article, at least for a while.--Smokefoot 01:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some work on the Mo complexes of Tp, while some people might think that organometallics are complex it is quite simple chemistry. I hope to add some diagrams of molecules soon. Are you going to add much more to this article or are you going to get your students to add more stuff to this one ?Cadmium 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have chosen to use POVray pictures as I can not draw clear chemdraw diagrams of the Tm compounds, I think that the scorpionate ligand page should be rewritten to be like the fission products page where each metal is reviewed in turn. If you have plenty of student helpers then you could get each one to review a different metal and add a short section about it with Tp. (What do you think of this idea ?)

Very little has been done with Tm so there is less for the students to do there. I will add some more diagrams for the Tp section.Cadmium 20:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have bitten the bullet and created pages for Tp and Tm ligands, this has provided a way of moving much of the chemical content onto new pages while makeing the scorpionate ligand page an index page which links the reader to the final pages. I look forward to hearing from you (please contact me on my talk page)Cadmium 21:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonia and hydrogen

[edit]

I saw the note you added to the hydrogen article. Isn't reaction of H2 with N2 by the Haber process used to synthesize ammonia? Although the hydrogen does come originally from methane (via synthesis gas). Or am I wrong? --Ed (Edgar181) 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my understanding, i.e. natural gas - methane- is the source of the H2 via in situ steam reforming, as mentioned on the ammonia page. The real large scale application of H2 is for hydrotreating, which apparently is too boring to get much mention. If you think that I am going overboard, then feel free to revert my zealous edit. The problem with an article about "hydrogen" is complicated by the fact that to many (including me), hydrogen means H2 or H dot. But otherwise, the article is an eclectic discussion of all of organic chemistry and everything that is hydrated, which is a large fraction of physical reality.

But again, feel free to revert or revise my comments. 

--Smokefoot 00:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that hydrotreating is not boring, HDS of fuels and feedstocks is interesting. It already has got a mention in its own pages.Cadmium
I understand your point now. And I agree about the haphazard nature of the hydrogen article, which is a very common problem around here. Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChemDraw

[edit]

Hi Smoke, I replied to you on my talk page, so the discussion is all in one place.

OK, I've just finished updated all the images you requested. It was good fun! I found an interesting research paper on bismuthine, which I've referenced (although not in any proper referencing style so you might want to change it). I used the bond angles and lengths from that paper. Hope this is gd.
Very nice reference. Content trumps format, as far as I am concerned. Lots of technicians can correct format, but the content is the rds. I am impressed that you have such a handle on the chemistry, for example the structure of cupferron and the esoteric heterocycle benzocinnoline. Wonderful to have you roaming and enriching these articles.--Smokefoot 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your encouragement. Have you been able to upload ChemDraw structures yourself yet? I'm happy to help out if not. As for cacodylic acid, I made a tetrahedral and a planar version, but I thought the planar one was neater - however, I'm happy to put the tet. version in the article. I guess it's a matter of taste. I thought to myself when uploading the planar image that if I saw a diagram of methane that shape, I'd get rid of it quickly! So thanks for the suggestion. Consider it done :)

Element Name Capitialisation.

[edit]

Should not the elements names be capitalised because they are aftert all names and names are given capitalisation?

Ryan Jones 17:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Chemical names are by convention not capitalized. Elements or compounds, etc. Trade names are different, probably. You can look around the wiki-chemistry world and see for yourself or better look in a chem text.--Smokefoot 17:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RyanJ I underatand, thanks for clearing that up :-)
Ryan Jones 18:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

NO_2_

[edit]

Hi there, I recommend against removing the phrase "insidious poison" from the article on nitrogen dioxide. This actually has a very specific meaning; it is shorthand for "symptoms of poisoning will show only after a potentially fatal delay". Poisons like phosgene, paracetamol and amanita toxins are described in the same manner.

I am not going to remove the statement - you seem to know about this poison and am no expert, aside from seeing lots of this stuff in the lab. My point was that the term "deadly insidious poison" seemed redundant, possibly undermining the seriousness of your intended warning. Also, most poisons are insidious in the sense that they have a delayed action, it seems to me, but then I have never made a study of poisons. Nice to have people like you so vested in these reports. Best wishes.--Smokefoot 04:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N_2_O

[edit]

Hi there, how about this version for the structure of N_2_O on the nitrogen dioxide page? How is the word "isostructural" actually defined? If we say that CO_2_ and N_2_O are both linear molecules (and isoelectronic on top of that) that's arguments if favor, and if we say that the arrangement of atoms is different that's an argument against. Yesterday it was too late and I had slept poorly so I just saw the argument against. 82.26.171.254 00:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC) 82.26.171.254. Well, I am not really that certain what isostructural means anymore after pondering your edit. One could say that A and B aer isostructural if they co-crystallize, but even co-crystallizing is relative. The N-N and N-O distances differ by 0.05 A. But saying that these species are both linear and isoelectronic is probably sufficient. Are SO2 and ozone iso-electronic?--Smokefoot 01:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch1&oldid=45035265"