User talk:Smokefoot/TalkArch3

Lead(II) nitrate, back to FA?

Hi, Smokefoot, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. In this, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Done. Good luck with this project.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Beefy_SAFC Revision of 'molybdenum disulfide'

Smokefoot, I'll not reapply any of my edits without discussing with you first - I will await your reply before doing anything. I was trying to tidy up the article and make clear a few points, plus one new development I was aware of. For example, whilst oxidation of MoS2 does restrict it's use, this is still superior to oil-based liquid lubricants. Also, I feel the Vietnam War stuff needs to be put under a sub-heading of 'Military and Ballistic' uses, as that paragraph appears then the article switches back to an industrial use. If you like, look at my text and apply edits of your own. Regards, Ian (Beefy_SAFC).

MoS2

I might have messed up, sorry for the deletion on MoS2. These articles draw a lot of drive-by edits for vanity or nut cases, so I pulled the trigger too fast. Apologies. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Beefy_SAFC Revision of 'molybdenum disulfide' (2)

Tis okay, I'll restore my edits in that case. I've done more wear science than I care to admit (to the point it's boring me senseless, TBH). I just felt the item needed updating and tidying up. Regards, Ian (Beefy_SAFC).

Solid-state chemistry

Hi Smokefoot, I have been adding some content to this page, as well as quite a bit on paramagnetism, space group and magnetic structure. I'd value your critical attention. I also wonder how to better integrate the bits and pieces that are already there on this kind of topics. A lot of it seems rather scattered around. Jcwf (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Azurite

Please reconsider your recent huge reduction of the article on Azurite. In your efforts to remove froth I believe you also removed a considerable amount of useful and non-trivial content.

Sincerely,

Terry Bollinger (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium, magnesium... all react spontaneously with oxygen ... to form oxides..." Is that true?

Are you sure? The situation is probably more complicated than indicated by the statement. Also, "spontaneously" has a tricky meaning. Etc etc. It might be worth reading up on M + O2 reactions. Describing the reality can get complicated though, I realize

I am not sure where did you learn chemistry, but they actually do. Even Aluminum reacts spontaneously with oxygen, forming a protective oxide layer, and aluminum is not even close as reactive as any of the group 1 or 2 elements.Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, but my point wass to encourage you not to simply recall, but to be sure of the details. The action of O2 on alkali metals is complicated. These reactions do not always afford the binary oxides, at least not in all cases. Suboxides and peroxides are also formed. One has to really beat on some of these reactions to complete the conversion to the oxides. And my point about "spontaneously" is that to the normal ear, this word means fast, but to a chemist's ear, it means thermodynamically favorable (and possibly excruciatingly slow). Yes, most metals react spontaneously with O2, but the process can require eons. E.g. Mg. etc. Oh well, I get the sense this conversation is going nowhere--Smokefoot (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of precision. It seems to me that Nergaal is using "oxide" loosely to include superoxides, peroxides, etc. I don't think that's necessarily wrong, but perhaps the phrasing could be made more explicit. Regarding spontaneity, it may be a case of saying the truth but not "the whole truth", as indeed most metals react spontaneously with oxygen in the thermodynamic sense. Yet the alkali metals are special in that they react readily enough that one needs to worry about it and keep them away from oxygen... --Itub (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter, not of precision, but of truthiness. The idea, firmly instilled into many enthusiasts - me at one time - is that sodium and potassium quickly and simply convert to binary oxides (nonsense at RT), whereas most of the reactivity and the fireworks is associated with water. The article is about oxides, not hydroxides. Na₂O and K₂O are highly unusual species, but their unusual character goes un-noticed because of this kind of imprecision/folklore. Virtually all elements will spontaneously burn in oxygen, most dangerously so, so what is the point of highlighting the alkali metals and alkine earth metals? Many are impressed by a sodium fires but don't take the time to figure out what is really happening. There is also the myth that binary oxides of the alkali metals are pervasive, when they are rarities.

Happy (Old) New Year!

Two weeks too late, you say? Not in the Julian calendar! Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)

Project 08

Is it thallium(III) ethoxide or thallium(I) ethoxide? I found no hint for the (III).--Stone (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Tl(I) is what I had in mind. Thanks for catching this mistake because it would be tricky to write an article on an non-existent cmpd.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Writing projects

Happy new year!

I was looking at your list of topics for writing projects. I've made images for some of them already, for example Commons:Category:Chlorodiphenylphosphine, Commons:Image:Roussin's-red-salt-anion-3D-balls.png, Commons:Image:Roussin's-black-salt-anion-3D-balls.png and Commons:Category:Methyl isocyanide.

I'm happy to make images for the other compounds, but I'll only do so if it's OK with you and won't interfere negatively with the projects. If any of your students find papers with structural data in, you can of course send me a link or the data itself and I'll whip up a 3D pic.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that is service - and free! I recommend waiting a little to see what happens, because these assignments/suggestions are still changing a little. Also I dont know what their reaction will be this year.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, not a problem.

Let me know if and when!

Cheers

Ben (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re re Molecular Geometry Infoboxes

I'm acting under someone else's premise. This is a chemistry class project. To be honest I don't know much about hybridisation (though I know enough to correctly label the hybridisation of various geometries) and it wasn't my idea to put it in the infobox. Additionally, my chemistry teacher will cook me if those boxes aren't up. I'm not sure of your reference material, but my textbook at least makes mention of orbital hybridisation. What in particular are you suggesting we list instead? I can make the template edit any time.The Valid One (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, heavy editing is unlikely to be resumed until Tuesday (the next day I have school) because of Martin Luther King Day. And, since I am indeed a first-year chemistry student (as was relatively apparent), I'm unable to contribute much more to the infobox, though I'm likely one of the best chemistry students in my grade. Thank you for your tips as well as insight. I'll keep the freon articles in mind, as they could potentially be workable for me at a later time period.·· TVO_talk 06:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you find so misleading and confusing? It seems to me that all you're arguing is that you don't like VSEPR and that you disagree with such things. If you can actually back up your argument with something instead of stating that you don't like it then perhaps something would actually be done. Besides, those pages are based primarily on VSEPR anyway, so saying that the boxes rely too heavily on VSEPR is basically saying you think all those pages contain primarily wrong information.·· TVO_talk 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Linear (N/A)

Mate, you seem like a sensible chap who knows a little about chemistry(!). Could you have a look at Linear (N/A) and see if you think he's made it all up, like I do? Thanks, Chris (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Smokefoot! I was wondering if we could keep the molecular geometry section in the diatomic article. As much as it may seem irrelevant to the diatomic page, it needs to be somewhere. It is crucial to completing the set on molecular geometry. As there are sources now, I certainly am not making this up. Jokermole (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agostic

hey Smokez, thanks for your contributions/advice. I am a high school student, so i suppose my edits are on the amature level. I have taken up the task of editing the agostic interaction page for a project. Can you please send me the Kubas article. My email is amarkov@rams.micds.org. Cheers mate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkovianRule (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

MoS2

Smokefoot, I've reintorduced the 'Future Developments' in MoS2. As I commented earlier, I've been heavily involved in wear science and feel that perhaps a mention of the oxide phenomena I talked about should be made. One of the reasons it was pursued is because of the upper limit of 350°C for MoS2 and it is of academic interest to wear scientists (I said this in an earlier edit).

That said, you're right in that it's not the place to discuss the issue and the compacted oxide phenomena does have it's own page with comprehensive discussion. Therefore mention of it is now as brief as possible with link to page if anyone wants to look.

If you wish to discuss, I can be contacted at beefnetuk@yahoo.co.uk .

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefy_SAFC (talk • contribs) 12:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 

Pyrite

What made you think I overwikified Pyrite article? When chemical marks are wikified people can easily see what they are by touching them. I didn't wikify same things twice except Fe and S because they appeared again far down in another section with other marks. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 07:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bisphenol A

Your change to Bisphenol A on 2008-01-06T03:36:13

You say: fix chemistry and copy edit the rest. However, you added:

  ==Safety aspects==
  See http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/BI/bisphenol_A.html
  With a low toxicity and negligible skin permeability, bisphenols are
  sufficiently safe that they are used as antioxidants in cosmetics and foods.

Pretty funky! Considering over hundred studies showing serious adverse effects, and also that page you added says: Causes severe eye irritation. Skin and respiratory irritant. May be harmful - toxicology not fully investigated. Experimental teratogen. May affect fertility. May cause sensitization.

In your opinion 0.025 µg/kg/day is "low toxicity"? And can you tell more about their usage in cosmetics and foods? You did not add references. --Bork (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

NaF

Thanks for your detailed explanation on why you removed an edit on Sodium Fluoride. I un-reverted it because it seemed odd that an paragraph with citations was removed, but now that you explained your reasoning, I completely agree with you. Thanks, ---AM088 (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your kids

Hey there

Just a note to tell you that I've responded at my talk here. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Roussin, M. L.

Hi smokefoot, the article about Roussin's Red Salt states that its F. Z. Roussin, but the reference from 1858 says Roussin, M. L.--Stone (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that glitch. I'll pass on the info. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: FeCl3 + Cl2

There are a couple different ways it is thought of. Some textbooks teach the neutral AlCl₅ structure that I added last night. Others teach an [FeCl₄]^-[Cl]⁺ structure in which the aromatic pi electrons attack the [Cl]⁺ species and the [AlCl₄]^- abstracts the proton to regenrate the catalyst.

At any rate, in the nuetral AlCl₅ structure, it would indeed seem as if the positively charged Cl is the one which would be subject to pi electron attack; however, from what I believe, this positive charge on the very electronegative chlorine substantially polarizes the "nuetral" chlorine making it the actual electrophilic species. I will change my additions to account for both ideas on the mechanism. I appreciate your contact.Steviedpeele (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Fluoride. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --AeronM (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, AeronM is the same editor who inserted the material you (rightly) removed from the fluoride article. AeronM's claim that you vandalized the article is spurious, and is one in a pattern of similar accusations. · jersyko talk 03:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dppp

Perhaps you'd like your students to write one on dppp to complete the important members of the dppx (x = m, e, p, f, etc.) series? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sodium amide

Hi Smoke,

I've finally uploaded all the images I made of NaNH₂'s crystal structure.

I've only added one of them to the article, the rest are at Commons:Category:Sodium amide.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I use a Mac for everything except making the raw images - I use an old PC for that. It's a bit frustrating that they don't have a Mac version of DS Visualizer. I have Spartan for Mac, but the images it generates are not as clear, unless you want to show orbitals.

Ben (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dicarbonyltris(triphenylphosphine)ruthenium (0)

Mate, I've just found this article. It's a mess, but could do with a chembox - could you do that? (because I don't know how!). I've just spent ages changing it all from maths type into wikified chemical notation, but I'm not sure whether it needs all that synthetic stuff or not. However, having spent so long doing it, I'm reluctant to lose most of it! It's been untouched since 2006, which must be some kind of record. Cheers, Chris (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tricresyl phosphate

Thanks for the message about removing my edits from the TCP article. I was working on finding some good citations at the time. I might just put a short sentence with a link to a page such as bleed air or jet lag.
However, I thought that the "could tax your will power" was a tad harsh for what after all was a good-faith edit to which I was about to add some citations. ANHL (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

let me know if you have a problem with the current revision. I understand that this is your demesne so I will be open to criticism or advice on the TCP article. Many thanks.ANHL (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fluoride toxicity

Why so much emphasis in saying that it is only "mildly" toxic? While I agree that a lethal dose > 1 g could reasonably called "mild", it is an arbitrary distinction. Who sets the limits between nontoxic, mildly toxic, toxic, highly toxic, extremely toxic, etc.? My suggestion is to avoid any such labels and just give the numbers, unless you are getting the label from an authority such as a standards organization or government (in which case it would be a good idea to cite it). Consider that NaF is called "toxic" by EU standards, if the infobox at sodium fluoride is correct. It has a 3 in the NFPA scale from 0 to 4 (although some sources give it a 2; I haven't checked to see if there is an authoritative NFPA source I can check). JT Baker even calls it "severe (poison)".[1] Sure, as chemists we may feel that MSDSs tend to err in the side of exaggeration, because we don't tend to eat the chemicals we work with, and we usually work with small amounts, so NaF doesn't seem like a big deal. But it is toxic. Not as much as botulinum toxin, or even good ol' cyanide, but still toxic. About a couple of orders of magnitude more toxic than table salt, for example. Table salt has also been used for suicide, but it is way less likely to cause accidental deaths, because it is much less toxic than NaF. --Itub (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your message in my talk page to try to keep the whole thread in one place. If you don't have it in your watchlist, please let me know and I'll post a notice here if I reply there again. --Itub (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DIBAL

Hi Smoke,

User:130.160.28.217 has just removed a paragraph from diisobutylaluminium hydride, with an edit summary stating that DIBAL is not a dimer, but they did not give any evidence to support their claim.

I searched Google Scholar for the crystal structure of the compound but could not find it. I also tried to look at the references provided in the article, but those particular ones are not accessible online through my university network.

Do you have a reference confirming that DIBAL is dimeric? Might be easier to just reference, rather than starting a revert war. If you find the crystal structure on your travels, I'll be happy to make an image based on it.

Cheers!

Ben (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ligand

Thanks for the catch on linear binding of O2. I was pretty sure I had seen a talk where the speaker claimed to have linear O2 and I was going to check on it next time I was in the office. But nitric oxide is better example of linear/bent even if I can come up with an obscure speculative report on linear O2.--OMCV (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for improving Transition metal hydrides. I'm also glad that you approve of what I did with Ligand. I was hesitant to work on such a established page with such a long history. Let me know if you see anythinig that I might be able to help with.--OMCV (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Asparagus

I suppose it's unlikely that a chemist, even a botanist, would be that interested in classic 20th Century French literature. And your tidy up seems very worthwhile. But it's a shame that you have now tidied away Marcel Proust entirely from this article, presumably on the grounds of irrelevance. The interest (obsession even) that Charles Swann has with asparagus goes far beyond the chamber pot (see my note in Asparagus talk). Perhaps you are worried that Proust will have us rambling off through the asparagus patch into World War One and various sexual perversions, unless you put your organic chemist's foot down? But I feel the article is now the poorer for that deletion. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I missed that Marcel and his pot had slipped down to the bottom. Asparagus trivia must be even harder to find than a perfumed French chamber-pot! So who knows. I must admit that the line on its own sounds like a very odd accusation indeed, so maybe a reference back up to the sub-section might be useful? Whatever. I'm glad that even organic chemists can have a sense of humour. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article looks much improved by your edits and the Asparagus and urine section now looks just right. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dielectric Properties of SF6?

Hi Smokefoot, my father has asked me to forward the following to you since I have a Wikipedia account already set up. If you could please respond to him at "hkieffer(at)charter.net", any help you might have in this matter would be appreciated. Thanks!

I encountered your handle through the Wikipedia entry on Sulfur hexafluoride.I
have a serious question and am hoping you can point me in the right direction.
I have asked my son to help make initial contact, as he has a WP account and is
much more fluent in the ways of the web.

NASA is now building a large rover to be launched to Mars in late 2009. This
rover is powered by a Radioisotope Thermal Generator (RTG) heated by Pu-244. It
also carries a pulsed neutron generator (Dynamical Albedo of Neutrons, DAN)
used to measure sub-surface properties. DAN produces pulses of 1.E7 14 MEV
neutrons in about a microsecond.

The X-ray diffraction instrument uses Sulfur hexafluoride as electrical
insulation in the 25kV power supply. As a review board member, I asked if the
neutron flux from these two sources might affect the dielectric properties of
SF6. I have found no information on this.

Do you have any information on this, or can you point me to someone who might
know?

Thanks for your time.

PS. I was once a UCLA professor of geophysics, then with the US Geological
Survey Astrogeology group, now "retired" and helping NASA with Mars missions.

Hugh H. Kieffer ........... Celestial Reasonings
180 Snowshoe Lane ....... Voice & Fax 775-782-0767

--Broofa (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Venketa Parthasarathy

You didn't properly list Venketa Parthasarathy under Articles for deletion. In other words, no actual discussion page was made. The proper AfD process is listed here. Just thought I'd let you know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• You got all the steps in now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tren, again

Thanks for adding an article on tren. Overdue and a great start. I added some information and edited some of yours, so I hope that you are okay with that. All organonitrogen compounds when combusted release CO and NOx, so we usually do not mention this aspect (or we'd need to expand the warnings on hundreds of articles on organoN species). Also, tren is colourless. Samples might appear yellow or brown, but tren is colourless. I'd appreciate it if you'd look over the coordination chem part that I added for clarity and typo's. It would be nice to say something more about ATR, but I dont think that tren is really used as much as the permethylated amines.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Smokefoot, Your edits are great! I'm not trained as a chemist, so I'll defer to your expertise. Thanks for the help. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I have added the rollback feature to your user account, and to those other trusted Wikipedia chemists. I hope this helps with reverting any vandalism or other inappropriate edits you come across. (If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SUP

Hey Smokefoot

I'm not sure if you're aware of this page, but this might be of interest to you. Cheers! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

potassium manganite

Hi there, I have been adding some Mn oxides and came across this page, and I have a few problems with it.
I can find no references to K₄MnO₄ in the solid state, which was not surprising as Mn(IV) is traditionally considered to be unstable (notwithstanding MnO₂ of course!) and not many are known. Dissolving MnO₂ in conc alkali gives MnO₄⁴⁻ in solution. Reacting MnO₂ in fused oxide e.g. K₂O gives a series of so-called "manganites" e.g. KMnO₃, which are actually mixed oxides and do not contain a recognisable anionic MnO_x unit.
I am not a great fan of traditional naming of manganese compounds as the old timers didn't understand oxidation numbers or all of oxidation states of Mn when they went for the -ous -ic, -ite -ate style of nomenclature-- in this case IUPAC did us all a favour, so for me the series of MnO₄ anions would be manganate(IV) etc - so much simpler and unambiguous Axiosaurus (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll ask for this article to be deleted. I never tried KMnO₄ as described, its a much more complex solution chemistry than I would have expected, I just assumed it was all about insoluble MnO₂- I thought vanadium and molybdenum had all the pretty colours. BTW I enjoyed your antimony tetroxide article, (I made a few tweaks on grammar etc couldn't resist it), yet another interesting structure that I knew nothing about! Oh have a look at Manganese(III) oxide - I'm filling the gaps on oxides, their structures and physical properties - I ran out of ideas on uses. Regards.. Axiosaurus (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm Michler

Wilhelm Michler deserved it to have a good article! Thanks!!--Stone (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(Permanent) Leave is not an option

So welcome back soon! You are one of the backbones of the chemistry in Wikipedia!--Stone (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry Bond Star

The Chemistry Bond Star

Smokefoot, I award you the Chemistry Bond Star for your unrelenting contribution to Chemistry and Chemicals on Wikipedia. Especially for your willingness to get your hands dirty when it comes to getting involved with the more controversial matters that arise from time to time - keep bashing those heads where needed, de-bunking pseudoscience whenever or whereever it pops-up! - Generally, thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Illegitimi non carborundum.

Ben (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah from me too, I happened to notice the grief you'd been given a little while ago. Keep it up. Freestyle-69 (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that I'm not the only one that has noticed that ... "without Smokefoot there is fire!" :) -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

lithium nitride

Good to see you back!
I see you have altered the Li₃N page to "downplay" the ionic nature and imply a "sheet anion" . The refs I have (and they are quite old so there may be more recent stuff), indicate that the bonding is ionic rather than covalent- see doi:10.1107/S0567739478002041 and {doi|10.1006/jssc.1996.7196 }} --Axiosaurus (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

H₂SiF₆

Interesting you should bring up this "molecule" ... A quick literature search suggests that so far no one has attempted to isolate anything resembling "hexafluorosilicic acid". A quick shot with a mass spec shows a peak at 143 with the proper ²⁹Si peak at 144, but there are lots of +(HF) and -(HF) peaks also. I've been considering what kind of experiment might "isolate" H₂SiF₆ as an actual molecule, or provide good evidence that such a species does not exist. I think I'm going to try to find someone to sponsor a matrix isolation experiment.

Funny how curiosity leads us into such strange pathways. NReitzel (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Imidazole resonance

Greetings Smokefoot,

What is your argument as to the misleading character of the "electron pushing" demonstration of the imidazole resonance structures?

Steviedpeele (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not offensive at all. I understand the reasoning that the "electron pushing" demonstration can fool one into thinking that the resonance is an actual process that is occurring. I appreciate your input. I will update the image to remove the arrows. Steviedpeele (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Na2MO4

Thank you for your continued correspondence. Your level of knowledge far exceeds mine on the subject of infinite polymers and possibly any subject of chemistry. I had conducted some work in a biochemistry lab with a fertilizing solution that contained sodium molybdate, stumbled over the article, and my goal in editing the article was to provide an image that was of higher quality than the one that preceded it. I appreciate your kindness and generosity in contacting me--I do believe this is no the first time. Right now, I'm just an undergraduate with an intense passion for all things chemistry and I enjoy applying my knowledge towards editing articles on Wikipedia--it tends to reinforce my knowledge. Again, thanks for your contact and I look forward to future contact. Steviedpeele (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nitrogen trifluoride

Didn't take 'em long... that news story came out today :) Freestyle-69 (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

H. Reichardt , A. Frenzel and K. Schober (2001). "Environmentally friendly wafer production: NF3 remote microwave plasma for chamber cleaning". Microelectronic Engineering. 56. doi:10.1016/S0167-9317(00)00505-0. {{cite journal}}: Text "pages 73-76" ignored (help) ----- I like the artikle from 2001 stating that NF3 is used to avoide CF4 which has a halfe life in the atmosphere of 50000 years not of 750, and that the efficency of the process could be as high as 99% so only 1 % of the used NF3 escapes. But when the stupid journalsists go hunting for the biggest story, information is the last thing what they want. Fear of the last days of man is the minimum what they want to have.--Stone (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is the one where all th stupid things came from doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.02.023, but if you read it it is less dangerous than the journalists made it.--Stone (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course the journalists forgot to mention that, besides being 17 000 times more potent than CO2, it is emitted in amounts that are billions of times smaller! :-) --08:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

4000t in 2008 (+/-25%) was the number in the article and the article metioned above states that 90-99% are decomposed in the process it is used for, the plasma cleaning of CVD chambers. The article also gives a estimation of 13 to 56 tonns per year are released into the enviroment, if the produced 4000t are used acording to the described process, so we should add this to get it alittle bit balanced.--Stone (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

KOH, DCM, etc.

Hey Smokefoot

I think it's great you're taking the time & effort to sort out the articles on these major industrial chemicals. Just wanted you to know your efforts are very much appreciated. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Please, please let me know if you have misgivings about my editing. Some of the articles on really big chemicals have become lists of very minor stuff, distorting reality, but I can get slightly strident. I rely on advice.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Catalysis article

Hi. Your extensive revisions to Catalysis last week have produced a much improved article. Thanks. I made a few more minor changes today. I have also left 2 questions at Talk:Catalysis, to ask for an example of "precatalyst" and a definition of "catalyst loading". Dirac66 (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No Advice, KI

LOL, I agree that policing the chem pages for advice on how to get high could be a Sisyphian task. IMHO, the sentence in question is simply making a important distinction that KI is not the commonly available tincture of iodine. Confusing the two will most likely be fatal. Rearden9 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

copper sulfide and copper(I) sulfide

Hi, could you have a look at the changes I have made to copper sulfide and copper(I) sulfide, in particular the oxidation state section in copper sulfide which I have extended to water down the "all copper sulfides are copper(I)" viewpoint. As regards renaming CuS how about the IUPAC name for the mixed valence formulation: copper(II) dicopper(I) sulfide(2−) disulfide(2−) (joke!) --Axiosaurus (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Piperidine

Not that you get me wrong. I did rid the piperidine article of utter nonsense, like: Piperidine increases the bioavailability of phenothiazine in neuroleptics. Phenothiazine is an insecticide and a carbamate, as such causes "anticholinesterase blocking toxicity". Piperidine causes the stinging and biting sideeffects of neuroleptics, as it is a fireant toxin. I am not a conspiracy theorist and have a very solid background. Next day the edits were reverted without comment by Carebear and some other editor. So I patched the correct information back, again and again. See my comments on the top of the talk page. These editors don't know the difference between a mixture and a chemical compound. They think chemistry is like cooking a chicken soup: If you cook the soup on chicken, it is a chicken soup and tastes like chicken. If you add salt, it becomes more salty. If you add pepper, it becomes spicy hot. etc. So all piperidine compounds carry over the properties of the mother substance. If a piperidine compound is an insecticide, you can rightfully assume, that all other piperidine compounds are insecticidal too, depending on the "mixture". etc. I finally gave up the revert war, friendly and educating explanations on the talk page of Dr. Carebear proved useless, see there. Same for the other editor. Look there. I have talked with them like to a sick horse. Then I added a horrible assortment of piperidine compounds to the page, with colorful description of the effects. (among them, making the brain radioactive with radiolabeled Piperidilbenzilate, and turning people into zombies with psychochemical warfare agents) At least this was factually correct and referenced in the source articles, and everybody was happy. I hoped however that this would lead to a "reductio ad absurdum" of their chemical theories. (from grannies chicken soup) 70.137.181.232 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This idiocy and hooliganism has been going on for a year now. See talk page Dr Carebear. Everybody talking to him like to a sick horse, to convince that chemical compounds are not merely mixtures and do not carry over the properties of their components. He still reverses everything without a comment, and without engaging in useful discussions. Same for some other editor. Every discussion lost on them so far. The theory that neuroleptics are a mix of fireant venom and insecticides lives on. I prefer if these editors abstain from further work on chemical articles, but maybe instead contribute some chicken soup recipe. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Piperidine, pharmacological significance

Yes, the presence of the piperidine skeleton is of some pharmacological significance, however not in the way how some editors imagine (giving pharmaceuticals the properties of ant venom). The significance is that frequently a functional amino group is embedded into the semi-rigid conformation of the piperidine skeleton, to arrive at derivatives with altered pharmacological profile (keeping the distances to other functional groups constant): The alteration may stem from the semi-rigid conformation, or from the increased lipid solubility due to the 5-C chain, or from details in receptor binding affinity by the bulky ring addition, or from steric hindrance of metabolic attacks, to give examples. Or from a combination of the above and other factors.

Substance examples:

Phencyclidine vs. open chain analogs

Phenmetrazine vs. Methamphetamine similar for Phendimetrazine oops. this are morpholine ring analogs. The piperidine analogs are not commercialized, due to exceedingly long action.

Thioridazine vs open chain neuroleptic analogs (increased central activity)

N-ethyl-Piperidil-3-benzilate vs. Benactyzine (increased central activity and duration of action)

Pethidine and derivatives vs. open chain analogs

You are however right, that no common simple property of the piperidine compounds is inherited from the parent compound, as naive editors assume. So there is a common theme of alterations which may be achieved by this embedding; but it has no single, simple and consistent explanation, more like a mix of the above mentioned possible mechanisms plus others, like change of metabolic pathways due to the steric hindrance of certain metabolic attacks in the open chain analog etc. and things become more complex if we take the possibility of active or toxic metabolites into account. Embedding the active amino group is simply one of the building blocks in drug design and individually leads itself to new SARs to play with. I would not call this "no significance". 70.137.164.136 (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Zinc-copper couple

Hey there Smokefoot

I was curious about this article. Since you edited it, you might have some insights. Since this couple is just copper and zinc, might it be possible simply to get a brass object, and file it down to particles? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont think that traditional alloys are active as reagents in the methylene transfer reactions. Apparently, many recipes exist. The role of Cu in the reaction is similar to the role of Cu in the Direct process for the Si + MeCl reaction.--Smokefoot (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ammonia and nicotine

You deleted material dealing with the hypothesized effect of ammonia on nicotine in cigarettes. As this subject is quite topical, and as the material you deleted was fully referenced to the scientific literature, I feel that the material you deleted ought to be reinstated. JosephPriestley Josephpriestley (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perfluorooctanoic acid

Hi. I noticed your contributions to Perfluorocarbon and Perfluorooctanoic acid. Have you read this archived diskussion [2]. In my opinion, the substance group with perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOS, etc. should be treated in an own article (named either "Perfluorinated compounds" or "Perfluorinated surfactants").

You recently removed a section on fluorotelomer alcohols from the article. However, there is substantial evidence that these substances contribute to a large extent to the environmental concentrations: see e.g. [3] or [4]. Therefore, a section on fluorotelomer alcohols deserves being in the article. 217.11.34.119 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the questions your edits raise regarding this issue of fluorotelomer alcohols as a significant PFOA precuror after seeing these sources together [5][6] please see [[7]] about this under "353..." Thanks -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that all potential angles on PFOA are being covered by you in considerable detail. So you should be able recover any removed material without much effort. I still think that the PFOA article is problematic in style.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't even find the edit the user was referencing. I'm a little new to this so when you get the chance could you link the edit below? I'll check back soon but we may have C-F bond page fun before I get around to doing anything. I appreciate the implicit admission of accepting the content on the PFOA page. Perhaps that partly a result of the work I did to try and remove/replace the bulk of the primary sources on the PFOA page (net reduction of 20 references). I recently realized I had over wiki-fied the interwiki links on the page (repetitive statement?). Was that part of what you meant by style? If part of the reason you edit Wikipedia is to learn, as it is for me, then can you please point out a few things to me along the way? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyridine-N-oxide

I noticed that you created an image for pyridine-N-oxide. Could you please add charges to the N and O atoms or use "N→O", similar to structures here? Those are more standard ways of representing amine oxides. Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about it. We dont write Co(NH3)6]3+ with little charges on the N's. Or DMSO with arrows. This convention is followed by organic students, and I find it lame. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I won't make a big deal about it. But it's not a convention used just by students. You won't find amine oxides drawn any other way in J. Org. Chem. ChemNerd (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just two different conventions for computing formal charges. In coordination chemistry, the electrons in a bond "belong" to the ligand. In organic chemistry, the electrons are "shared equally". Both are arbitrary, but we should follow them where appropriate to the context. --Itub (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As for DMSO, yet another arbitrary convention: it is normal to see sulfur as "hypervalent", but not nitrogen... --Itub (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry

That was an accident and I was going to take it off but you already had. I'm soooooo sorry. Forgive me, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntheticalconnections (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean disruptive? I try to give true info but, I only give what I found using a source an I don't copy and paste. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive means - so bad that others must clean up after you. You are making other editors work on stamping out bad information. You need to talk to your teacher.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Glyceryl glass

Hi there, we found a bottle of "glyceryl-glass" beads in our lab and are trying to work out what on earth this stuff is. The Sigma ref is here. Any ideas what this could be? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, we're going on the idea that it is CH3-CH2-O-Si derivatised glass. Thanks for the input. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming of Lithium Nitride

I received a message from you concerning the compound of Li₃N. The reason that I named it Trilithium(1+) Ion Azanetriide, is because it is its correct IUPAC name according to them, rather than an accepted name. Besides, simply "lithium nitride" does not convey any information concerning the structure of the compound.Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can come across a compromise - how about we use the stoichmetric names for binary compounds in "Name =" as in Trilithium Nitride, and the correct IUPAC name Trilithium(1+) Azanetriide in "IUPACName ="?Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you care elaborate on your most recent comment on my talk page?Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Urine?

While your work on the Urine page was generally an improvement, is it not customary to discuss such major rewrites in the talk section before removing work that some might consider legitimate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.27.138 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea for you to register, before we bother trying to hold a conversation.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am registered, I simply am sometimes unable to login from work. Does my not signing in somehow invalidate my previous question? Patris Magnus (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not signing suggests a rogue editor who would be unresponsive. Responding to your original question about urine, those edits were some time ago and you are correct that it is normal practice to discuss changes in cases where the article is fairly mature. It was clear to me (and remains the case) that the article was in bad shape, judging from the obvious redundancies. So I did not seek advice. I knew that I would get lots of feedback from editors with weak scientific judgement and poor writing skills, which I did not want. My edits were pretty generic. The article remains rough - especially the list of the 'chemical analysis." Is there some part that is amiss? Thanks for the note.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There were, as I recall, referenced sections on the use of urine in the making of gunpowder and its use as a mordant in the dying of cloth. I will attempt to regenerate these as fully referenced and well written sections. If you would like to provide input as to the chemical reactions involved in these processes, that would be great. Thanks! Patris Magnus (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I messed up - it is my responsibility to go back and exhume the gunpowder and mordant parts. Give me some time. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sodium metasilicate

Your comments about the structure of this innocuous sounding compound are spot on- I had a feeling it was a messy area but when I came across this [8] I was completely convinced.--Axiosaurus (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hexafluorosilicic acid

Hey Smokefoot, this edit hardly looks POV, and the ref is hardly credible either. Figured you'd have it on your watchlist, but just in case. I'm really not knowledgeable in this area, otherwise I'd re-word it, or revert accordingly. I'm actually opposed to fluoridation (I learned to brush my teeth), but I'm more opposed to people messing with WP or using it as a vehicle for their POVs :) Cheers, freestyle-69 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Copper compounds

I see you reverted me at copper benzoate. Should Category:Organocopper compounds contain any organic chemical compound that contains copper, or be restricted just to compounds with Cu-C bonds? 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Chloropicrin

Hello, Smokefoot. You have new messages at RockManQ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Molybdopterin

Not pushy at all (I'll resist the urge to say "uncharacteristically so" ;), and thank you so much for taking the time to improve the article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there something about light and heat going hand in hand? ;) Merry Christmas. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:About KCN ...

Do you mean that KCN is a ionic compound so its structure is K^{+ -}CN ? It's so correct or not? --Aushulz (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see KCN as a polymer, but as a crystalline structure, and as a ionic compound if it is in water. I draw that structure cause I saw a similar structure on commons for HCN, but it isn't the same. So, what do you suggest me to draw a picture of KCN? Can be a good idea to draw the crystalline structure? Unfortunately, I don't know it... --Aushulz (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)