Talk:Carbon–fluorine bond

C-F bond page discussion placed on Shootbamboo's talk page

--An introduction to BRD-- I suggest you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is a very useful guideline. When someone reverts something you do, you shouldn't revert it again but discuss it. I'm thinking specifically about this revert of yours. According to the guideline, the onus is on you to explain how your edit improves the article instead of simply reverting again (the latter approach is the way edit wars get started). But well, to save time I'll say why I think your edit was not constructive:

You left an extremely flimsy lead; two short sentences long. The lead should actually have some "substance" and be a summary of the entire article (admittedly, it already failed the second point before your help)
You over-sectioned the article by creating flimsy two-sentence sections. Such small sections can usually just be merged into the lead, unless you are actually expanding the section by adding useful content rather than simply chopping the lead into small pieces.
You introduced an inaccuracy, or at least an unjustifiable vagueness, by turning "the strength of the carbon-fluorine bond is also stronger than the carbon-hydrogen bond" into "The strong carbon-hydrogen bond in methane (CH4) is 104.9 kcal/mol". Who says the bond is "strong"? That is meaningless; the point was to compare the two bonds and say which is stronger.
Another inaccuracy is the use of the superlative "the strongest bond in organic chemistry". The most one could say is that it is generally the strongest single bond between formally neutral atoms. You have to be extremely careful with superlatives in chemistry. There is nearly always an exception.

Yo make things even worse, your revert was non-selective. Note that when I "reverted" your changes I left in the changes I agreed with (the deletion of the examples). But you also reverted trivial housekeeping changes I did, which I hope are not under dispute (the categorization of the article). --Itub (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC) added to C-F bond discussion page by Shootbamboo (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itub, you make some good points, and some poor points (IMHO). I put up a source I have for describing the strength of the carbon fluorine bond (I know, I shouldn't have said the "strongest" without citing, I'll cite that if I find it). You took off my up to 130 kcal/mol and I'll have to replace that, tit for tat? Hydrocarbons, I remember hydrocarbons. First chapter of organic chemistry, not very specialized, I know, but I remember my teacher saying how basically they combust but otherwise they are very stable... because the bond is strong. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To discuss or to BRD

Itub, I am not going to edit the page out of disrespect to you. I know you asked me to discuss first here, but I just figure, we haven't been too productive in discussing things lately, so I will try to leave good edit comments as I go along and you can check them out later. I think that would be the most efficient thing to do right now. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I may have been too harsh with the revert discussed above, but since I saw several problems and no big improvements at the time I found it easier to revert than to improve it (especially given the frustration that spilled over from the other organofluorine articles). However, I'm happy with the current version after your latest edits, which I think strike a good middle ground. --Itub (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The strongest bond in organic chemistry"

I see that you re-added the claim that the C-F bond is "the strongest in organic chemistry", now with a reference. The author of that paper was not being very precise; one could only say that it is correct, for a certain definition of "bond" and of "organic chemistry". The obvious exception are double and triple bonds. That is easy to fix by saying "the strongest single bond". But even that is a bit dubious, because the Si-F bond is much stronger than the C-F bond. One could argue that the Si-F bond is "inorganic", but the fact remains that it is present in some organic compounds, and also that the Si-F bond plays a very important role in organic synthesis because it is the reason that the often-used silyl protecting groups can be easily removed using fluorides. My suggestion: go back to "one of the strongest". My second choice would be to say "the strongest single bond to carbon", but even then there can be exceptions; at the very least, one needs to assume that the bonds are being compared with all other things equal (hybridization, other atoms bound to the carbon, charges, etc.). --Itub (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same concerns. I'm changing it.--Atemperman (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the H-F bond? Or is this bond classified as an inorganic bond? HF has some importance in organic chemistry so I guess you could make the same argument as was made for the Si-F bond. --Chenault-Ferran (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Be-F (~660kJ/mol - Strongest covalent single bond?), B-F (613 kJ/mol), Al-F (~583 kJ/mol), Si-F (565 kJ/mpl), H-F (565kJ/mol), B-O bond (536 kJ/mol) are stronger than C-F bond. The other bonds which can rival C-F bonds are Be-O, Al-O, P-F, Ga-F (ionic?), Ge-F and As-F. Anoop Manakkalath (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class & Mid-Importance

Given the fact I arrived here via global warming how would that make this C-Class? Assuming A & B seem more important (otherwise why use the word class?)

Oh no c-class may not reflex importance because you then say it is mid-important!

So being very very ignorant of chemistry I may assume fluorine is not really that important, yeah?
Or correct me if I am wrong but the main reason fluorine is used here and now there is precisely because the carbon-fluorine bond is so strong
Is that the same ignorance of chemistry that makes people revolt over its introduction into their drinking water?
The very same ignorance that means all new batteries may not contain mercury, that some want to call chlorine the devils element & that breathing out will warm the very globe we all sit upon?
Is that why it is class C of but mid-importance? So that the ignorant may show themselves but not find a cure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.79.102 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CHEMS assesment scheme is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Assessment. If it was rated by a global warming Wikiproject maybe it should be top. Perhaps it should be top for chemistry. I'm more worried about the article says and not what probably one person in one Wikiproject thought. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing volatility

Higher perfulorocarbons have drastically low bp\mm quotient [boiling point in Kelvins \ molar mass]. For exmple, C15H32 has it only about 0,63 - 0,64 ( Average mass: 788.109375 Da, Experimental Boiling Point: 228 °C Oakwood [009330], 222 °C SynQuest 15211).

http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.2041069.html

95.49.68.75 (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carbon–fluorine bond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515131118/http://nmr.chem.indiana.edu/NMRguide/misc/19Fshifts.html to http://nmr.chem.indiana.edu/NMRguide/misc/19Fshifts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]