Talk:Hydrophobe

Strictly Speaking
"(Strictly speaking, there is no repulsive force involved; it is an absence of attraction.)[citation needed] ". In addition to finding a citation, this could be better phrased. Strictly speaking, there is a competition of polar attraction, and a hydrophobic material has an insignificant attraction for water, compared with water's attraction for itself (surface tension). This attraction (as in Van der Waals force) is itself much greater than gravity, and causes the water to almost form spheres when the mass to surface ration is low. Boldklub-PJs (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Repulsive Hydrophobic Interactions
It appears that hydrophobic interactions may be repulsion at certain length scales https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301837058_Hydrophobic_repulsion_and_its_origin

Untitled
molecules that ??prefer?? non polar molecules! Poor anthropomorphic description imho. Bad science in fact. Should be corrected. Anyone?

Hydrophile water lover. The opposite of a water lover is a hydrophobe, a person suffering hydrophobia. Your discussion of these and related words is focussing on the chemical meaning which are correct. However if your explanation of hydrophobia is correct, then my interpretation of hydrophile, a person who loves the water, is also correct. Bibliophile     a person who loves books. Logophile     a person who loves words, which is what I am and no doubt you are too. I have written a nautical dictionary and I have put the following in my dictionary Hydrophile    a lover of water and aquatic activities. I accept that the later may be a slight amplification. www.xtreme.net/mewburn mewburn@xtreme.net

Cheers Gray Graham Mewburn

GGM, My chemistry teacher in 11th grade, Mr. Bible, used to describe this article's 'prefer' as 'are happier in the state of' to describe this preference. Anyone could take a verb and personalize it into human thought or action, the WHO of the issue, where chemical structures are perceived by humans as 'inanimate.' (Should we spell 'human' HEWMAN, as we tend to hew out our lives throughout them? Or perhaps we should spell it WHOMAN, woman with the h of he in it, or referring to 'whom man'? I'm sure there are more possibilities, but I have digressed.) Since we humans in our physical thought realms are largely chemical in nature, it's not a far stretch to use animate descriptions for inanimate chemical states, is it? Should we propose 'content' instead of 'prefer'? 'happy'? 'satisfied'? 'inactive'? 'passive'? 'molecularly remaining intact'? Which do you prefer, what would make you happy, content, and more satisfied with the article? I am highly satisfied with the scholarly astuteness of this article. There's been MUCH thought that's obviously gone in here. I thank you for the inquiry, as it's reminded of the precious man Coach Bible was to me, his special knack at chemical descriptions that kept our interest in 1977. FormerTrafficCrashPupil (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictures
It would be nice to get some pictures like these:   — Omegatron 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Lipophilic redirects to hydrophobic
"Hydrophobic is often used interchangeably with "lipophilic". However, the two terms are not synonymous." In light of this, perhaps lipophilic shouldn't redirect to hydrophilic ;) I'm still unclear on the difference between lipophilia and hydrophilia dikaiopolis 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Anthropomorphic
Added an anthropomorphism section. Not brave enough to edit the existing "Chemical background" but some of it reads very wrongly.

e.g. "Water is electrically polarized, and is able to form hydrogen bonds internally, which gives it many of its unique physical properties. But, since hydrophobes are not electrically polarised, and because they are unable to form hydrogen bonds, water repels hydrophobes, in favour of bonding with itself."

This sounds pretty much like drivel to me. There are hydrogen bonds and Van-der-Waals and interactions between.

Maybe its been left because its peripheral to proper chemistry. Walworth 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For chemicals there are substructure based prediction methods
Substructure based prediction methods are called group contribution methods and a couple of fragments and SMARTS patterns for creating an example can be found here. A potential reference is Corwin Hansch, Alka Kurup, Rajni Garg, Hua Gao, Chem-Bioinformatics and QSAR: A Review of QSAR Lacking Positive Hydrophobic Terms, Chem. Rev. 2001, 101, 619-672. JKW 03:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

move to hydrophobicity
This is the term for the property.--Urthogie 18:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. In that case isomer should move to isomerism too. Richard001 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Isomerics? Does this have to do with weight training? I'm sorry, Richard001, but I have a real disconnect with your reasoning here. GGM made issue with hydrophobe meaning a person who fears water, yet understood how this relates equally as well to chemistry. Urthogie suggests hydrophobicity as a way to give room to an article specifically regarding humans who fear water, and you fall down the slippery slope to make isomers adjust for this idea? 'Isomerism' doesn't make any sense to me, but 'isomers' does. FormerTrafficCrashPupil (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Repelled
I think this word gives the wrong impression. Water is more 'attracted' to water than hydrophobic molecules, but I don't believe it is 'repelled' by it - it is more just 'left out' because water 'likes' itself more. 'Excluded' might be a better word. I know it's referenced, but even so, I don't trust such a wording. Richard001 07:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely as in my biochemistry lecture it was explained that it is more energetically beneficial for the water molecules to form hydrogen bonds with one another. Since hydrophobic molecules cannot form these hydrogen bonds it is not beneficial for a water molecule to be near a hydrophobic molecule. That way, hydrophobic molecules are indeed 'excluded' and forced together so that the surface area of hydrophobic molecules near water molecules is limited as much as possible. 137.224.232.22 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. 'Excluded' does fit better than 'repelled.' Great thought, Richard001. FormerTrafficCrashPupil (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hydrophobic Interaction
The page for Hydrophobic Interaction redirects to this page. I think it might be worthwhile to illustrate the importance of hydrophobic interaction in Biology and Genetics (as in many of the processes of DNA), something that the current page doesn't do as well as I think it could. I think it might help to create a separate Hydrophobic Interaction (Biology) or (Genetics) page to reflect this. Tracy2214 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

External link
To user : Wikipedia is not a web directory of "dedicated" webpages. It is encyclopedia. We need text, with references to reliable sources, not links to websites of unknown credibility. Also, self-promotion is not encouraged. - Altenmann >t 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Do what you want - I thought it would be a very useful link right on subject - if not then so be it. --94.68.87.246 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, please don't be offended, but there are zillions of links on the net, and many of them are useful. What wikipedia needs is content. - Altenmann >t 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not - no worries. Just unclear to me what external links are for if not for something like that. My experience with wikipedia is that often it is the combination of great content and relevant links that stands out and make it a great web site. --94.68.87.246 (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the early days of wikipedia when articles were created in haste and in big quantities, often lack of content was compensated by throwing in links, so that next fellow editor will use them and update the article. Now wikipedia became more mature and the preferable use of external links is to serve as footnotes which provide references for article text, per policies verifiability and WP:CITE. The text about superhydrophobicity+Lotus effect is large enough. Are there any additional facts which the website in question adds to it? If yes, please add them to wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 15:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

silicone contradiction
From the entry for silicone: # Though not a hydrophobe, the ability to repel water and form watertight seals.

From the entry for hydrophone: While hydrophobic substances are usually lipophilic, there are exceptions—such as the silicones and fluorocarbons

So, is silicone hydrophobic or not? The answer depends on which article you read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitlo (talk • contribs) 20:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the mistake is in the silicone article and have . --SpecMade (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Applications section deletion
I have deleted the following section:
 * == Applications ==


 * Applications of the hydrophobic effect include windshield treatments,such as NOC on Glass, on rifle scopes and it has uses in advanced chemistry and physics.

This section does not have any properly referenced information (as the source refers to headlamps, not windshields), and the "such as" statement has been repeatedly edited in a advertising war. If there will be any referenced applications listed on this page, I think that they should be included in the lead rather than having a one sentence section.

Please do not revert this change without making your case here. Thank you, Mutinus (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Methylene shuffle


The article Methylene shuffle has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references found two published (gBooks) minor mentions that can not be used to validate the content of the article. Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the top one of these and changed the one in this article to <. Edit history looks like someone mistyped it while converting stuff to nice looking math markup. PointlessUsername (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)