Talk:Reactivity (chemistry)

Headline text
$$Insert formula here$$I'm not a big fan of the last line of the first paragraph under "Causes of Reactivity." Specifically: "These orbitals do not exist, and are simply models, however, they provide an excellent basis from which to work." What does it mean that something that provides excellent prediction of experimental result does not exist, and is simply a model. It sounds pejorative towards things that are "simply models," such as atoms, molecules, black holes, neutron stars, extra solar planets, the weave in my hair, is very smelly like garbage.

??
A good inclusion in this article would be the difference (is there) between chemical stability and reactivity. Im a student, but I gather:

Greater Reactivity = Less Stability

Less Reactivity = Greater Stability

Nuclear Reactivity
This article deals with chemical reactivity. Either a section or new article should be added on the subject of nuclear reactivity. Reactivity, ρ, in reactor physics is a measure of the deviation of the multiplication factor, k, from unity. ρ = $$(k-1)/k$$ . This definition of reactivity is briefly mentioned in the nuclear reactor physics article. Colinsweet (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A more general article on the concept of reactivity
As pointed out above, this article is about chemical reactivity. Perhaps it should be named thusly, or Reactivity (chemistry). I would hope that a more general article on reactivity would be created at some point. __meco (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason for hatnote
Starting with the inappropriate phrase "somewhat vague" -- the concept is "broad", "widely used" but not "vague" (and the qualifier "somewhat" makes the statement even vaguer), then "appears to embody" -- only "appears" to do anything to someone not familiar with field -- anyone needing information on chemical reactivity better advised to look at an elementary physical chemistry textbook or an encyclopedia of science, or course notes on the web. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

New lede
I am trying to edit the article about Charles Coulson. It refers to chemical reactivity. I have tried to make minimal change to the present article, that will enable reader to get some informed comment on usage of the term> I have no time to get involved with the material that was here already which, presumably, a reader will realize merits at least a look at the Discussion. I will be interested to see how long what I have written survives the introduction of errors and misconceptions. Free-for-all editing of material that is subject of professional literature has disadvantages. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete the article?
This is the worst article I've read in chemistry (in the past weeks I've just read some or all of about 50 of them). It is so vague and contentless. It sets up frameworks, ha ha. Does chemical reactivity even have a definition? I came here looking for a number -- a formula, or at least a fudged but still practical concept like electronegativity, with its multiple definitions and long, documented history. Is the article as written a cagey way of implying that reactivity is not a technical concept at all?

A useful alternative might be to have an overview that states in normal language (not this whiny talk) that reactivity is more a direction of thought than a technical concept (if this can be done responsibly; in Wikipedia terms this means that the viewpoint is attested in external literature), then has links to practical notions such as reaction rate, electronegativity, reactivity series for metals, galvanic series, standard electrode potential, standard electrode potential (data page). The page for the reactivity series for metals was particularly enlightening because of its intelligent comparisons. 89.217.0.120 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)