User talk:Ajrocke

Law of Mass Action
I found you on V8rik's discussion page and hope you can help with some historical stuff, even if it's not organic. It concerns the development of the law of mass action. In the original paper (1864) Guldberg and Waage stated that
 * "The substitution force, other conditions being equal, is directly proportional to the product of the masses provided each is raised to a particular exponent"

At some point later "substitution force" was replaced by "rate of reaction". I would like to know how this came about and in particular if the kinetic definition was introduced by G & W or by someone else. I think it might have been Van't Hoff (Berichte, (1877), 10, 669?), but in his book Studies on Chemical Dynamics he attributes the idea of forward and backward reaction rates being equal to one Pfaundler, without reference.

There are lots of ramifications around this subject, including the fact that the reaction rate definition of an equilibrium constant is not universally valid since rate equations do not, in general, follow the stoichiometry of the reaction. Petergans 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Kolbe
Read this one?:
 * His attacks on the French and on Kekule Baeyer and the rest of the structural chemists is quite amusing, but shows a certain lack of social behaviour.--Stone 13:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Using R to refer to side chains
For a long time, there has been a "citation needed" in the side chain article regarding the origin of R. Does it come from radical, rest, or something else? I figured that, as an expert in 19th-century organic chemistry and structural theory, you are probably the best person to ask. :-) --Itub 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I also have assumed that it comes from radical (I don't buy the "rest" theory), but so far I haven't been able to find any solid sources on that. --Itub 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with "Rest" or "Residue" is that it does not correspond to a likely term that was actually used by chemists. "Rest", of course, means remainder or residue in German, but the more usual term used by German chemists was "Radikal" -- also an "R" word, and one that was far more likely to be used in this context.  And of course it is corresponds to the English cognate, as well.  Ajrocke 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Quiet revolution?
Thanks for your help with the Kolbe article and Wöhler, and earlier with the Kekulé article and Kolbe. I am curious about one other question - what is the meaning of the phrase "Quiet Revolution" in the title of your book about Kolbe? This phrase intrigues me because I am from Québec, where La Révolution Tranquille is used in a very different context. Dirac66 (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought of this phrase (which, I subsequently learned, has been used in other ways at other times) to designate a series of related theoretical transformations in the science of chemistry during the 1850s. When modern chemists  look at chemical journals and textbooks ca. 1845, they can seem very strange and misguided.  By contrast, many journal articles and textbooks of ca. 1865 can be readily read and understood today.  Just to give one indication, most chemists ca. 1845 still thought that a molecule of water had only one hydrogen atom in it., and this single "error" had a cascade of implications throughout the science of chemistry.  The reason why I called the revolution "quiet" is that neither chemists of that day, nor subsequent historians of science, had drawn much attention to these rather dramatic changes.  They seemed to happen under everyone's nose, without being very explicitly noted. There is much more about all this in my book!      Ajrocke (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re your example, I can see that correct formulas were necessary to further progress (such as structures). Modern first-year books mention that Cannizzaro showed how to establish correct atomic weights in 1858, but I suppose that chemists also took many years to gradually assimilate this idea. I do recall seeing an 1866 paper by Berthelot whose hydrocarbon formulas all have twice the correct number of carbons ("marsh gas" C2H4, benzene C12H6, etc. etc.), apparently based on an atomic weight of 6 for carbon. This paper had no structures and no mention of Kekulé. Dirac66 (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

howdy!
Alan, thanks so much for the letter you wrote that appears in the latest HSS Newsletter. I've been surprised at (and pleased with) how consistently positive the reactions have been to my article in the previous edition. You might be interested in the new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter, which is an attempt to let project members know about what history of science editing has been going on lately. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nachtmusik
Hello. Thanks for the note. Sorry if my original edit comment was a bit blunt. I guess what I would like a couple of sentences discussing the term "nachtmusik" and its translation including its literal-translation/etymology. I know that literal translations of german compound words is dangerous, but they can be useful. Plus, I'm a bit skeptical that "night music" is as "incorrect" as you say. Following this up, I couldn't find any online german-english dictionaries that supported this hard definition. Also, Symphony No. 7 (Mahler) has two movements labeled "Nachtmusik" and the translation I've always seen for those is "night music" and not "serenade".

Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is a heavily trafficked article most readers are going to expect that it will say "a little night music". In fact, as we've seen, if left unwatched and without a detailed explanation it will end up getting reverted by an anon within a few weeks anyways. Now, there have been places where we've taken a stand against these types of popular notions (we work hard to keep the "Franz" out of "Joseph Haydn"), but I'd like to (a) double-check before we assert that "night music" is "incorrect" and (b) I'd like to explain if we do end up asserting the falseness of this translation. I'll likely post this issue to the classical music wikiproject to see if they have any knowledge of how to accurately translate this phrase. This sounds like an issue that's been covered in Grove or something like that. If so, we can add a citation and/or footnote like we do with Joseph Haydn. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record
Before you assume bad faith, do note what happened, easily checked with the article's history. An IP reverted the 'sourced info'. User:LingBling changed it -- WITHOUT a source, and that's the only edit that user has made outside what appears to be a deleted vanity article (if one goes by the talk page of that user). THAT is what I reverted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip, Melodia. Please have patience -- I am fairly new at this. Ajrocke (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Geber
Hello. I think mentioning the reason of why multiple writers would compose under someone else's name is important. Paul Kraus mentioned that it was for propaganda. By attributing multiple people works to one man, they are trying to impress the reader. Dy yol (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Kraus viewed as an expert on Geber. Plus we mentioned the motive of Pseudo-Geber of writing under the name of Geber. Dy yol (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Chicken Dance
Please note that per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia articles (including foreign language ones) are not considered reliable sources and should not be used in citations. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mendeleev's Periodic Table
You've suggested that the"Periodic table " is not widely known as Mendeleev's Periodic Table, so I'm listing here just the first page of a Google search so you can see that it's indeed widely know As "Mendeleev's Periodic Table". If you'd like to continue this discussion before reverting, I'd be pleased to help. In fact, this is the required WP procedure when reverting:

Mendeleev's Periodic Table - The periodic table - Edexcel ... [Search domain www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zxmmsrd/revision/1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zxmmsrd/revision/1 Like many scientists working at the end of the 19th-century the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev (1834-1907) was looking for ways to organise the known elements. Mendeleev published his first...

Mendeleev's Periodic Table PDF consists of Introduction ... [Search domain byjus.com/chemistry/mendeleev-periodic-table/] https://byjus.com/chemistry/mendeleev-periodic-table/

Mendeleev's Periodic Table - We all know that there are 118 elements present in our periodic table. Out of these 118 elements, 94 elements are natural elements and 24 elements are synthetic elements. Back in the year 1800, only 30 elements were known. Dmitrii Mendeleev's Periodic Table - A History [Search domain origins.osu.edu/milestones/mendeleev-periodic-table-UN-chemistry-radioactivity-noble-gases] https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/mendeleev-periodic-table-UN-chemistry-radioactivity-noble-gases

Russian chemist and educator Dmitrii Mendeleev is best known today for his creation of the periodic table of elements. Mendeleev was far from the first chemist to attempt to organize the elements by atomic weight or to recognize that characteristics recurred on some sort of regular basis. Mendeleev's Periodic Table | Class 10, Periodic ...

[Search domain classnotes.org.in/class-10/periodic-classification-elements/mendeleevs-periodic-table/] https://classnotes.org.in/class-10/periodic-classification-elements/mendeleevs-periodic-table/

Mendeleev's Periodic Table Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev tried to co-relate the atomic masses of the elements with their physical and chemical properties. Mendeleev's Periodic Law states that the physical and the chemical properties of the elements are a periodic function of their atomic masses.

Mendeleev's Periodic Table | Class 10 Periodic ... [Search domain learnfatafat.com/mendeleevs-periodic-table/] https://learnfatafat.com/mendeleevs-periodic-table/ In Mendeleev's Periodic Table, the horizontal rows are called periods and vertical columns are called groups. There are seven periods and eight groups in Mendeleev's Periodic Table. Each group from I to VII are divided into two subgroups A and B. In each period elements are placed based on increasing atomic masses. Videos 3:51

Mendeleev's Periodic Table | Classification of Elements | Don't Memorise 72K views YouTube 2:52

Mendeleev's Periodic Table | School of Elements 10K views YouTube 7:56

The genius of Mendeleev's Periodic Table | Chemistry | 1.5K views YouTube 9:29

Mendeleev's Periodic Table | Periodic Classification Of Elements | Class 10 45K views YouTube 5:34

Mendeleev's Periodic Table | Periodic Classification | Class 12 Chemistry 5.3K views YouTube 10:27

Mendeleev's Periodic Table - Periodic table - Chemistry Class 11 3.5K views YouTube 5:26

The story of Dmitri Mendeleev and the Periodic Table 18K views YouTube 4:42

Merits and Demerits of Mendeleev's Periodic Table | School of Elements 40K views YouTube 5:59

Limitations of Mendeleev's Periodic Table 20K views YouTube 4:25

The genius of Mendeleev's Periodic Table - Lou Serico 1.8M views YouTube

The genius of Mendeleev's Periodic Table - Lou Serico ... [Search domain www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPnwBITSmgU] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPnwBITSmgU

I'd be pleased to see your evidence that the Periodic Table is NOT known as Mendeleev's Periodic Table. Should we perhaps count the number of citations? Please abide by WP procedures in joining this discussion to establish the correct way to identify Mendeleev's work. Santamoly (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd be glad to. A Google search of "Mendeleev's periodic table" returns 156,000 entries.  The phrase "periodic table" gives us about 27 million entries, close to 200,000 times as much as "Mendeleev's periodic table".  I would guess that many or even most of the 156,000 entries for "Mendeleev's periodic table" refer to the history of the periodic table; I mean the table that Mendeleev first proposed in 1869, which is not the same as the modern periodic table.  I was trained as a chemist, and have spent my career as a historian of chemistry.  The only times I have seen the phrase "Mendeleev's periodic table" are referring to Mendeleev's own table, not the general concept of periodic tables of the elements.  Read the Wikipedia article on the history of the periodic table.  You will see that there were many chemists who contributed to the early history of the periodic table, not just Mendeleev, even though it is certainly true that Mendeleev was the first to publish a complete periodic table.  And there are very many kinds of periodic tables of the elements today, none of which are identical to Mendeleev's own table.  And here is another way to look at it.  Take the theory of evolution.  We should not title a general article on evolution as "Darwin's theory of evolution"; we would only use that title if we were talking about the specific theory of evolution that Darwin himself proposed (which is not the same as our contemporary theory of evolution).  To come back to your evidence for "Mendeleev's periodic table": You could, if you wanted to, list all 156 thousand Google entries for this phrase, and that would be evidence for your point of view.  But then I would come back (theoretically), and list all 27 million Google entries for "periodic table".  Which side of this argument seems stronger to you?Ajrocke (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Although I'm just a lowly engineer, nowhere near as qualified as a trained chemist to discuss these things, I'm interested in expanding the Wikipedia information, which seems a bit light-weight (but the interactive tables are awesome).  For example, modern texts make the distinction between Mendeleev's Periodic Table and the Modern Periodic Table.  Your Google Search mixes the two together (and possibly others), and doesn't help the student looking for a proper explanation.  The "Periodic Table" term in itself obscures the essence of the issue, which is that Mendeleev's Periodic Table sorts elements based on the Atomic Mass.  Other Periodic Tables order elements by other means such as Atomic Number, but the reader is left not knowing why one - or the other - is preferred. To properly explain, one should know why Mendeleev's Periodic Table was the first step, and the place where engineering students start learning what elements actually hold things up in this world (as opposed to chemists who are learning how things mix together). Santamoly (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You're right that my Google search of "periodic table " mixes "periodic table" per se, and "Mendeleev's periodic table." But 27 million entries minus 156,000 entries is still about 27 million entries, right?  So the term "periodic table" is the term that is virtually always used to denote this thing, not "Mendeleev's periodic table," which was my point.  You're also absolutely correct that Mendeleev ordered his table by atomic weight.  Today we don't do that, we order elements by atomic number.  Atomic number was unknown in Mendeleev's day.  So an article with the title "Mendeleev's periodic table" could only be an article describing historically how Mendeleev thought about elements, NOT how we think about elements today.  That's not a bad thing; it is history of science (and I love history of science -- I spent a career as a professional historian of science!).  Wikipedia strives to summarize known knowledge about things, according to our present-day understanding.  Therefore "Mendeleev's periodic table" should not be in the headline of the article; it should only appear to rightly celebrate the outstanding chemist who helped to start us on the path to our present-day understanding. Ajrocke (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Quite right - so shall we get on with somehow fitting a description of Mendeleev's Periodic Table in with the more prosaic successors? It seems to that this would be a useful addition, perhaps simplifying the complex discussion that we've been having here? Santamoly (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

law of multiple proportions
I'm looking for an early description of Dalton's law of multiple proportions. Preferably an original by Dalton himself. I can't find any in A New System of Chemical Philosophy. Kurzon (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You won't find it in Dalton's book, at least not in a simple statement; it's in his data, as generalized in his atomic theory, but I don't think he ever stated it in a clear and general way. Maybe the best early statement of the law is in Wollaston's paper "On Super-Acid and Sub-Acid Salts," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., 103 (1808), 96-102, where he correctly attributed it to Dalton. You can easily access this paper digitally if you have access to HathiTrust. In fact, most chemists who discussed the law early on were more influenced by Wollaston's treatment of it, than that of its actual discoverer, Dalton.Ajrocke (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)