User talk:Petergans/Archive 3

Binding selectivity
There are still some issues with your DYK nomination for Binding selectivity. Specifically, the hook needs to link to the article's title. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Iron's oxidation state (in hemoglobin)
This section gives a good account of the historical facts, but the conclusion is now known to be wrong - see p. 1099. Hb-O2 is a complex of low-spin iron(II) with the oxygen molecule. The angle Fe-O-O is not 180°. The non-linearity destroys the degeneracy of the π* orbitals and so the electrons which have paralell spins in the oxygen molecule can pair up in the complex at a lower energy cost than is required to form the singlet state in the isolated oxygen molecule. This section therefore need more attention than I feel qualified to give, as I'm not expert in biochemistry. Petergans (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, what about the photoelectron spectroscopy results which indicate Fe(III) and the IR bond stretch which indicates O2 bond order ~ 1.5? A merely lowered energy for singlet oxygen doesn't explain either of these results, although singlet O2 and low spin Fe(II) was the best classical guess before these results came in. Do you have some primary paper cites of more recent vintage, instead of a text? The cites that support the Fe(III)-superoxide interpretation are pretty good and I think this is the modern accepted view http://www.ul.ie/~childsp/CinA/Issue65/TOC28_Haemoglobin.htm. But I'm willing to be convinced.  S  B Harris 19:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK problem
Hello! Your submission of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! - Specifically, I can't find the claim of the hook in the article. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a useful article, yet it does need references for specific parameters of materials, spectrometers and some historical claims. Please add, as it should so much easier for the one who wrote it. With all due respect, I am opposing promotion of this nom at T:TDYK for referencing reasons. Even for a specialist, there are dozens of points in the article like "why this value, this year, and not another". Materialscientist (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Stub tags
Hallo Peter (I think our paths may have crossed during my years of employment at UoL), just to mention that if you're adding a stub tag to an article it should go at the end, after everything except interwiki links (see WP:FOOTERS). When I was stub-sorting Triglycine sulfate, I struggled to find the old stub tag to remove. Sorry if my edit summary was a trifle stroppy! PamD (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
Courcelles 18:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Mass action (physics) for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Mass action (physics), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mass action (physics) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Chromic acid
I need to re-read the article but it is gratifying to see someone address what a lot of lab rats must want to read about. The only part that gives me pause is that parts of the article verge on synthesis (original thought or ponderings) "Molecular chromic acid could in principle be made ... but in practice" and some musings about dichromic acid. But thanks for taking the time to tackle this long-ignored theme.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hydroxide
Hello! Your submission of Hydroxide at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Medal of achievement
What you did to hydroxide is very good. I am a nitpicker so if my edits are painful, I will leave your work alone, for a while at least. But you really wrote a nice overview of a thorny and difficult subject.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Is there really vanadic acid?" Yes. I've linked this statement to Acid dissociation constant where the dissociation constants are listed. There are some organisms which appear to use vanadium in place of phosphorus in their metabolism.
 * "H2CrO4, has similarities with sulfuric acid, H2SO4. even this stuff is poorly defined". I've added a comment that both form acid salts with formula A+[HMO4]-. These are examples of properties that Mendeleev used to put V and P together in the group 5, and Cr and S together in group 6. Petergans (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Listing an acid dissociation constant is not the same as establishing a structure - acid dissociation constant is a titration not a structural test. But as you dig, you'll learn.  Silicic acid is probably not real.   Mendelev is probably not an ideal source, the salts of chromate and probably bichromate are similar to the sulfate and bisulfate, but I am unsure if chromic acid has been nailed crystallographically.  17O NMR is probably the best bet.  Again, nice work.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't claim definitive knowledge of structures of the protonated forms of vanadate, simply that the trend in protonation constants is similar to the trend for phosphates; there is a high probability that the stuctures are similar, but I don't think any structures are known; the monomeric species only exist in very dilute solution. I did not write the silicic acid bit, used existing text. Looking at my stability constants database, it seems that SiO2(OH)2 is the most likely formula. I think that the structure of H2SO4 in the gas phase has been done by electron diffraction, but I don't know about H2CrO4 Petergans (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing that we might look into are the periodates, which have complicated structures, but I think that there are some rare molecular polyhydroxos there. And another thing would be the pKa's of water when bound to cations, e.g. metals. Over the weekend I will look for some material.  Ferric hydroxide is another thing worth looking into, whether it is real or not. Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Howlers
Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I am probably the one that inserted the comment (your: "howler") that (H4)EDTA is an amino acid. What is wrong with that statement? Seems like a useful reminder that amino acids are not exclusively biological and that EDTA is a derivative of glycine.  And EDDS is a derivative of aspartate.
 * And glass dissolves in NaOH to give sodium silicate - what is your issue with that statement? given that sodium silicate is rather ill-defined mix.

As I understand the term amino acid is restricted to compounds with the structure NH2CH(R)CO2H. EDTA does not have an NH2 constituent.

"Sodium silicate" is too specific, it suggests a particular compound like Na2SiO3, which anyway would be dissociated in solution. The sodium ion plays no part in the reaction.

My idea of a howler is a statement which confuses two quite separate concepts. The purpose of these sections is to highlight the fact that in Wikipedia so many "errors" have gone uncorrected for a long time. I hope I have not caused offence. Petergans (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, nice to see editors pay attention to details and clarity. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Uranium trioxide as uranyl compound : Thus it is not incorrect to describe the structure as [UO2]2+[UO4]2-, that is uranyl uranate. I see this as not perfect but is it a real howler?--Stone (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wells, Structural Inorganic Chemistry, 3rd. Ed. p966, Fig. 337 shows part of the crystal structure. The caption reads "The UO2O2 layer of the crystal structure of UO3..." I do not see this as a uranyl compound like uranyl nitrate even though the structure does contain UO2 structural units. The reason being that it is an infinite lattice structure, not a molecular compound. Howlers often occur because of incorrect use of language! Petergans (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The crystallographers state in their paper :In view of the coordination, however, U(1)+20(1) can be called a uranyl ion and the chemical formula could accordingly be written as (UO2)UO4, uranyl uranate That's why I quoted that.--Stone (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't agree. There is no uranate anion in the structure. It seems that the howler is down to the crytallographers, but that does not mean that it should be repeated in WP. Wells goes on (p967, Fig 338) to show that in &alpha;UO3 the layers are linked through the UO2 units which thus form a linear chain structure, so there is no uranyl group as such. Wells concludes that "the resulting structure is not, of course, a layer structure". Red UO3, one of the other polymorphs, has the ReO3 structure - no hint of a uranyl structure there. Petergans (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They talk about the gamma-UO3, but if it is a howler than lets get rid of it.--Stone (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. See belowPetergans (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hydroxide
Dravecky (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

diuranate
"Ammonium diuranate", the major component of yellow cake, is misnamed and does not have the formula [NH4]2U2O7. It approximates to the gross formula 3 UO3· NH3·5 H2O

I have serious doubts about the formulae of the other so-called diuranates, sodium diuranate (Na2U2O7) and magnesium diuranate (MgU2O7. The reason is that there are no 4-coordinate complexes of uranium(VI) known, so the analogy with dichromate is false. Can anyone help? Petergans (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have downloaded several papers on diuranates and the overall image is a little confusing.--12:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised. I don't think that it is a pure compound. More likely to be a mixture of uranyl hydroxide and sodium uranate, and, perhaps, other compounds. Petergans (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I was away when you wrote me and then entirely forgot about it, apologies. We don't have diuranates in our database. I've looked Web of Science (I suppose you have access to it, let me know if not). It gives 77 entries and a number of structural studies like  (can't download due to limitations of my current affiliation). From what I can read, I concur that it is usually a mixture (by production nature), but it can be purified by processing, e.g. annealing which removes water. This describes a tentative evolution with heating from various hydrates to Na2U2O7. My feeling after some reading is that there is no much doubt about existence of complexes like A2U2O7 and (AE)U2O7 (A=alkali, AE=Alkali earth). Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We do have mixed uranium oxides in the databse (I was just stupid enough not to find them). They are Li3UO4, Li6UO6, Li7UO6, LiUO3, Na0.75U0.25O, NaUO3, NaUO3.5, Mg[UO2]O2, K2U4O13, K2UO4, Ca2UO5, Ca3UO6, CaUO4, Sr2UO5, Sr3UO6, SrUO4, Ba0.98UO3, Ba23U8O47, BaUO3, BaUO4, [UO2][NH2]2O2[H2O]3, [UO2][NH2]2O2[H2O]4. I have drawn linked examples, but can draw any of them. My drawing program fails to simulate connectivity for these specific structures (i.e. this can be solved, but I don't have a quick solution). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great! It's interesting that your program fails with connectivity. Wells says that these structures are unlike any outside actinide chemistry. Once I have a draft of the uranate article, I'll let you know. I'm currently thinking about merging diuranates into that article. Petergans (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: the list above is only for alkalis, alkali-earths and N-H-uranates, I haven't checked other metals (the database apparently doesn't support wildcard search, that misled me earlier). Materialscientist (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a stereo view on BaUO4 with more than 1 unit cell. I will check on monday whether I have access to the article on Ca2UO5. I can tell right now that we have no structure file for it. There are cell parameters and symmetry - triclinic aP120, space group P-1, No2, Z=15 (15 formula units per cell), no prototype - this is a very low symmetry. Materialscientist (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I intuitively suspected that hydroxylamine complex won't fit :). Please educate me on the following. The lead says "A uranate is a mixed metal oxide involving the element uranium in oxidation states +4, +5 and +6". (i) Why hydroxylamine doesn't fit into these oxidation states? Does this definition mean that all three oxidation states have to be present in one compound? (ii) On the other hand, "mixed metal oxide" means to me extra metal which is absent in any ammonium "uranate". Materialscientist (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By mixed metal oxide I understand a compound with a formula such as MIxMIIyOz In the case of uranates MII is uranium, in whatever oxidation state. You are right, ammonium is not a metal ion, though it does qualify as MI in the general formula. I'll modify the lead in the sense of the first sentence above. Petergans (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we now delete diuranate or make it into a redirect? I have copied all the relevant stuff into uranate. Also, delete the category diuranates. Petergans (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirected, deleted, how about point (i) above (it is better to make it clear in the lead, whether or not uranium must be in a mixed oxidation state)? Materialscientist (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Petergans (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Plutonyl
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Uranate
Hello! Your submission of Uranate at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger One ping only 06:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your review on Pinocchio paradox
Hi Petergans, thanks for your input on my DYK nomination. I fixed the hook. Could you please take a look. If there's something wrong again, could you please suggest another hook versus denying the nomination? BTW, if I may suggest, I believe you should have posted to my talk page a question about my DYK especially, if you voted after it was promoted. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I was also wondering if you could clarify your objections to this DYK for us. Do you see the problem as the hook misrepresenting the article, the article misrepresenting the source, or the source being incorrect? Qrsdogg (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Petergans, I updated the lead of the article to include mention of semantic. The hook was taken directly from the source, and directly corresponds the article. The Pinocchio paradox is the Liar paradox, if for nothing else than at least because it is said so clearly and unconditionally in the main source: "is clearly a version of the Liar.". I hope you do agree now that the Pinocchio paradox has nothing to do with Pinocchio being "a known liar", and that it is the Liar paradox. There's no any valid reason for your objection. May I please ask you either to say clearly what in your opinion is wrong with the hook or remove you objections? I'd be happy to respond all your questions either here or at the article talk page. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to come to your talk page once again, but you said you will not comment on the hook anymore. It is my understanding that your objections now is only about the hook linking to Liar paradox. Although I believe it is an absolutely valid link because the Pinocchio paradox is the Liar paradox, I came up with an alternative hook, in which I removed the link to Liar Paradox. I do hope that now, you could go ahead and remove your objections.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Magnetochemistry
I was intending to write the article with this topic but by browsing Wikipedia I have noticed your development of the subject in your test page and I hope you don′t mind I′ve taken the liberty to initialize the article that was missing with content from your test page. I have made very small modifications concerning categories.--MagnInd (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Uranate
Dravecky (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Magnetochemistry
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work. Can I recommend you nominate this for a good article? Uranate should also be good enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the article, good work.--Stone (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Metal aquo complex
You might have some thoughts on a possible article on metal aquo complexes. We have several articles on various types of metal complexes, such as metal carbonyl complexes, metal nitrosyl complexes, even metal sulfur dioxide complexes. But the most fundamental would be on simple aquo compounds, such as [M(H2O)6]n+. Some properties of interest would be water exchange rates, absorption spectra, pKa's and even E1/2's. Leave a note here if you have some recommendations and especially about possible sources. Your role here has been very positive. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have just the source - Burgess, "Metal ions in solution". I also recently bought a copy of Baes and Mesmer, The "hydrolysis of cations". Summarizing these two books will be quite a task. Another source: . Another source


 * Are you suggesting a collaborative project? At the moment I'm free to work on it, but from April onwards I will be busy with a research project.Petergans (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I am not trying to put you to work but yes, I would welcome your input. I was going to start the article this weekend and we could both contribute.  You have better sources than I do, but I will look for some these.  The article could be really long, but I dont like really long articles.  I was thinking of the four properties listed above (exchange rates, absorption spectra, pKa's and even E1/2's) plus magnetism (an area I cannot do) and structure (coordination number, M-O distance, not a lot in the second coordination sphere).  I guess self-exchange rates for some would another number we'd want.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's agree on a plan for the article. I know the subject area quite well as it is close to what I did research on. I'll put forward a proposal, based on the sources mentioned above (I'll get a copy of Richens from the library today) and your suggestions. We can then each work on different sections in the first instance. Petergans (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will take a look, this weekend, I hope. I started an article on metal aquo complex, I figured you'd seen it.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Metal ions in aqueous solution
Now live Metal ions in aqueous solution

Files for deletion/2011 March 25
Hi Petergans. Please comment there. You removed the image from the article two month ago. --Leyo 20:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The structure is conjectural and wholly incorrect. There is no analogy with dichromate. See uranate for typical structures. Petergans (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That means File:Diuranate ion.svg is also incorrect and should be deleted? What about File:AmmoniumDiuranate.svg that is currently used in the article? I hope that you don't mind that a put a link to this discussion on Files for deletion/2011 March 25. --Leyo 19:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Both structures are wrong. I have removed the chembox, which included the SVG, from ammonium diuranate and given reasons on the discussion page. The problem is that the term "diuranate" is still used in industry even though it has been conclusively shown (the evidence is cited in uranate that the chemical formula is much more complex. Petergans (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I tagged the two structures mentioned above and two others (see Commons:Category:Disputed chemical diagrams). --Leyo 20:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Metal ions in aqueous solution
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Triglycine sulfate
Hi Peter, I saw that you commented out my image at Triglycine sulfate. Depicting chemical structures that contain both acidic and basic groups always presents a bit of difficulty. In most cases, it is standard practice to show such compounds in their neutral form because the protonation states of various groups can depend on conditions (solid state, in solution, etc). I don't mind if you would like to replace the image with something else, but in the absence of an alternate, I think File:Triglycine sulfate.svg is perfectly reasonable. It is similar to what is shown at PubChem, ChemSpider, and other chemical databases. Let me know what you think. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Difficulties such as this are the reason that organic chemists like "idealized" representations. All the important connectivity information is conveyed simply, without having to worry about where exactly all those pesky hydrogen atoms actually reside.  :)  In any case, I appreciate the effort that you are putting into finding a more precise representation.  Please let me know if there is anything I might do to help - I may have access at my institution's library to materials not available elsewhere.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wien effect
Hello Peter:

I thought you might be interested in reviewing the new article Wien effect. Best regards, Stan. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion
One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Elimination of Solubility Product Table
Greetings: Requesting your rationale for eliminating the solubility product table from Solubility Product. I hadn't had need to look up anything on it for a while, and today, when I did have need of it, I found it to have been cut in July 2010. As you undoubtedly know, the solubility product table does _not_ duplicate the data in the Solubility Table. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 19:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point, there is a difference between solubility and solubility product. However, they are closely related What purpose is served by listing an arbitrary selection of Ksp values? The table would make more sense if it was part of a section in which quantitative values were discussed. For example, there could be an interesting discussion of comparative solubilities of hydroxides. I don't have a source on which to base it. Just giving the numbers doesn't really tell one anything. BTW, I've re-instated the link to the NIST database which had also been lost at some point.

Oxohalides
I've added two odd images to your sandbox without explanation, hoping you can use them: in Ti[ClO4]4, O and Cl atoms sort of exchange places compared to usual oxohalides, and [AgOTeF5−(C6H5CH3)2]2 is an example of a split site in a M-O-M chain. I saw a similar structure for Tl, but with a slightly different organic part. Materialscientist (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed your article Oxohalide for DYK and have suggested an alternative hook which you may like to consider. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Oxohalide
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Equilibrium constant and ionic strength
Hi - Can you have a look at Talk:Equilibrium constant? We are trying to understand a statement you inserted 5 years ago to the effect that K is best determined at high ionic strength. Yes, that keeps the activity coefficients constant, but can you explain briefly how to correct for them? (It is probably best to answer there, not here). Dirac66 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Field effects on equilibrium
Moved to Talk:Chemical_equilibrium Petergans (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Moved to user page

Left you a message
On Talk:PH. Klortho (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Octanol
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that every time just 'octanol' is mentioned, that it should not got to 1-Octanol, but to the disambiguation page as the reference could be to any of the other octanols? I want to be sure before I undo the changes. Also, until 3 days ago, every 'octanol' link went to 1-Octanol. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 17:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

graph Kw versus ionic strength
Peter: is really good and valuable. I wondered if it would be possible to add any additional info on the source of the data or the model used to create it? Just a thought, to extend the excellent usefulness of this figure even further...  Cheers, Stan J. Klimas (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC).
 * I'm can't remember where I got the data from. Maybe from H.S. Harned and B.B. Owen, B.B. The Physical Chemistry of Electrolytic Solutions. (1958), 3rd ed., Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York? Petergans (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)