Jump to content

Talk:Hydroxide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

C(OH)4 and silicic acid SiO2(OH)2

[edit]

C(OH)4 is hypothetical- the dissociation in water is therefore hypothetical- it can be envisaged- but a rewording and a reference are required. Silicic acid cannot be SiO2(OH)2, there is an ion [SiO2(OH)2]2–, but that isn't quite the same thing. I think this is a misreading of the reference.Axiosaurus (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the self-ionization reaction be written in the other direction?

[edit]

The article refers to the "self-ionization reaction:

H+ + OH ⇌ H2O,"

... but shouldn't it be written the other way? As in:

H2O, ⇌ H+ + OH

?

I'm not an expert in chemistry, so I don't want to make this change without consulting someone who knows better, but it seems to me like it should be written the second way for two reasons. First, I've always learned to write the equilibrium constant as the product of the concentrations of the "products" (i.e. molecules on the right side of the equation) divided by the product of the concentrations of the "reactants" (i.e. the molecules on the left side of the equation), substituting 1 for water or for solids, since there is always plenty of those. If we go by this rule, the equilibrium constant for the reaction as it is currently written would be Kw = 1/([H+][OH][H+]), rather than [H+][OH][H+]. Secondly, this is referred to as a self-ionization reaction, and even though the reaction can proceed both ways, we usually think of the "forward" direction as being from left to right, and the "reverse" direction as being from right to left. If we're calling it a self-ionization reaction, shouldn't the "forward" direction be the direction in which water actually ionizes itself, rather than un-ionizing itself?

75.118.5.222 (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical compounds

[edit]

"The hypothetical compound C(OH)4 (orthocarbonic acid or methanetetrol) is unstable in aqueous solution:" Is it appropriate to use "is" when referring to a hypothetical compound? I would normally use "would be" in this context. The use of "is" implies, at least to me, that this instability has been observed, not merely predicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbaarry (talkcontribs) 12:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

information attack

[edit]

This article has been badly hacked away from it's original state. The article does not fit the lucid form of element or compound articles found elsewhere in Wikipedia. Minor details of use are pasted into the summary and so on. Details are unordered, definitions are partial, details and words are given before defined. Absolutely detestable writing.

This article has been attacked. It was not this way last time I looked at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:51F0:60EC:E90F:276E:96EC (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bioxide listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bioxide. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]