Talk:Standard electrode potential: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:13, 16 September 2007

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Request title change

Requested title change to "Standard Reduction Potential" from "Reduction Potential" to link shortform the commonly used SRP to this page

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ventulus (talk • contribs) 21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Reduction potential" is no longer the preferred term: IUPAC recommends either "electrode potential" or "redox potential". I have linked the line on SRP through to this page. Physchim62 (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/expansion

These two articles should be left separate. Reduction potential on its own is much easier to apply to a biological system as I have discovered. I don't think I have to say much since someone has made all the necessary comments below. Rylkiwanuka 18:08 16 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on a new version of this article at Standard electrode potential/Temp. Physchim62 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the two should be merged. There is little that one would want to say on either subject without a very large degree of overlap Ahw001 09:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to mantain the articles separated because many people are in confusion with the different ways to relate to the same concept. 26 august 2006

I also think they should be separated, as ORP is used as a field parameter in water quality assessment and ground water analysis. For those uses, a general definition or suggestion of implication of Eh is more important than explaining how the standard was achieved. Also, field conditions never have the standard constants, like temperature, which might throw off users of the ORP recorded in fie24.172.82.130 11:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)ld equipment like water quality meters, etc. 24.172.82.130 11:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest keeping separated. I've added information regarding practical measurements of ORP, which seems like good focus for a general article on ORP, that would then link to more specific discussion of standard electrode potential. Jjotter 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Actually reduction potential referes to the system. e.g. it can be applied to the biological systems as well. But when we say standard electrode potential, then it become difficult to apply the concept of redox potential through standard electrode potential to general systems.[reply]

Actually reduction potential referes to the system. e.g. it can be applied to the biological systems as well. But when we say standard electrode potential, then it become difficult to apply the concept of redox potential through standard electrode potential to general systems.so i think these two sections should be kept separate.

A question

Can someone please explain to me why Li has a lower value than K (for example), but K is more electropositive? Thanks... -postglock 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute potential of each half-cell?

I'm changing this odd statement: there is no way to measure the individual potentials of the electrodes in isolation. There are ways to measure electrostatic potentials, but they're not simple and not very accurate. --Wjbeaty 03:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to what? earth? but then, whose earth? The absolute potential of a half-cell is undefined, and this has some significant implications for thermodynamics. I will invite other comments before reversing your edit, as you obviously believe what you're saying, even if I think you're wrong! :) Physchim62 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth? Huh? You do understand how the halfcell potentials are created, right? The electrolyte is a conductor, as is the metal, while the Helmholtz layer at the metal/electrolyte interface acts both as a charge pump and as a capacitor dielectric. This capacitor is charged up to a particular potential diff. This absolute halfcell potential appears between the capacitor's two plates: between the electrode and the electrolyte. Since we can't connect a common voltmeter to the electrolyte without introducing huge artifacts, a non-contact voltage measurement would be required. And these measurements aren't very accurate. But just because imprecise and exotic voltmeters are needed, that doesn't mean that the electrolyte/metal capacitor has an undefined voltage.

For example, a quick online search turns up various papers which put the absolute halfcell potential of the SHE at around 4.45v. Since chemists of the 1800s had no way to measure this value, yet had a great need to organize the list of halfcell potentials, they apparently decided to declare the SHE halfcell potential to be zero, even though it's nowhere near zero.

So, which thermodynamic implications arise if we accurately measure the value of the SHE halfcell potential? --Wjbeaty 08:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provided half-cell potentials are not being used in isolation but combined to give overall cell potentials, there are no thermodynamic implications - the reference point is arbitrary 84.92.241.186 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E naught

Shouldn't it be an 'E' with a superscript 'o' horizontally crossed through it?

Now, you just have a superscript letter 'o'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.120.20 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well? Does a symbol even exist for E naught? 60.241.129.19 02:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either is correct! See Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, pp. 49 (note 10), 53. Physchim62 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 == Merge/expansion ==
-These two articles should be left separate. Reduction potential on its own is much easier to apply to a biological system as I have discovered. I don't think I have to say much since someone has made all the necessary comments below. [[User:Rylkiwanuka|Rylkiwanuka]][[User talk:Rylkiwanuka| (talk)]] 18:08 16 September 2007  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+These two articles should be left separate. Reduction potential on its own is much easier to apply to a biological system as I have discovered. I don't think I have to say much since someone has made all the necessary comments below. [[User:Rylkiwanuka|Rylkiwanuka]] 18:08 16 September 2007  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 I am currently working on a new version of this article at [[Standard electrode potential/Temp]]. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 06:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)