Talk:Hypofluorous acid: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:56, 6 March 2011

Chemicals Stub‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Interatomic angles and lengths

The interatomic angles and lengths given in the text are different from those presented in the accompanying space-filling model graphic, with no explanation given in the text. Doonhamer 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the image. I obtained the bond lengths and angles from Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.. Perhaps the text refers to HOF in the solid phase while the dimensions in my diagram refer to HOF in the gas phase. Bond lengths and angles are often different in different phases.

Ben 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ben. I'm not very knowledgeable in the area. Maybe this can be mentioned in the article? Doonhamer 13:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for raising awareness of this contradiction.

Cheers

Ben 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The angles still dont jive.--Smokefoot 15:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about removing the title of the reference - I'm not used to using <ref> tags. What do you mean by jive?

Ben 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The figure and the text dont agree on the H-O-F angle. I dont have the original paper anymore, so I dont which is correct.

--Smokefoot 16:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood and Earnshaw gives the both angles, the one in the figure from spectroscopic data (gas phase) and the one in the text from x-ray diffraction (solid phase). They're both correct, aren't they?

Ben 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks... I hadnt realized. --Smokefoot 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the paragraph discussing the solid phase bond measurements to make clear the reason for the discrepancy with the illustration. Good work everyone. Doonhamer 06:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Element order in formulae

Excuse me - if I remember correctly, IUPAC rules recommend to place elements in order by their increasing electronegativity, in case of molecular formulae that would lead to HOF, OF₂ (I am quite sure about the least formula)? I am not certain about this but I would to set such a question. --159.148.226.100 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:56, 6 March 2011 edit 159.148.226.100 (talk) →Element order in formulae: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:56, 6 March 2011 edit undo 159.148.226.100 (talk) →Element order in formulae Next edit →
Line 35:		Line 35:

	Excuse me - if I remember correctly, IUPAC rules recommend to place elements in order by their increasing electronegativity, in case of molecular formulae that would lead to HOF, OF<sub>2</sub> (I am quite sure about the least formula)? I am not certain about this but I would to set such a question.		Excuse me - if I remember correctly, IUPAC rules recommend to place elements in order by their increasing electronegativity, in case of molecular formulae that would lead to HOF, OF<sub>2</sub> (I am quite sure about the least formula)? I am not certain about this but I would to set such a question.
			--[[Special:Contributions/159.148.226.100\|159.148.226.100]] ([[User talk:159.148.226.100\|talk]]) 16:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)