Talk:Standard electrode potential: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:22, 5 December 2006

Physics Unassessed

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
???	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.

Chemistry Unassessed

	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.

Merge/expansion

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

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]

Error Correction

I think there is a small problem with the first line of the standard reduction potentials table displayed in this article. it says:

  F2(g) + 2e-      -->      2 F (aq)

it _should_ say

  F2(g) + 2e-      -->      2 F- (aq)

I don't know how else to edit this. sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.83.220 (talk • contribs)

You are right, but I don't really have the software capable of fixing this up either. Anyone else? -postglock 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mattiyeh 21:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link

The 4th external link at the bottom on Electrochemical reactions doesn't seem to work for me, it just resturns a 404 error. Is this the same for anyone else? If so it should probably be removed. sijarvis 12:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link removed. -postglock 14:02, 3 August 2006 (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]

Revision as of 15:44, 16 November 2006 edit Physchim62 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 33,631 edits →Absolute potential of each half-cell?: no ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:22, 5 December 2006 edit undo Peelbot (talk \| contribs) 8,810 edits (Plugin) Added {{physics}}. using AWB Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{physics\|class=\|importance=}}
	{{chemistry}}		{{chemistry}}