Talk:Equivalent (chemistry)

Chemistry Stub‑class Low‑importance

	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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement

Suggestions

I'd like to suggest three things
1.One example can be appended following the two indented definition. The example I found in one book is as follows:
6e^-+14H⁺+Cr₂O₇^2- -> 2Cr³⁺ + 7H₂O
In this example, 1 equivalent of K₂Cr₂O₇ is said to be one sixth of a mole( and I think it may be said that 1 mole of K₂Cr₂O₇ is 6 equivalents, though I have not verified whether an s should be appended to equivalent in convention ). My interpretation is that because in this redox reaction, 6 elctrons are used to reduce the chromium in one mole of K₂Cr₂O₇ from 6+ to 3+, we get 6 equivalent(s). It will be nice if someone can explain from both lewis acid-base point of view and bronstead-Lowry acid-base point of view how this equlivalent number is obtained. Otherwise, the reader can be slightly distracted by the fact that both protons and electrons are present in the formula. The refernce book I have is a 1978 version of "Chemistry a conceptual approach" by Mortimer. However, I did not find it's ISBN (possibly due to ISBN was still in its nascency around that time). Therefore, if someone can find a more recent citation with relative easy. I'd like to see it updated.

2. I'd also like to suggest inserting a couple of lines of caveats following the line right under the two idented definitions. That is, we can put a clarification that "equivalent weight" does not carry the unit of conventional weight, being mass times acceleration, rather, it has the same unit as the "mass" does. For readers who are interested in that topic, they will follow the link; for readers who are not, they'll feel much more at ease following the article and trusting the content.

3. There is a semi-mirror page of the article in traditional chinese character version. So if we can put zh:化學當量, it will increase the linguistic linkage of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.248.52.212 (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

This article could be difficult for readers to understand without a background in chemistry. 69.140.157.138 09:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Article should have be the same as Equivalent_Weight

Definition is wrong?

Consider this sentence in the article: "Hence, the equivalent weight of a given substance is effectively equal to the amount of substance in moles, divided by the valence of the substance." This seems to me to give a unit completely different from the unit in the previous paragraph (number of grams that will react with a gram of hydrogen). Consider two elements each with valence 1 but one has very heavy atoms and one has light atoms. The number of moles of each will be the same. But the number of grams that will react with hydrogen will be quite different. Could someone who knows this topic please fix this so that the two definitions are actually equivalent, or else change the article to state clearly that the term can refer to quite different units? Or explain in simple language in the article itself why (I'm wrong and) the two are actually approximately equivalent? Thanks. --Coppertwig 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition corrected, article is different to equivalent weight

I have sorted out the incorrect definition and added a link to equivalent weight, which is related, but not the same. The formula is now consistent with the example conversion and hopefully now the article makes more sense.

I would suggest that this is kept a separate article to equivalent weight as the two are related but often used in different contexts so it would become more confusing to try to explain the two in one article. RobWB 10:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the following definition of "equivalent"

The equivalent is formally defined as the mass in grams of a substance which will react with 6.022 x 1023 electrons.

To me, this definition looks more like "equivalent weight" than "equivalent" because it deals with mass. In the "conversion guide", there are examples of one equivalent being equal to one mole, half a mole, or one third of a mole. Mole is a number, not mass. For a divalent ion, is one equivalent equal to half a mole of the ion or half of the ion's atomic or molecular weight? To me, it is the former. The latter is called equavilent weight.

I suggest the following definition of equivalent.

An equivalent is defined as the number of moles of a substance which will react with one mole of electrons.

Ctchou 00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]