Jump to content

Talk:Standard electrode potential

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Postglock (talk | contribs) at 14:02, 3 August 2006 (removed dead link, yes, there is an error, and move chronologically). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChemistry Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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.
???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]

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 (talkcontribs)

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]

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]