Talk:Hydron (chemistry)

diff w/ proton

Anyone know what the difference between this and a proton is, besides the fact that this spans to all isotopes of H? Thanks -Matthias_01

That's the only difference. --Itub 10:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroxonium vs Hydronium

There exists some confusion of terms. Please, read talk:Hydronium#Requested move and post your comments. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have now another proposal, see talk:Hydrogen ion. Please, give your output. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naked protons?

No. See [1]. Protons hop from anion to anion in superacids via the Grotthuss mechanism, just as they do in water. This accounts for ionic conductance in liquid fluoroantimonic acid, without having to postulate H+ ions of the sort one finds in hydrogen plasmas. S B H arris 00:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just put all these arguments to the article. There was nothing but crap in this article for years: any properties, no relevant internal links. The word "hydron" is unpopular, but "proton" and "hydronium" are popular terms, therefore people made edits there not here, one user even said: Hydron is obscure. Of course, as this article was ugly, editors restrained themself of linking it, they made links instead to proton (although which focuses, and should be focused, mostly to physical aspects) or even, incorrectly at all, to hydrogen ion (see a section above). I tried just to make this a (low-quality) but useful article. I am not interested in warring on naked protons/hydron. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluoroantimonic acid is not a cation

From yesterday's edit: "Any hydron would react with the nearest liquid molecule to form a more complicated cation. Examples are the hydronium ion in water-based acids, and HSbF₆ in fluoroantimonic acid, the strongest superacid." This is confusing because hydronium is an example of a cation, but HSbF₆ is a neutral formed by complexing H⁺ with an anion, as explained in the article on HSbF₆.

I suggest either (1) deleting HSbF₆ and using two cation examples, perhaps H₃O⁺ and NH₄⁺, or (2) rewording to clarify the nature of HSbF₆. Dirac66 (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Molar Mass

The reported molar mass of the "hydron" is 1.00794 g/mol. Isn't that the molar mass of the hydrogen atom? The molar masses are based on the mass of a proton, so the molar mass of the hydrogen cation should be exactly one. Kyoobur9000 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Learn Physics Better. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The atomic mass unit is defined as exactly 1/12 of the mass of the isotope carbon-12, not as the mass of a proton. Dirac66 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the mass of a proton is 1.007276466812(90) u, so that needs to be fixed. S B H arris 22:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mass of an electron is smaller than the uncertainty of the mass of a hydrogen atom, thus the molar mass given is correct. To clarify: "in chemistry, a hydron is the general name for a cationic form of atomic hydrogen H⁺: most commonly a "proton". However, hydron includes cations of hydrogen regardless of their isotopic composition: thus it refers collectively to protons (¹H⁺), deuterons (²H⁺ or D⁺), and tritons (³H⁺ or T⁺)."

Modern atomic weights are calculated from measured values of atomic mass (for each nuclide) and isotopic composition. For more information, please see Relative atomic mass#Determination of atomic weight. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Touche on the atomic weight. But you're still wrong about the idea that the mass of the electron is so small that the uncertainty of our atomic weight overshadows it. The atomic weight of H⁺ is 1.000794 minus 0.00055 u for that missing electron, to finally give us 1.00739 u. Which is at last, I believe, our answer. S B H arris 01:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, let it be so. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. And the silly "exact mass" that doesn't show, I presume really should be the exact mass of the proton in u. So I'll change THAT. S B H arris 03:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity: the chembox field "exact mass" has been nullified by the Chemitry Project for not being notable. Therefore, to avoid being required to manually remove the field from every chembox, it simply does not display. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I had seen that it was set to not show, but assumed it was because it wasn't important (I agree), not that was the easy/lazy historical alternative to killing it entirely. S B H arris 01:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason not to activate the term exact mass in the infobox of every chemical species is that uninitiated readers (like some first-year chemistry students I have taught) may not realize that it refers to a monoisotopic species, and may mistakenly assume that Wikipedia is giving them a more exact value of the molar mass for stoechiometric calculations! I know, the term is properly defined in the article exact mass, but many readers would just use the value without checking the link. Dirac66 (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No citation needed for IUPAC recommendation, or for tritium in nature?

The term "hydron" is recommended by IUPAC to be used instead of "proton" if no distinction is made between the isotopes proton, deuteron and triton, all found in naturally occurring undifferentiated isotope mixtures [citation needed]. Why is a citation needed for this sentence? The IUPAC recommendation is supported by the IUPAC Red Book cited further on, and the fact that all three isotopes occur in nature is supported by the articles on deuterium and tritium. Can we remove this tag which was added on 20 Nov 2011? Dirac66 (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors agree here, so I'll be WP:BOLD and do it. S B H arris 01:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hydron (chemistry). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051212164525/http://www.iupac.org/publications/compendium/index.html to http://www.iupac.org/publications/compendium/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced commentary on "hydron" vs. "proton" removed.

I removed the commentary which a user inserted into the lede asserting without any reference or evidence that the proper term endorsed by IUPAC is considered "pedantic" and as such is "not used" by scientists, and that it is only used in this article at all "to be consistent with the article name", which doesn't make much sense. I also removed a sentence in the second paragraph which implied the initial assertion. If you're going to claim that a term endorsed by IUPAC is not used by scientists, much less refer to it as "pedantic" (especially in the article of the same name), you should really provide a reliable source. TricksterWolf (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a practicing chemist, but my understanding is that the commentary was substantially correct, in that "proton" ("protonated", "deprotonation", etc.) is the term used in the vast majority of the literature I've encountered. That said, you're absolutely correct that it needs a reliable source. I wasn't immediately able to find a good citation for the claim that "proton" remains in wide use despite the official IUPAC recommendation, though I'll note that the IUPAC Gold Book has several entries using the term "proton" with this meaning, some of which also have "hydron" in parentheses. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do see this in the cited 1988 Recommendations (Bunnet et al.): "For example, the word proton is used not only for the 'H+ ion but commonly, and incorrectly, for H+ in natural abundance. In many contexts this creates no ambiguity and it is likely that this usage will continue.". Though strictly, we need a source that usage of "proton" actually did continue. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]