Talk:Isosbestic point

Comments

We need a better figure, which shows more than 3 spectra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.128.218 (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should be merged asap. The proper spelling is "isosbetic point" someone who knows how to merge articles should do so immediately.

ISOSBESTIC is the correct spelling.--RobinStokes 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I merged both articles and made some clean up.--Nevermore78 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all Dears!, but we should think about, and that as soon as possible, to full rework the first part of this article (not the application), as the whole definition and a lot of the explanation is quite a similar mistake as almost all other articles on the NET, including IUPAC & SAS & Co's !!!

Take a view at Isobestic Point Sorry: ARGOS++ 22:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read in some very reliable and appreciated book (in Russian) that the term arised not actually from sbestos (extinguishable; the Gold book variant), but from sbestikos (extinguishing). There is also reference to: Thiel A., Dassler A., Wulfken, F. Fortschr. Chem., Physik und phys. Chem., 1924, Bd, 18, № 3. Could anybody check this source and/or express their opinion? Extinguishing here looks for me to be more appropriate than extinguishable.--81.198.35.190 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]