Talk:Methylidyne radical
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Jmol image
[edit]The molecule in the image is a methyl radical, not a methylidyne radical. Bokuwa (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Base
[edit]Just because a substance can react with a proton in the gas phase does not make it a base. Nearly every neutral molecule has this property. Even argon will do this. I think there might have been some original research going on here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is described as having basic character, meaning under appropriate conditions, it can acts as a base. Whether or not the basic character dominates, is not being asserted. Yes, and helium hydride has acidic character, which would make helium a very weak conjugate base. We don't know the Ka value for methylidyne to comment on the strength of the basic character, or consequently discount it for being too weak a base. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- DO you have a reference that says that it is a base? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Does the existence of the stable methyliumyl conjugate acid not suffice? It is a logical implication, not speculation, which should not need a reference. As far I can tell, logical implications such as this, are comparable to mathematical expressions, which are exempt from requiring references. In looking for the WP Policy page regarding this exemption for mathematics, I found a more apt page for this particular situation: WP:SCICITE. Here it states that 'uncontroversial knowledge' is exempt from in-line citation. The uncontroversial knowledge in this case, would be the implied basicity by conjugate acid-base model under Brønsted–Lowry theory. A citation to an authoritative source on Brønsted–Lowry theory, will allow anyone to verify the implication of the model. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- In this case it is controversial. I want to see others calling these hydrides bases before Wikipedia is the first to announce this idea. I think that this application of logic is going too far. Graeme Bartlett (talk)
- I have asked about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Base because the same situation has also cropped up with other hydrides. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- In this case it is controversial. I want to see others calling these hydrides bases before Wikipedia is the first to announce this idea. I think that this application of logic is going too far. Graeme Bartlett (talk)
- Does the existence of the stable methyliumyl conjugate acid not suffice? It is a logical implication, not speculation, which should not need a reference. As far I can tell, logical implications such as this, are comparable to mathematical expressions, which are exempt from requiring references. In looking for the WP Policy page regarding this exemption for mathematics, I found a more apt page for this particular situation: WP:SCICITE. Here it states that 'uncontroversial knowledge' is exempt from in-line citation. The uncontroversial knowledge in this case, would be the implied basicity by conjugate acid-base model under Brønsted–Lowry theory. A citation to an authoritative source on Brønsted–Lowry theory, will allow anyone to verify the implication of the model. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
A chemical ingredient of life?
[edit]This is silly:
"In October 2016, astronomers reported that the very basic chemical ingredients of life – the methylidyne radical ⫶CH, the carbon-hydrogen positive ion :CH+, and the carbon ion ⫶C+" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.44.229 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)