User talk:Dirac66

Notice: If you leave a new message on this page, I will normally reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Invitation to discussion: FAC 4 nomination of nonmetal

Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.

The context is that you were involved in the FAC 3 discussion for the article (which was not prompted) or you are an editor who made a recent edit to the nonmetal article.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proton/neutron magnetic moment articles

I spent a great deal of effort on the article neutron magnetic moment and contributed some to proton magnetic moment (I forget the sequence of events). But the latter is mostly redundant with the former, which has always bugged me. On their talk pages I've proposed merging the two into nucleon magnetic moments, say. But there has been no subsequent comment on this situation. I fear that the topic is overly esoteric for most, and I could wait 'til the cows come home for comments. But before I am bold and merge the articles, I'd rather have a knowledgeable someone take a look at the situation, should there be things unforeseen that might occur, etc. The merge itself seems straightforward; copy the neutron article, modify to include the few specific proton things from that article, redirect proton and neutron articles to the new article. Perhaps you would be so kind as to take a quick look at the situation and assess? I'm just looking for a "fine by me" reply on those Talk pages, or whatever suitable comment. Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a long retired Chemistry Professor and, while being a physical chemist, magnetic moments were not my speciality. Nevertheless, I think you are right to merge these articles. Just do the merge. If people object, you can always reverse it, but I doubt anybody will really notice. --Bduke (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my comment at Talk:Proton magnetic moment. Dirac66 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction coefficient

As one of the physically oriented chem editors, you might have views on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Molar attenuation coefficient.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Work (thermodynamics)

Thanks for this revert. The error was caused by careless use of the "ReferenceExpander" bot, which tries to follow URLs and fill in with what it finds, potentially to deleterious consequences. There are many other possibly problematic edits that need checking to see if similar troubles occurred. XOR'easter (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When using a bot, it is a good idea to verify the edit manually afterwards to see what it has actually done. Dirac66 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Direct linear plot

Following your suggestion (which I agreed with) I changed the name of the article from Direct linear plot to Direct linear plot (biochemistry. However, another editor (Clovermoss) has changed it back again. What do you think should be done. Athel cb (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for other opinions on the article talk page. If other people agree that the word "biochemistry" should be added, then we can insist and mention their support. If not, then I suppose that second best would be to add the word to the first sentence. Dirac66 (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Rutherford

Ernest Rutherford is a current GA nominee in need of copyediting and further original research. You've been a significant contributor to the article over time, and your assistance would be appreciated, if you are willing to help out. Doughbo (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonmetal

Hi Dirac66

I have relisted Nonmetal at WP:FAC, if you have time to comment. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Standard enthalpy of reaction and stoichiometric numbers

Hi, I think there's an error in a pair of edits you made to Standard enthalpy of reaction. I have the source here in front of me and it clearly uses the symbol "nu" to mean a sign-weighted stoichiometric number, not the unsigned stoichiometric coefficient. I'm having difficulty using this talk page editor to write it correctly but basically Eqn. 7.23 says "Delta_r H^o = sum \nu delta_f H^0". It also states "Equation 7.22 can also be expressed as a single weighted sum by writing it in terms of the stoichiometric numbers (\nu) which were introduced in Chapter 4 - see page 138." On page 138, in their discussion of the "extent of reaction" variable \xi, they define the \nu to include a negative sign for reactants and a positive sign for products.

So I think that the page should be written either solely in terms of \nu (in which case the enthalpy is a single sum) or coefficients (ai,bi) (win which case the enthalpy is a difference of two sums). Unless I've missed something? Cheers, Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qflib

I agree that for clarity the coefficients should be written either all in terms of

\nu

or all in terms of

a_{i}

and

b_{i}

. In my edit of Oct.1 I intended to change all the

a_{i}

and

b_{i}

to

\nu

, but I missed the

a_{i}

and

b_{i}

in the sentence after the equation. Thanks for fixing that omission.

However I am confused by your comments here, especially re the use of 1 or 2 sums. In the source cited (Petrucci et al. 8th edition), there are no equations at all on p.138 (Do you perhaps have another edition?), while p.247 has Equation (7.21) exactly as now written as the second equation in the Wikipedia article, with two sums and a minus sign before the second sum. This implies that the coefficients (at least in this textbook) are all taken as unsigned (positive), and that the minus sign for reactants must be written explicitly before the second sum, as in Petrucci p.247 and also in the article as it now appears. So I believe that the article now follows the book of Petrucci et al. and is correct on this point. There are two sums with all coefficients positive, and there is a minus sign before the second sum. Dirac66 (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the difficulty. I'm looking at the 11th edition. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.pearson.com/store/p/general-chemistry-principles-and-modern-applications/P200000002641/9780136938293 Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On polymers

Hi Dirac66,

I appreciate your earlier efforts to contribute to Wikipedia's "Polymer" entry located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer

Unfortunately, another Wikipedia user (RootEpoch) has introduced a critical error to the entry. A polymer is now defined as "a substance or material consisting of very large molecules linked together into chains of repeating subunits". This wording suggests that very large molecules are monomers, linked together to form a single polymer. But this assertion is scientifically incorrect.

As I do not have editing privileges for that entry, it would be appreciated if you could help restore the proper definition of a polymer to "a substance or material consisting of very large molecules called macromolecules, which are composed of many repeating subunits called monomers". The rest of the paragraph might need some tightening up too.

Thanks! 2001:8003:4403:3801:9C19:7F18:2F32:A261 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2024 (U TC)

OK, done. To obtain more editing privileges, I suggest you register with your own wikiname (not an IP number). See Wikipedia:Why create an account? Dirac66 (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]