![]() | A fact from Chemical reaction appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 December 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Chemische Reaktion from de.wikipedia. |
![]() | The contents of the Chemical transformation page were merged into Chemical reaction on 12 July 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
This text was removed, as it does not belong in the main text, but rather in Talk about this topic:
Edited by D.C.
We're going to have problems with some editors, because it seems they have no practical experience with what real chemists, in real usage, call a chemical synthesis. This corruption of use, which started in the chemical synthesis article, seems to be migrating to this article as well, and it will be stopped :). The next point is that this article should not be ended with a brainless enumeration of kinds of chemical reactions, but it could be well served by a series of links to Wikipedia articles on types of chemical reactions, articles which already exist within the Wikipedia. For example there already are articles on hydrolysis and one on the hydration reaction. Other articles on chemical reactions are embedded in the article on the compound itself (e.g. soap and saponification). Dwmyers 23:05, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This article was not written by a person with much knowledge about chemical reactions. Chemist is needed to rewright it. stone 6 Apr 2005
Is this correct? Where do the additional reactions that have been added under this section fit in? I would like to fix that section, so the entries at the bottom of the list look like the rest of them, but I'm holding back because of the "six types" statement. --Kieran 11:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is always Category:Chemical reactions which this article could (and should) refer to... Yes, it's a big job, but... Physchim62 21:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The trouble with this stuff is that it's hard to aim it at the right level -as a degree chemist it's fairly hard to think back to when I didn't know anything about chemical reactions. Maybe I should borrow some chem textbooks for 13-year olds and see what they write?
Also why does 'compound' not occur in the introduction? argh! It really needs a full rewrite of the intro but not really sure what.
Excession 5 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
Why can't we aim at a 13-year-old level? It would be valuable, for example, in the discussion of thermodynamics, to state simply how combustion creates heat. Where does heat come from? Just saying that there is a reduction of mass is not an explanation. We cannot assume that our readers have the same level of understanding or literacy as we do. The simpler the language, the bigger the audience. Bdubay (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
consider the reaction H + H -> H2 + Q
E = mc^2 is independent of the form of matter. and the energy contained on both sides of chemical reaction formula is equal. so is it right to assume the mass of H2 is slightly less than 2 H atoms?
Not so quick! Liberated energy in a bond-forming process like this comes from electron stabilization (that is, reduction of potential energy) due to, in a common way of describing it, the formation of more stable bonding molecular orbitals. There is no significant mass-energy coversion contribution on that. --Duplode 01:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
No, e=mc^2 applies to the actual energy of mass itself, not a chemical bond. Chemical reactions release chemical energy but only a nuclear reaction releases nuclear energy. In a nuclear reactor you actually get a little less fuel out then you put in.--Crucible Guardian 03:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The phasing of the concept of an irreversible reaction seems oddly stif.
'Used'? Would 'expended' fit better? And could we perhaps add an example of such a reaction? Combustion of methane or hydrogen seem to be less than ideal examples, but surely we can find an informative example. -- Ec5618 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Does not combustion normally produce water vapour (gas, not a liquid)? Shouldn't the last element be 4H2O (g)? - Mike Rosoft 14:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
As much of this article, the thermochemistry discussion here is unecessarly confusing and ambiguous. Why to discuss kinetics with two whole paragraphs on thermochemistry's lead? Or why presenting the general criteria of spontaniety (Gibbs Free Energy/Global Entropy) almost as an exception? Applying high school assumptions here won't make the topic that much amiable. I am thinking on a way of rephrasing things on that section, but I have not quite a solid formulation ATM. In the meantime, I invite fellow editos to clarify things - particularly if one knows some Physical Chemistry...--Duplode 05:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well....feel free to fix it! --Crucible Guardian 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
is a phase change 9i.e. evaporation or condensation) a chemical reaction? --Crucible Guardian 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Shoudn't there be a link to this page that allready links here ? samusz 12:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
someone needs to reword the first sentence of this subheading, someone's idea of a sick joke.72.137.252.165 23:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should edit the example equations to include state functions (g, aq, l, s) to help with understanding.71.111.98.144 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried to correct the current vandalism but couldn't see the original sentence (that was changed) at the beginning of the article. Also, looking back at previous revisions, there has been a fair amount of vandalism in the past. Aboyall 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the recent change, back to "thermodynamically favored." This is a standard term in chemistry, and it gets over 83,000 hits in Google. By contrast, "favored in a thermodynamical way" gets no hits. Walkerma 05:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems this particular article, by the pursue of simplicity in explanation and sharpness in classification, always has its focus, breadth and accuracy at stake. I have attempted to clarify some wordings and, more importantly, performed a number of deletions, which I put up for discussion:
On the classical definition, therefore, there are only two types of chemical reaction: redox reactions and acid-base reactions. The former involve the motion of lone electrons and the latter of an electron pair.
Overtly restrictive. Think of cis-trans isometization: one might argue the reaction can be mechanistically be described in terms of homo/heterolytic bond cleavage/forming, but it is doubtful whether saying the reaction as a whole is redox or acid-base is relevant or even viable. Or even better, think of pericyclic reactions.
Chemical reactions are also divided into organic reactions and inorganic reactions.
So people really think classification is important enough to go on the lead. Not to mention organometalic chemistry.
The collision of more than two particles into the ordered structure necessary to perform chemical transformations is extremely unlikely; which is why ternary reactions in practice are not observed. A chemical reaction may require three or more reagents, but the process can generally be decomposed into a stepwise series or a set of stepwise reactions of the above.
Although I have not removed this, it feels completely misplaced under the "Reaction Types" heading. And if "the above" refered to the list of types two paragraphs before, it was plain catastrophic constraining -hence, the rewording.
* Petrochemical reactions are often distinguished from other organic reactions.
So are biochemical reactions, or drug syntheses, or polymerizations, or...
Online Chemical Equation Balancer Balances equation of any chemical reaction (full or half-cell) in one click.
This looked like improper in regards to WP external link policy.
Finally a reminder: Going too far into adapting content to junior textbooks results in dellusion, even more so for those very juniors.
--Duplode 03:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia must make up its mind which way to do things.
67.171.43.170 (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there really any difference between chemical change and chemical reaction? I suggest merging the two articles. --Itub (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Under Organic Reactions is this sentence fragment: "Defined in opposition to inorganic reactions."
I would think that inorganic reactions are defined in opposition to organic reactions, if anything. Somebody more knowledgeable than me should either delete the fragment or write it as a complete sentence and expand it a bit. Ronstew (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, the mechanism for the Baeyer-Villiger oxidation in the equation section is wrong. For one, the protonation of the tetrahedral intermediate cannot be concerted with the attack and moreover there is good evidence that it never occurs, with collapse of the tetrahedral intermediate occuring without proton transfer from the peroxy group to the carbonyl oxygen.
Thoughts? Mdlevin (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The article currently says: Oxidation is better defined as an increase in oxidation number. Looking at oxidation number I get the impression that this expression is used for a rather constrained range of phenomena and that oxidation state fits better to the context in this article. --Ettrig (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Is a "Men in Trees" episode significant enough relative to "chemical reactions" as they are understood here to warrant a redirect at the top of the page? I can't imagine anyone who'd say it was. Maybe if the television show itself was called "Chemical Reactions," but an episode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.27.225 (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I changed the last sentence of this section to more accurately state the situation. It is based on the college text by Zumdahl & Zumdahl covering this subject. They carefully distinguish between the equilibrium condition, and the equilibrium position. Thermbal (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
In reference to the Boudouard reaction of CO2 + C to form 2CO, this reaction is ENDOTHERMIC at ALL temperatures. Easy to check this out by going to the FACT-web site, using their Reaction tool-- http://www.crct.polymtl.ca/reacweb.htm. It's heat of reaction is +172.47 kJ at 298.15 K, and +158.98 at 2000 K. Also, authors shouldn't cite a heat of reaction without referring specifically to the temperature of the reaction. Thermbal (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion: article editors/writers are urged to include, for each chemical reaction, wherever written in Wikipedia, phase descriptors. Subscripts like (g) and (s) tell the reader whether the species in a reaction is a gas, a solid, or what. Thermbal (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
If metal-acid reaction redirects here (and it does) there really ought to be a clear, easy-to-find subsection on this particular kind of reaction. Maybe I'm missing it, but on a quick scan (with the help of Ctrl-f) I can't actually find anything here about what happens when metals react with acids. --Oolong (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
197.157.244.227 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Laxusgajeel (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not a science expert but the section for types has a header that says "four basic types" then lists synthesis, decomposition, single-replacement, double-replacement, and combustionm which are five types. Not sure if the number of types of reactions is wrong or the list of types is wrong but this is confusing. AaronY (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add an another characteristic of chemical reaction "Change on colour" 114.134.20.99 (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Photosynthesis 41.114.128.75 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Vh 2A03:2880:30FF:16:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Oxidation and reduction reaction 197.215.29.102 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: In this revision, you reverted my addition of forward reactions and backward reactions, which are important types of reactions.
I just want to make sure that it would be okay when I add this content again by citing reliable sources, which I will do when time suffices. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 03:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A chemical reaction and a chemical change is the same thing. Since chemical change has very small amount of content, merging it with chemical reaction won't put undue weight (WP:UNDUE) or overload the target article, but any redundancy in text should be reduced as much as possible per WP: REDUNDANCY. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 07:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
An change in color 112.120.127.168 (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)