Talk:Chlorine trifluoride
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Chlorine trifluoride is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
 |
This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Errors
My english is too bad to edit the article, but I would to signal that there are many errors. My opinion is that the article should be deleted.
Errors include:
- Melting point and boiling point.
- Method and date of first syntesis.
- Method of current syntesis.
- Heat of formation and average Cl-F bond energy.
- Chlorine trifluoride is a very very strong oxiding, not bland.
Svante 02:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've dealt with some of these, but I don't have any information on the syntheses. I will come back to this page as soon as I have checked this out. Physchim62 22:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Should this page really exist? Either we expand and make pages on all the interhalogens or we make it a rule that they stay on that page. ThomasWinwood 21:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 1912 Synthesis Reference
The best I can find so far is [1], which may just be taken from here for all we know.--Nick Y. 18:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I have found an apparently contradictory reference Zeitschrift für anorganische und allgemeine Chemie, Volume 190, Issue 1 , Pages 270 - 276, DOI:10.1002/zaac.19301900127, [2]. The title translates as "about a new chlorine Flouride-ClF3". I have seen this referenced elsewhere on the web as being the invention.--Nick Y. 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First synthesis
Quoted from Banks, A. A.; Rudge, A. J. “Liquid density of chlorine trifluoride” Journal of the Chemical Society (1950), 191-3 (these were collaborators with Emelius, the master of UK fluorine chem. at the time). The first sentence of their paper: “The preparation of chlorine trifluoride was first described by Ruff and Krug (Z. anorg. Chem., 1930, 190, 270) , since when only nine communications (Schmitz and Schumacher, Z. Naturforsch., 1947, 2a, 362, 363; Domange and Neudorffer, Compt. rend., 1948, 226, 920; Schäfer and Wicke, Z. Elektrochem., 1948, 52, 205; Booth and Pinkston, Chem. Reviews, 1947, 41, 421; B.I.O.S. Final Report No. 1595; C.I.O.S. Report So. XXII-17) dealing with this compound have appeared in the literature.” So it looks like it was Ruff and Krug.--Smokefoot 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think we should remove the claim. It could be later reintroduced with appropriate references.
"It was first prepared in 1912 by the electrolysis of molten NaCl/HF, but is now generally made by reacting fluorine gas with 3% aqueous sodium hypochlorite solution:
4F2 + 2NaOCl → 2ClF3 + 2NaF + O2"
--128.115.27.10 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It does not need to be deleted, rewritten would be a more appropriate action. I have in the reversion also reverted the addition of a reference to a commercial safety spec, I prefer non-commercial sites for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I had access to some journals and none of them states a synthesis by electrolysis. So It should go!--Stone 11:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I agree I do not understand why Dirk Beetstra reverted the deletion of this patently false information calling it vandalism? The other part of his complaint seemed to be that the safety information and related MSDS came from the manufacturer. My understanding is that all MSDS's are created by manufacturers or resellers not by governmental bodies or non-profit organizations. I believe that it is federal law that they provide this information. Most safety information is not disseminated as peer reviewed papers and most of the research is done by liable parties. I understand that there are some questions that could be raised about this system. It is my understanding that most documents that address safety that are not company documents tend to be secondary or tertiary sources all deriving from the MSDS primarily as the original source, at least in part. Some times there are government documents that are the original source of some of what is contained in the MSDS. I do not think that MSDS's or manufacturer notes on safety are unreliable to the point of being an unworthy source. I find it even harder to understand how as the only manufacturer of an obscure and extremely dangerous chemical they would benefit by spamming wikipedia with the hazards of their product.--Nick Y. 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
will also go into the table!--Stone 12:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The "Ox" is missing. It is an extremely strong oxidizer as well as being water reactive.--Nick Y. 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bond angle
Bond angle 120° this looks strange for me and also strange compared with the drawing.--Stone 12:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The 120° is approximately the middle F-Cl-Lone pair angle. The F-Cl-F angle is approximately 90°. I understand the reason for this angle being teh primary angle associated with trigonal bipyramidal but in this particular case it is fairly useless, unimportant and confusing. Btw I do not understand why we are letting the false information sit on this page for so long after we have debunked it. Why not delete it and tehn rebuild. It's just a sentence after all.--Nick Y. 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Missing unit
The article says, "Pure ClF3 is stable to 180° in glass vessels (...)". 180° using which unit?
Gaesadair (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
