Talk:Valence (chemistry)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Valence is also a linguistic term. It has to to with the number of participants in a clause.
Contents |
[edit] Valence number or oxidation number?
First. The definition of the valence number given in the article "valence number" is actually the definition of the oxidation number. A valence number must not have a sign; most generally, it is the number of chemical bonds (of any type) that an atom of an element forms in a given substance.
Second. Oxidation numbers vary from -4 (in carbides, etc.) to +8 (in OsO4), but not from -7 to +7! Other substances (such as borides, etc.) are usually cannot be correctly described (even formally) using the concept of the oxidation number.
Third. Similar to helium, neon forms no "chemical" (i.e. covalent and/or ionic) substances (or at least I am unaware of such).
Fourth. Unfortunately, I have no time to edit the article right now -- probably later I'll do it.
Fifth. Thank you for reading all this.
Above unsigned comment was added 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 83.237.103.58
[edit] Merge Valence number
I largely agree with the comment above and suggest that they can be fixed as part of the proposed merge of Valence number into this article. I support that merge. --Bduke 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please merge.
I think it is important to merge valence number with article valency. It would help a lot of other students! Thank you.
- Valence number has now been merged here, as valence is the IUPAC preferred term (not valency). Physchim62 (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Table change
(I didn't know how to edit the chart, so...) If someone else can put all the new data here into a table like before, good.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.133.196 (talk • contribs)
- I have copied the new section to your sandbox (click here), and reverted the edit. Please make clear what you want and what your problems with the current version are. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some references suggested by Gerard Parkin
Prof. Ged Parkin sent me an email with some references which, he thinks, could be used to upgrade this article. Please have a look:
- J. Chem. Educ., 2006, Vol 83, p 791
- A chapter in 'Classification of Organometallic Compounds', 1.01, 2007
- Polyhedron 2004, 23, 2879-2900. doi:doi:10.1016/j.poly.2004.08.004
(He is co-author in all three of them, it seems best that I suggest them here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: References appear broken on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.238.251 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Table change
The valence table is incorrect. Cesium and francium do not have a valence of 3. It would then form compounds without complete outer shells. It is impossible. This is the same for krypton (does not have a valence of 4) and also radon and xenon (does not have a valence of 6). All alkali metals have a valence of 1. All noble gases are unreactive because they have a valence of 0. I don't know of any more corrections to think of. 64.246.250.120 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, you are incorrect. Only the gases till argon make inert shells. The others make greater fluorides under liquid air temperatures. It was for this widespread diseducation thas I was banned from Wikipedia for their own mistakes. -lysdexia 03:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.4.199 (talk)

