Talk:Colligative properties

message: By the naming conventions this article should probably be at Colligative property. If no objection, I'll do this. - Taxman Talk 16:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:They are always referred to in the plural. It would look silly to have 4 properties listed under "Colligative property". Scratchdawg 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor Martin Chaplin seems to have left Wikipedia. Both his user page and Talk page were deleted at his own request. Under these conditions I prefer not to add the suggested reference. If he returns, perhaps he can contact me on my own Talk and we can discuss this further. The suggested reference is on a personal site, and the article at present has no other references. I'd rather see a few normal textbooks cited  there before we consider self-published ones. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Material seems to have been added by ErkangZhu, reverted to 20:25, 19 April 2008, 24.187.39.87.--Iml (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

message: The descriptions here are totally incorrect, and a perpetuation of bad science taught at many colleges and universities.  Steric occlusion, or occlusion of any form whatsoever is NOT a proper description of colligative properties!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.79.245.70 (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the above comment to the end as it was made later than the others. Two years later the article still mentions steric occlusion (blocking) just to say that it is wrong. I agree that it is wrong but why even mention it? The general chemistry texts I have checked (Petrucci et al, Chang, Whitten and Davis) just give the qualitative kinetic argument which we now have based on rates of evaporation and condensation. And the physical chemistry texts give the (approximately) quantitative thermodynamic argument based on the chemical potential. So I have decided to delete (today) all reference to steric occlusion, and add (soon) a mention of the thermodynamic reasoning, though with less detail than the sources. Dirac66 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Steric occlusion

message: "Measurement of colligative properties ... can lead to accurate determinations of relative molar masses ..."  This needs to be given a good reference, because my understanding is (and I am not "skilled in the art") that the determinations are crude, no better than a few percent.  In the context of todays analytical capabilities, the claim that it is "accurate" is not correct.173.189.76.237 (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you are right. Accurate is only a qualitative word, and we need a source which gives a quantitative idea of the errors involved. This is not easy to find since these methods are not used very much today to measure molar mass, at least for substances which can be isolated. For now I will remove the word accurate. Dirac66 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I challenge this claim 

message: How is a "colligative property" not just a confusing term for ideal solution? How are these examples only dependent on the number of particles and not the chemical activity, i.e. the identity of the second component? I have always been confused why things like vapor pressure lowering are said to be colligative properties. Isn't this only true for liquids following Raoult's law? Colligative properties are unacceptably broad as described here. Am I missing something? Please clarify or correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.228.156 (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a sentence to the first paragraph to say that the independence of solute nature is exact only for ideal solutions, and approximate for dilute real solutions. Dirac66 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I also challenge this claim