Talk:Reaction rate

message: When I found this page it was looking pretty ugly. I did my best to clean it up, but since I'm only in a general chemistry course I'm not quite sure about some of this stuff. I'm not so sure it's real, but I'm not so sure it isn't. See Talk:Reaction rate/April 1 cleanup for the material that I took out of the article. Since you probably know more about chemistry than me, it'd be delightful if you could make it pretty and put it back into the article. Thanks! --Alex S 22:26, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Apr 2004 

message: It seems that there are a few pages that already explain reaction rates in chemical reactions. This being one of them, another being the page called Reaction rate constant and the third being Rate laws. Both articles can be easily trimmed down and merged into this one. I do not have the understanding or ability to move so much information so I'd appreciate it if someone considered doing so. Aznph8playa 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Rate equation (chemistry). I say we merge all of them, agree?
*
===Merge from Reaction rate constant===
*agree - mastodon 01:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm attempting a draft of a merged article at: User:NHSavage/sandbox comments, edits, criticism welcome. It is a bit messy and it will need quite a lot of work yet.--NHSavage 09:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge complete. Please let me know what you think. --NHSavage 14:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic work, very well done :) looks like this article is going to get a lot more traffic now, not that it particually needs it much - mastodon 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I fail to see the problem but I have reverted anyway. Please also note that the first merge request was over 10 months ago. (30 May 2005). I also resent a being described as perpetrator when I was simply trying to work in the spirit of wikipedia. I leave this article to others. I would also appreciate an explanation of what should be in an encyclopedia article on reaction rates which is different from the content here which you say should be in wikibooks.--NHSavage 16:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For what its worth I'll leave the rejected draft at User:NHSavage/sandbox. --NHSavage 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found your merge pretty good and I have been thinking that it's a mess to have 3 o 4 different articles dealing with two basic concepts: reaction rate and rate equation, which have to be explained together, they are absolutley not independet. Having the info split and repeated in different places only make people confused. If any info is missing it can be added afterwards, i think is more important to have a nice and tidy article to place itKnights who say ni 01:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I suggest then that you re-revert this article and the others to my merge? Given that it is now a week since my original merge so I think that part of the original criticism no longer stands.--NHSavage 07:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it - mastodon 22:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then given the people egging me on I have re-reverted. I have missed out parts from the original three articles. There was a huge overlap and duplication so it was a real challenge to do the merge. If important concepts have been lost just add them to the newly merged article please. Thanks to Knights who say ni and mastodon for the edits which were done while the article was on my page.--NHSavage 16:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Move

message: *agree - mastodon 01:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Reaction rate constant]]

message: *agree - mastodon 01:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm attempting a draft of a merged article at: User:NHSavage/sandbox comments, edits, criticism welcome. It is a bit messy and it will need quite a lot of work yet.--NHSavage 09:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge complete. Please let me know what you think. --NHSavage 14:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic work, very well done :) looks like this article is going to get a lot more traffic now, not that it particually needs it much - mastodon 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I fail to see the problem but I have reverted anyway. Please also note that the first merge request was over 10 months ago. (30 May 2005). I also resent a being described as perpetrator when I was simply trying to work in the spirit of wikipedia. I leave this article to others. I would also appreciate an explanation of what should be in an encyclopedia article on reaction rates which is different from the content here which you say should be in wikibooks.--NHSavage 16:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For what its worth I'll leave the rejected draft at User:NHSavage/sandbox. --NHSavage 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found your merge pretty good and I have been thinking that it's a mess to have 3 o 4 different articles dealing with two basic concepts: reaction rate and rate equation, which have to be explained together, they are absolutley not independet. Having the info split and repeated in different places only make people confused. If any info is missing it can be added afterwards, i think is more important to have a nice and tidy article to place itKnights who say ni 01:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I suggest then that you re-revert this article and the others to my merge? Given that it is now a week since my original merge so I think that part of the original criticism no longer stands.--NHSavage 07:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it - mastodon 22:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then given the people egging me on I have re-reverted. I have missed out parts from the original three articles. There was a huge overlap and duplication so it was a real challenge to do the merge. If important concepts have been lost just add them to the newly merged article please. Thanks to Knights who say ni and mastodon for the edits which were done while the article was on my page.--NHSavage 16:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Rate law]]s

message: I think part of the merging problem is solved, now we have significantly different articles, which is, i understand, what we all were looking for (having almost the same content in 3 different articles was unacceptable): one for reaction rate which deals more with qualitative concepts and rate equation which deals with a bunch of possible rate equations, the problem is now to fix chemical kinetics, because part of the info on what affects the reaction rate is duplicated and maybe order (chemistry) could be tidied a bit. If you feel like improving anything or moving things please go ahead Knights who say ni 00:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need to merge IMHO 

message: User:TimVickers produced the following image which I nominated for deletion last week because it wasn't being used anywhere.  User:Deryck Chan was nice enough to look through my nominations at my request and thought that this one was worth saving, and might be useful on this article:
:
~ BigrTex 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: which is in use on Enzyme, so it's not clear to me if this would be useful here or not.
~ BigrTex 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for article 

message: "Concentration: Reaction rate increases with concentration, as described by the rate law and explained by collision theory. As reactant concentration increases, the frequency of collision increases and so does the fraction of collisions having sufficient energy to cause reaction."
Is this true? doesn't the fraction that react stay the same?
:True!!! I thought I had corrected that one!!!Knights who say ni 22:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: concentration

message: how do u make an equation on the microsoft word,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.72.141 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  how to ....... 

message: As a rule of thumb, reaction rates for many reactions double for every 10 degrees Celsius increase in temperature,[1] though the effect of temperature may be very much larger or smaller than this.
In another Wikipedia article, it states that this is a misconception and that the rough rule of thumb is only valid for biological reactions.
178.38.90.162 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is elsewhere? Which other Wikipedia article, please? Dirac66 (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Q10 (temperature coefficient) mentions deviations from the so-called "rule of thumb" in a biological context (but with a chemical background). Also, de:RGT-Regel states more broadly that the reaction rate increases two- to fourfold every 10 K. Even that is often qualified and restricted to "physiological (see discussion of the topic there). I'd rather not mention this "rule" at all, because its applicability depends on the value of the activation energy and the temperature being considered, such that Q10 increases with the former and decreases with the latter. --Schlosser67 (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now moved the "rule of thumb" to the Temperature dependence section as a shortened version. Dirac66 (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory claim elsewhere 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Reaction rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120420055947/http://itl.chem.ufl.edu:80/4411/2041/lec_k.html to http://itl.chem.ufl.edu/4411/2041/lec_k.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081201014313/http://monte.chem.ttu.edu:80/group/tutorial/br_sn2.html to http://monte.chem.ttu.edu/group/tutorial/br_sn2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 04:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Don't you think we have to include si unit and dimension in article? AryanpateI (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Si unit and dimension  

message: have to include types of reaction rate like average and instantaneous reaction rate. AryanpateI (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of reaction rate