Talk:Electrophoresis

message: (1) The images chosen for this article are fine choices in terms of content. However, the blue striped background makes the text unreadable.  Could some knowledgeable individual either alter the images to correct the problem, or find replacements (more likely)?
--SteelSoul (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Problems

message: Woah, someone changed this from a redirect.  I inserted a disambiguation page on gel electrophoresis a while back (Electrophoresis (disambiguation)).  I guess I'll have to move that here now and change the other pages to properly reflect these pages as they are now (linking them together).  I didn't know there were so many different electrophoresis pages.  This is just a reminder to myself to do it later.  Nathan J. Yoder 22:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's a good idea.  The electrical mobility article is a stub of undefined importance, and has few incoming links, whereas this article has been classified as high importance and has quite a few incoming links.  — DIV (128.250.204.118 05:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Pages?

message: This article needs a clear introduction. --smadge1 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard reading 

message: The wording of this term offends me. Can't we change this? 216.186.72.169 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrophoresis Retardation Force 

message: I think that this article is in focused only on electrophoresis of particles. There is nothing about ions, which I think is most common use nowadays (DNA, peptides etc.). In my opinion on "mathematical" part of article lacks elementary equations (e.g. Coulomb force). Most of those things was already in article but were removed during edit in 2007 . Maybe it would be good for this article to revert big part of it?Also is there any reason for placing 6 references for one quite simple sentence (first one in article)? I think that references should be placed for authentication (1-2 is enough) and ease of finding materials for further investigation (most important sources). What is purpose for placing there lots of materials about colloids and not about electrophoresis (especially book about ultrasound characterisation of colloids written by person who added this reference).
I rather don't want to do such serious edit without assuring that this will be useful so please let me know what you think. Marcinj (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting some parts of article to state from 2007? 

message: eg see review by Viovy in Rev Modern Physics, and Dorfman, Rev Modern Physics, Oct 2010 page 2903. I'm not sure, but I think the theory section is sort of half right; the most important point is that at steady state velocity = electric force/friction, and that calculating this can be easy (rigid spheres in aq salt) or really,really complex (long DNA molecules in agarose gels)Cinnamon colbert (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: needs attention from a specialist

message: I have some very basic questions:
* What determines the direction of electrophoresis, and under what conditions is it zero? Namely, does the electrophoresis effect vanish for neutral charged particles (i.e. zero total internal charge), or for surface-neutral particles (zero surface charge), or is it more complex than this? The article suggests that only surface charge matters but I doubt that somehow.
* Isn't the surface charge of the particle also modified by being placed into solution, for chemical reasons? I mean that its surface charge will be different in vacuum than in solution, no? The article seems to imply that it is just the fluid's reaction to the particle's presence.
* Can I just think about this as the motion of a particle + clinging fluid inside a frictional fluid, electrically driven according to the total charge of that particle + clinging fluid combination? If so, it might be a good idea to explain this quickly in the introduction.
* What is the actual "theory of Smoluchowski"? Only a formula is given and that is useless unless there is accompanying explanation about what sort of ideas and approximations Smoluchowski used when deriving the formula. (for contrast see Drude model)
--Nanite (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  too technical, strange reasoning, not enough explanation 

message: Cataphoresis redirects to this page, but it is only mentioned as a cation type of electrophoresis, nothing more.
The explanations of the molecular processes need to be simplified (if that is posssible), and the article needs better mention of cataphoresis, as that process is merely mentioned, whereas it's a common anticorrosion treatment for steel. I don't know enough about these processes to add the information myself.--Centrepull (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cataphoresis Now! 

message: Equinox ◑ 18:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ionophoresis" redirects here but is not defined or mentioned 

message: "Electrophoresis (from the Greek "ηλεκτροφόρηση" meaning "to bear electrons")": this is neogreek, not classical greek, which the discoverer most probably intended. In ancient (classical) greek it should be -ϕόρησις, instead of -φόρηση.--93.147.230.238 (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incipit