Talk:Dioxygen difluoride

message: I don't (currently) have access to this paper, but it describes a method for synthesis
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TGD-42G739X-2B&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1991&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fc2bcdf53c51fab6efc1b779477974cb (posted here because there's  a couple of citation needed comments in synthesis)
(I found this page from http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/ - perhaps a notable out-link )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.145.47 (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis of FOOF 

message: Several people have contributed edits taken directly from links that were posted here: .  Though humorous, they don't contribute and should probably be cleaned out.  The main ones are Derek Lowe's quotes calling it Satan's Kimchi, the every-man-for-himelf exotherm comment, and the claim that a company in Hangzhou manufactures O2F2.
116.231.75.214 (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Xkcd should be commended for prompting people to take an interest in chemistry. Articles on chemical do not need to be boring. This chemical has a lot of interest, and also terror, for chemists, and we should not censor this fact in an attempt to be "serious". Besides, it's not like a put in "Xkcd calls this chemical the most dangerous thing you can do with a pressure cooker." Ego White Tray (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While I became aware of this chemical through xkcd, I do believe some of the quoted material to be unfit for Wikipedia. Specifically Lowe’s comments "the kind of every-man-for-himself exotherm that you want to avoid at all cost" and ﻿"A. G. Streng, folks, absolutely takes the corrosive exploding cake, and I have to tip my asbestos-lined titanium hat to him." While I greatly enjoyed these comments, do no provide meaningful information.Stanislao Avogadro (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But do they need to? Since we can't coin great quotes about something (original research), our next best thing is to quote someone else that has. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  XKCD 

message: Edits are going back and forth about whether the 433kcal produced is for molecules or moles.
O2F2 has an atomic weight of ~70g/mol, while H2S is ~34g/mol. This gives us 314g/mol for the set of five. 314g/mol over Avogadro's constant is 5.21×10^-25 kg. Wolfram Alpha helpfully informs us that through E=mc^2, this corresponds to a maximum possible energy output of 292 GeV, or 1.12×10^-11 kcal -- much less than the promised 433kcal.
While it would be interesting if this material's reaction produced a billion times more energy that the complete annihilation of the very matter it's composed of, I think we'll have to conclude that the source blog post is confused (as dozens of commenters have pointed out).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:4401:B6B5:2FFF:FEB8:1481 (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone reverted your edit quoting Lowe as a source. I hope my inserting the reference back to Streng stops this from happening here again. Whenever the mole/molecule distinction gets confused, so do people. Same thing happened at the fermentation of acetate. Yours, Tomásdearg92 (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like I was mistaken for doing so. I'm not a chemist, I was just going by the source. Apologies. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry, I realise I may have sounded a bit harsh, so it's my turn to apologise. It is true that the sheer size of Avagadro's number escapes most people, but comparing a burning matchstick to an average star is a pretty close estimate. Yours, apologetically Tomásdearg92 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moles and molecules 

message: I'm restoring the original working that Fl2O2 can not exist at room temperature. The change to "extremely unstable" is based on a technicality that most of our readers will not understand.
*To most of our readers, unstable means that it's sitting there on the table and could blow up any second.
*Considering that it decomposes at -160C at a rate of 4% per day, it's safe to say that the chances of there being any left by the time the temperature reaches 20C is essentially 0. Yes, there is a chance, but it is so minuscule that it is actually more accurate to say there is no chance rather than a tiny chance.
*Finally, saying that this chemical is extremely unstable at room temperature is entirely meaningless in this case. After all, it's extremely unstable at any temperature.
Ego White Tray (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What about: "practically non-existant" instead, or "considered non-existant"? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with practically non-existent, I suppose, or perhaps essentially non-existent. Still, it's awkward wording for no real benefit. Those who are familiar with statistical chemistry know that non-existent means extremely unlikely (after all, you did), and everyone else is better served by viewing it as non-existent. What about changing "can not exist" to "does not exist"? Ego White Tray (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What about those are not familiar with statistical chemistry, Wikipedia is aimed, foremost, at the layman, and thereafter, at the chemist. I'm not entirely happy with "does not exist", but I suppose it is somewhat less exclusive than "cannot exist". Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can not exist vs extremely unstable 

message: The opening sentence cites a paper that isn't even about this topic: the paper is entitled "Ozone Fluoride or Trioxygen Difluoride, O3F2". Shouldn't that be removed and replaced with a reference to some other paper, like A.G. Streng's? APerson (talk!) 01:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch!  I redid much of the article to address your find and provide hopefully a more encyclopedic tone. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first source