Talk:Hexafluorosilicic acid

message: :1) Although on some planets "Dihydrogen hexafluorosilicate" might be common, this name is rarely heard by chemists on earth. 
:2) Using the highly unreliable Google test:  Dihydrogen hexafluorosilicate returned 850 hits, and hexafluorosilicic acid gave 16000.
I therefore propose to move this article (while it is still young and stubby) to "hexafluorosilicic acid", where it will grow deeper roots. 
Complaints, comments, concerns, etc?--Smokefoot 01:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3) The same comment also applies to the recently modified Infobox:
| SystematicName = Dihydrogen hexafluorosilanediuide
| OtherNames = Dihydrogen perfluorosilanediuide
These two very unusual names are automatically generated by a  very rarely used computer program, and only appear on the websites of some small dealers selling chemicals and using this program to build their catalogs.
A Google search with "Dihydrogen hexafluorosilanediuide" only delivers 7 results, most pointing to: http://www.molport.com
http://www.molport.com/buy-chemicals/molecular-formula/F6H2Si
However, Sigma Aldrich, a much more known chemical supplier only use the name hexafluorosilicic acid:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/Lookup.do?N5=CAS+No.&N3=mode+matchpartialmax&N4=16961-83-4&D7=0&D10=&N25=0&N1=S_ID&ST=RS&F=PR
The mistake in the blind use of this computer program to generate so-called but false IUPAC names is to attempt to apply the systematic of carbon to inorganic substances. However, R- only refers to a hydrogen atom or to an organic group, not to an inorganic group such as the fluoride  anion. Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move to hexafluorosilicic acid

message: I'm removing the reference to "Virtually all chemicals used in artificial fluoridation schemes are waste by-products (fluorosilicates) derived from phosphoric acid production pollution scrubbers." From uses, it's not relevant to the use.
I would move it to the Production section, however there is another contradictory claim there and the source it is attributed to is "Self Published" at best, as far as i can see it shouldn't be included at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby 783 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your edits, I was the one (I think) that inserted the tangential "Virtually all chemicals ... scrubbers"  I was over-reacting to the self-published claim that recovery of a chemical from a mining operation somehow presents a special problem.  I just removed that EU petition citation because it lacks any sense of authority, IMHO. This article once was regularly edited by folks alarmed by water fluoridation and seeking to insert claims, data, as well as innuendos to advance their cause (that fluoridation is a bad idea or possibly a conspiracy).--Smokefoot (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses 

message: The new Category:Silanuides is inadequate and misleading and should be deleted. Moreover, it only contains 3 pages:
* Ammonium fluorosilicate
* Hexafluorosilicic acid
* Sodium fluorosilicate
Please, discuss this concern here:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Reorganization_of_Category:Silicon_compounds_cattree
Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh these categories are just crazy stuff implemented by PlasmaPhysics.  No one else seems to like PlasmaPhysics work, but it takes time to undo the damage and nutty categories.  Go ahead and delete the cat's as you have time.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for confirming this point of view. I do not like to undo the work of others. So, I spent some time to argument the issue for Plasmic Physics and to delete this category to protect our readers. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading new category: Category:Silanuides 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hexafluorosilicic acid. 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 https://web.archive.org/20121022152457/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/Fluorosilicates.pdf to http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/Fluorosilicates.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An anonymous editor recently attempted to add Grandjean and Landrigan's 2014 The Lancet commentary on neurotoxicants () in support of the assertion that municipal water fluoridation  could cause a "an accumulated [fluoride] overdose and create serious medical issues".  This statement is entirely unsupported by the linked commentary, which says nothing at all about municipal water fluoridation.
For reference, Grandjean and Landrigan base their own assessment of fluoride's potential neurotoxicity on Grandjean's 2012 paper (Choi et al.) which involved a meta-analysis of several mostly-small, mostly Chinese studies looking at areas with very high levels of naturally-occurring fluoride in their drinking water. In these studies, the control (that is, the so-called low-fluoride) groups often were drinking water with naturally-occurring fluoride concentrations similar to those seen in artificial water fluoridation.  The high-fluoride groups (in which potential neurotoxic effects were observed) were exposed to significantly higher fluoride concentrations.
These sources have already been discussed to death at the talk pages of water fluoridation and water fluoridation controversy; the latter paper is cited appropriately and in context at fluoride toxicity.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandjean and water fluoridation 

message: "Hexafluorosilicic acid has a distinctive sour taste and pungent smell."
Isn't it toxic? I've heard that very experienced chemists actually found out the taste of KCN but I'm pretty sure that HF is much more toxic than KCN so... --My Contributions Contact me -- GoyangCityBoy 04:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Where on earth did you read that hexafluorosilicic acid be especially toxic?  In solution is consists of the octahedral SiF62- ion, and such polyatomic anions tend to be relatively innocuous (think sulfate, perchlorate, hexafluorophate, etc).  The other point: HF is far less toxic than KCN.  You could eat grams of NaF and would get a tummy ache.  In some parts of the world, NaF is or at least was put into milk or bread for cavity protection.  Cyanide is a different critter because it binds so tightly to Fe in a variety of proteins that are involves with O2 processes.  If you can find a source (textbooks, review journal, technical reports) on these toxicities, editors here are always interested.  Thanks for the note. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question  

message: "Hexafluorosilicic acid is generally assumed to consist of oxonium ions charge balanced by hexafluorosilicate dianions as well as water."
No, water cannot charge-balance anything. Water is neutral.Eudialytos (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that H3O+ or something like that H5O2+, etc. is the countercation. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've tagged that for now. I wonder where this idea comes from. Why would water oxygen become positively charged (from O-2 to O2+, O4+, O6+) upon contact with ? To become positively charged it has to lose 2 electrons and additionally 2 to 4 electrons over it (take look at the oxygen electron orbitals). Please provide a source. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wwater oxygen is routinely protonated in all acidic aqueous solutions, in inverse proportion to pH.  Source: any high school or introductory chem text.  Your puzzlement is an opportunity to learn that the focus is not on oxygen losing electrons to become positively charged but to attract protons.  H3O+ is a close analogue of H3N (ammonia).  And ammonia also protonates to give ammonium, NH4+.  No electrons are added or removed, the positive charge comes from H+, an otherwise very rare ion.  I hope that this helps.  The orbital analysis is not needed. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  So there is no source? Hydrogen has only 1 electron and 1 proton. It can't add up more positive charges to the molecule as it has no valence electrons to bind with. Hydrogen cations are less electronegative than oxygen anion and can't rip electrons away like fluoride does in some molecules, see the latter's oxidation states. When I talked about orbitals I meant electronegativity and oxidation states. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi Alexander: you need to talk to someone else because your comments reveal a misunderstanding of basic chemistry.  Actually your comments are just stupid. I am sure you are well intentioned and smart in many ways, but you need to talk to someone who can explain hydrogen bonding, atoms vs ions, and stuff like that. No harm done, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:NPA. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Error