Talk:Self-ionization of water

message: What are the kinetics of this reaction? -- The Anome 23:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Minor edit to nomenclature. 213.120.90.59 Contributions 07:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor

message: I thought it is more common to refer to this as autoionisation. As opposed to self-. Google hits are pretty close, and "self-" has the benefit of a hundred Wikipedia forks/copycats... -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "autoionis/zation" gets 200,000 hits while "self-ionis/zation" gets 16,000. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto? 

message: Do we actually omit it ... I thought it was still there since the activity of pure water we take as unit. Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.197.210 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, you are right, but taking the activity as 1 equates to the same result. -postglock 12:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omitting [H2O(l)]^2 

message: Since the maths equations TeX parser should give HTML for relatively simple equations, it could be easier (and cleaner) to just write the equations in TeX.  Any objections? -Matt 15:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None. EagleFalconn (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I just realized I answered a query from 1 year ago, not earlier today. Damn. EagleFalconn (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math-ize (LaTeX) the equations? 

message: One point that could be added is that the recombination H3O+ + OH- is the fastest known (bimolecular) reaction. I would add this and the value of k at 25oC,  but I don't have a source at hand, and also Petergans is in the middle of a major rewrite. Perhaps you know of a source for this statement. I think it was as first measured by Manfred Eigen in the 1950s. Dirac66 (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid recombination 

message: Shouldn't this article include some discussion on the true equilibrium dissociation constant which will include activity coefficients?  For pure water, I realize that the activity coefficient for the water is essentially 1 but the activity coefficients for H+ and OH- will be ever so slightly different than 1 due to ionic strength as given by Debye-Huckel's law.  I think it is OK to say all this is negligible in the end but seems like it should be explained from first principles instead of just jumping to the "apparent" dissociation constant  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stieltjes (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We do now have a graph of the variation of pKw with ionic strength, which is the most important consequence of the non-ideality and which is in fact not entirely negligible. I agree that it would be a good idea for someone to add a discussion which mentions activity coefficients and Debye-Huckel. Dirac66 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to explain activities? 

message: Using the definition of Kw = [H3O+][OH-] necessitates division by reference concentration squared before applying the common logarithm, i.e. pKw = -log10([H3O+][OH-]/c0^2), might look like nitpicking but in my view it is important to be correct with units.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjodah (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission of reference conentration in formula for pKw 

message: Shouldn't `1 Molar' be `1 molar'?
(I'm not a chemist so don't have the confidence to make the change).
D.Wardle (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct. I checked three general chemistry books which all use a small m, as does the Wikipedia article Molar concentration. I will make the change. Dirac66 (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't `1 Molar' be `1 molar'? 

message: Chemistry text are often written on a language, which talk about free , instead of hydronium ions. Most of the current text, except a single paragraph beginning with "At 24.87 °C", is written on the more precise hydronium language. Please make the whole text coherent AND explain the history behind the two ways of talking. Many people will be confused, otherwise.  
I am not a chemist, I do not know the second point either, so I prefer not to touch the text myself.
:Above edit added by editor Gezameszena 27 December 2021. I agree that the article needs an initial History section to clarify the relationship between  and . The two tend to be used interchangeably in many contexts which confuses many readers. Dirac66 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added the History section to explain why both  (Arrhenius) and  (Bronsted-Lowry) are used. It remains to make the whole text coherent concerning the notation for the cations. Dirac66 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the rest of the article mostly considers , so I have just added a sentence saying so. I think that is sufficient. Dirac66 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{H3O+}}, or {{H+}}?