Talk:Standard electrode potential (data page)

message: Can someone please explain to me why Li has a lower value than K (for example), but K is more electropositive? Thanks... -postglock 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to do with the solvation of the Li+ ion. Because Li+ binds water molecules so strongly, it is very favourable to create solvated lithium ions in aqueous solution and the electrode potential is very negative. Electronegativity does not consider solvation, as it concerns either molecules or ions in the gas phase (Pauling and Mulliken electronegativities respectively). Physchim62 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Li vs K

message: How could it be explained that metals with not too high electronegativity
such as Cobalt have high electrode potential (+1.82 V) while more electronegative 
elements such as sulfur (+0.14 V) and iodine (+0.53 V) have lower electrode potential?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.220.62 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Electrode potential vs. electronegativity?

message: The sortable table (which is new as of today) is great. The only difficulty is that it missorts the "≡ 0" line when you sort by potential. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is apparently a bug in sorting with negative numbers. Let us hope it will get fixed one day.  Cheers.  Stan J. Klimas (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It appears to be doing an alpha sort instead of a numeric sort. That's why it comes out like it does, '+' is before '-' in ASCII order. Hgrosser (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you! Seems to work really well. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sortable table

message: I think the equations should use  ⇌ instead of → .  After all, the data are for chemical equilibrium. Would anybody have a better typographic suggestion or other preferences?  Cheers.  Stan J. Klimas (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For my taste,  \rightleftarrows  and  −3.05  (as suggested by Hgrosser) look better than  ↔  and  -3.05.  Stan J. Klimas (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except it's not. Not necessarily, anyway. The voltages only hold if the reaction is traveling in the forward direction. The voltage given for Li+ +  e− ⇌ Li(s) only holds if the reaction is occurring in that order; from Li+ to Li. Unless I'm completely off my rocker, which is fairly possible. --70.18.11.87 (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  → or ⇌ 

message: For the standard state of metals in the metal-mercury amalgam, I found the following reference "Standard potentials of amalgam electrodes in aqueous solutions, temperature coefficients, and activity coefficients of metals in mercury", Pure and Applied Chemistry 57 (1) ,  169  - 179 (1985), http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/1985/pdf/5701x0169.pdf 
It appears to define the standard state in the mercury amalgam on the mole fraction scale, at infinite dilution.  Cheers.  Stan J. Klimas (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard state for amalgam solutions 

message: I don't understand why this should be the only sortable table in Wikipedia with an user's manual.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.197.108 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's sortable, so what? 

message: The potentials for hydrogen peroxide must be wrong (neither have citation).
Combined they are equivalent to the well-known oxygen-water half-cell, but the potentials don't add up, in particular the oxygen-peroxide potential should be NEGATIVE.
Does anyone have authoritative values?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbernat32 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen Peroxide potentials 

message: Missing potentials for calomel electrode, saturated (S.C.E.) and unsaturated KCl  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.77.140 (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calomel electrode 

message: I pulled out an old CRC handbook from 1970's to look up colors and crystal structures of
some inorganic compounds. I thought at the time it would be nice to have that in a csv file somewhere.
Are those available on wikipedia? I hadn't recalled anything called a data page before
but it has been a while. Data needs an API for machine access :)
The US National Library of Medicine has something called PubCompound along with pubmed
but I thought a simple CSV file would be nice and their DB did not seem as complete 
as my old CRC handbook ( at least for the compounds of immediate interest). 
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 12 February 2012‎
:This is Wikipedia, not a database. No, we don't have any reason for adding a CSV to this page. Timothy G. from CA (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  general question on data pages, downloadable as CSV and is there something like old CRC handbooks?  

message: Some templates are wrongly displayed on mobile version of Wikipedia. Could someone check this out, examples are +1.78 and +2.09. Regards. --164.40.231.91 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine here. Timothy G. from CA (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template problem on mobile view 

message: The Tin(IV) oxide to Tin(II) oxide reduction equation looks wrong to me. Here is the published equation: 
SnO2 + 4 H+ + 4 e- ->  SnO + 2H2O
The potential is -0,09V.
Can anyone review this entry please ?
Miloud90 (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  SnO2 reduction to SnO or Sn ? 

message: If:
 Cu + 2e -> Cu(s) with a potential of +0.337V
Then the potentials of:
 (1) Cu + e -> Cu
AND
 (2) Cu + e -> Cu(s)
Should add up to +0.337V, right?
According to this table, (1) is +0.159V and (2) is +0.520V which would add to +0.679.
Are two of these potentials reversed?
: The potentials are per electron so they should add up to twice 0.337 or 0.674. PAR (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cu{{sup|2+}} + 2e{{sup|-}} -> Cu(s)  and  Cu{{sup|+}} + e{{sup|-}} -> Cu(s)  Potentials Reversed? 

message: I have heard that Xenates(VIII) XeO6 4- have electrochemical potentials higher than that of fluorine. Is it so? Exe csrss (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenates 

message: The redirect SEPDP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  TartarTorte 18:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:SEPDP]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]