Talk:Hydroxide

message: why  did  (naoh) change  his  color when we   mixed  with  (hcl)?
:From what I remember
:NaOH + HCl --> NaCl + H2O
:where both the reactants and products are clear. If you also added [universal indicator] then NaOH would be a blue/purple colour, HCl a yellow/red colour and the products a green colour (if equal amounts of NaOH + HCl used). Hope this helps - Oatzy 21:08 GMT 04/10/05
A Hydroxide is not a ion... OH- is one --Helios89 10:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color change 

message: A physics professor and his assistant are working on liberating negatively charged hydroxyl ions, when all of a sudden,
  the assistant says, "Wait, Professor! What if the salicylic acids do not accept the hydroxyl ions?" And the professor
  responds, "That's no hydroxyl ion! That's my wife!"
I don't get it :-( --Slashdevslashtty 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke 

message: Hey, isn't the molar mass of OH- about 17 g/mol, not 19?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jschwart37 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  molar mass 

message: This article has to be completety reviewed. The correct chemical formula is HO- and not OH-. This a common mistake, yet, wikipedia should not have these mistakes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.24.66 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HO<sup>-</sup> not OH<sup>-</sup> 

message: Completely! Petergans (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article revised 

message: It is an ambiguous definition. There are several ions of hydrogen possessing sharply different properties. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How comes? There are anions and cations, of hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, water, and larger HO molecules, which have their different names. Surely, hydrogen ion is a jargon, as many other terms, but this way water is ambiguous too as it can be deuterated, etc. I agree that technically there was some ambiguity in "ion" actually meaning "cation" and tried to correct that in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you use such complication as hydrogen cation? Why not just hydrogen cation? Water (as H₂O) is not ambiguous – it forms almost the same isosceles triangle with approximately 104° angle whatever protium vs deuterium, 16O vs 17O, or solid vs liquid vs vapour. BTW I am in doubt that the ice have a significant dissociation, and that the water vapour has a dissociation so high as the liquid water has. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No specific reason, for hydrogen cation, hydrogen cation is also a redirect which normally should be hydrogen cation. Materialscientist (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

text: OK, if there are plenty of degreed chemists in en.WP, possessing a "true" knowledge about "hydrogen ions", then why this page hangs as something-not-really-an-article-nor-a-dab for several years? Why was it not redirected or merged with hydron (chemistry)? Why this latter contained nothing but a crap until very recently? Give some advices how to fix these dabs which are not dabs and articles which are not articles, and probably, there will be less future confusion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nothing to do with true knowledge. All chemistry textbooks and research papers refer to the hydrogen ion or proton or hydronium ion. The term hydron has not been accepted for general use by the chemistry community. BTW, what is a "dab"? Petergans (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Incnis Mrsi, please understand that we do not use the term "hydron" in chemistry, so please do not try to force this obscure term on this community.  We prefer to spend our editing on content, not nomenclature.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hydrogen ion]] 

message: What was wrong with these links removed by this edit? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dissociation (chemistry)]] and [[aqueous solution]] 

message: What was wrong with the text "can be protonated to form a water molecule" removed by this edit? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protonation of hydroxide 

message: C(OH)4 is hypothetical- the dissociation in water is therefore hypothetical- it can be envisaged- but a rewording and a reference are required.
Silicic acid cannot be  SiO2(OH)2, there is an ion  [SiO2(OH)2]2–, but that isn't quite the same thing. I think this is a misreading of the reference.Axiosaurus (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  C(OH)<sub>4</sub> and silicic acid SiO<sub>2</sub>(OH)<sub>2</sub> 

message: The article refers to the "self-ionization reaction:
H+ + OH−  H2O,"
... but shouldn't it be written the other way? As in:
H2O,  H+ + OH−
?
I'm not an expert in chemistry, so I don't want to make this change without consulting someone who knows better, but it seems to me like it should be written the second way for two reasons. First, I've always learned to write the equilibrium constant as the product of the concentrations of the "products" (i.e. molecules on the right side of the equation) divided by the product of the concentrations of the "reactants" (i.e. the molecules on the left side of the equation), substituting 1 for water or for solids, since there is always plenty of those. If we go by this rule, the equilibrium constant for the reaction as it is currently written would be  Kw = 1/([H+][OH−][H+]), rather than [H+][OH−][H+]. Secondly, this is referred to as a self-ionization reaction, and even though the reaction can proceed both ways, we usually think of the "forward" direction as being from left to right, and the "reverse" direction as being from right to left. If we're calling it a self-ionization reaction, shouldn't the "forward" direction be the direction in which water actually ionizes itself, rather than un-ionizing itself?
75.118.5.222 (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the self-ionization reaction be written in the other direction? 

message: "The hypothetical compound C(OH)4 (orthocarbonic acid or methanetetrol) is unstable in aqueous solution:"
Is it appropriate to use "is" when referring to a hypothetical compound? I would normally use "would be" in this context. The use of "is" implies, at least to me, that this instability has been observed, not merely predicted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbaarry (talk • contribs) 12:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical compounds 

message: This article has been badly hacked away from it's original state.  The article does not fit the lucid form of element or compound articles found elsewhere in Wikipedia.  Minor details of use are pasted into the summary and so on.  Details are unordered, definitions are partial, details and words are given before defined.  Absolutely detestable writing.
This article has been attacked.  It was not this way last time I looked at it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:51F0:60EC:E90F:276E:96EC (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: information attack

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bioxide. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bioxide listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]