Talk:Hydron (chemistry)

message: Anyone know what the difference between this and a proton is, besides the fact that this spans to all isotopes of H? Thanks
-Matthias_01
:That's the only difference. --Itub 10:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: diff w/ proton

message: There exists some confusion of terms. Please, read talk:Hydronium#Requested move and post your comments. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hydroxonium]] vs [[Hydronium]] 

message: No. See . Protons hop from anion to anion in superacids via the Grotthuss mechanism, just as they do in water. This accounts for ionic conductance in liquid fluoroantimonic acid, without having to postulate H+ ions of the sort one finds in hydrogen plasmas. SBHarris 00:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, just put all these arguments to the article. There was nothing but crap in this article for years: any properties, no relevant internal links. The word "hydron" is unpopular, but "proton" and "hydronium" are popular terms, therefore people made edits there not here, one user even said: Hydron is obscure. Of course, as this article was ugly, editors restrained themself of linking it, they made links instead to proton (although which focuses, and should be focused, mostly to physical aspects) or even, incorrectly at all, to hydrogen ion (see a section above). I tried just to make this a (low-quality) but useful article. I am not interested in warring on naked protons/hydron. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naked protons? 

message: From yesterday's edit: "Any hydron would react with the nearest liquid molecule to form a more complicated cation. Examples are the hydronium ion in water-based acids, and HSbF6 in fluoroantimonic acid, the strongest superacid." This is confusing because hydronium is an example of a cation, but HSbF6 is a neutral formed by complexing H+ with an anion, as explained in the article on HSbF6. 
I suggest either (1) deleting HSbF6 and using two cation examples, perhaps H3O+ and NH4+, or (2) rewording to clarify the nature of HSbF6. Dirac66 (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fluoroantimonic acid is not a cation

message: The term "hydron" is recommended by IUPAC to be used instead of "proton" if no distinction is made between the isotopes proton, deuteron and triton, all found in naturally occurring undifferentiated isotope mixtures [citation needed]. Why is a citation needed for this sentence? The IUPAC recommendation is supported by the IUPAC Red Book cited further on, and the fact that all three isotopes occur in nature is supported by the articles on deuterium and tritium. Can we remove this tag which was added on 20 Nov 2011? Dirac66 (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Two editors agree here, so I'll be WP:BOLD and do it. SBHarris 01:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No citation needed for IUPAC recommendation, or for tritium in nature? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hydron (chemistry). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051212164525/http://www.iupac.org/publications/compendium/index.html to http://www.iupac.org/publications/compendium/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the commentary which a user inserted into the lede asserting without any reference or evidence that the proper term endorsed by IUPAC is considered "pedantic" and as such is "not used" by scientists, and that it is only used in this article at all "to be consistent with the article name", which doesn't make much sense. I also removed a sentence in the second paragraph which implied the initial assertion. If you're going to claim that a term endorsed by IUPAC is not used by scientists, much less refer to it as "pedantic" (especially in the article of the same name), you should really provide a reliable source. TricksterWolf (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a practicing chemist, but my understanding is that the commentary was substantially correct, in that "proton" ("protonated", "deprotonation", etc.) is the term used in the vast majority of the literature I've encountered. That said, you're absolutely correct that it needs a reliable source. I wasn't immediately able to find a good citation for the claim that "proton" remains in wide use despite the official IUPAC recommendation, though I'll note that the IUPAC Gold Book has several entries using the term "proton" with this meaning, some of which also have "hydron" in parentheses. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see this in the cited 1988 Recommendations (Bunnet et al.): "For example, the word proton is used not only for the 'H+ ion but commonly, and incorrectly, for H+ in natural abundance. In many contexts this creates no ambiguity and it is likely that this usage will continue.". Though strictly, we need a source that usage of "proton" actually did continue. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced commentary on "hydron" vs. "proton" removed.