Talk:Van 't Hoff equation

message: ===Peer Review 1===
Mr.Holmium (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Fall 2013

message: Mr.Holmium (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 1

message: UMChemProfessor (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Comments

message: Thank you for taking the time to look over our site and offer suggestions. They were very helpful and we attempted to follow all of them. We re-sized our figures so they are easier to read without having to expand them. We also made sure we consistently used Keq in our text and figures. We removed the reference that couldn't be opened, as it was not really needed. We also added the citation that was need in our introduction section. In the section about the van't Hoff equation, we changed some of the wording to make it clearer which equations were which, and we repeated the linear form of the equation in our section about van't Hoff plots so it was clear which version was being used. We also tried to make the van't Hoff isotherm section easier to understand. We added a specific section on applications of the van't Hoff plot to separate the explanation from our examples. Finally, we added a specific example of a van't Hoff analysis to demonstrate the kinds of numbers that can be obtained from this type of analysis and to show a biochemical application of the van't Hoff plot. Sjsteiner77 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to reviewers

message: It should be  mentioned that van't Hoff equation was very important in the
non calorimetric determination of DHo and DSo from plots of ln K x (1/T)
adjusting a curve (most times approximated as a line when DHo ~ constant)
to empirical data of K at different temperatures.
Edgardo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.138.212 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empirical Importance 

message: Could I request a review of the linear form of the equation? I believe it should be (1/T1 - 1/T2), not the other way around.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.158.91 (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Late answer - that is why there is a minus sign in front of the right-hand-side. With the minus sign it is (1/T2 - 1/T1) as in the article; without the minus sign it would be (1/T1 - 1/T2) as you say. The two are equivalent and some books do it one way and some the other. Dirac66 (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Equation

message: In practice, the equation is experimentally approximate in that both enthalpy and entropy changes of a process (reaction) vary (each differently) with temperature.
It's still exact, right?  It's just that delta-H in the equation changes with temperature. AlphaHelical (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. The equation with ΔH as a function of T is exact and can be rigourously derived from the laws of thermodynamics. If ΔH is assumed constant, then the equation becomes approximate although it is easier to work with. These points could be made more clearly in the article. Dirac66 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have clarified this now. Dirac66 (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approximate??? 

message: I think it is time to stop deleting this alternate name, since several sources have been given in the recent scientific literature to show that it really is sometimes used. Even if (English-language) physical chemistry textbooks only mention van't Hoff.
Now it would be useful to know more about Vukancic and Vukovic. Who were they, what were their first names, where did they work? More important: when did they propose their equation and how did their version compare with that of van't Hoff? Perhaps we could think of adding a History section mentioning van't Hoff and also Vukancic and Vukovic. Dirac66 (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, and as was pointed out by a recent editor, this appears to have been a self-promoting piece of vandalism. As the editor mentioned, this equation has only been referred to this way in articles (and only articles in relatively obscure journals) published since the names were added to the page back in 2010. There are no older references, as I have confirmed preliminarily using Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=Vukancic+and+Vukovic&btnG=) and could easily confirm further through a library search if needed. In other words, a number of people who really should have known better appear to have been taken in by a Wikipedia-abetted hoax. KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's discuss. In order for this "new name" to be on the article, its history has to be established. It's not enough to put in hyperlinks to 2-3 articles where the name is used. Who are these people? Why should their names be attached to the equation? What field(s) or nations refer to the equation with this name? More context is needed, please bring it here instead of just adding it to the page over and over. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vukancic-Vukovic equation 

message: Normally, van is not capitalized (unless you're beginning a sentence). The Dutch article doesn't. Samer (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The correct way is "van 't Hoff". I think the entire page should be updated. Somerandomuser (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made corrections to the Wikipedia article. Somerandomuser (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the first appearance of "van't Hoff equation" (not counting the title) still capitalizes V.  Is it some kind of rule?--Runningwolf2 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  van 't Hoff or Van 't Hoff? 

message: --Runningwolf2 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does Ir mean in the equation in the green square? 

message: After scratching my head a bit, this section seems to be using a lot of words and maths to say that Propagation_of_uncertainty can be important. Would a short note to this effect be more useful than a detailed worked example? 
As an aside, I think it would be useful to reinstate something similar to the section deleted when this section was created, because the explanation of qualitative visual assessment of the plot is quite intuitive. Last version was here, I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_%27t_Hoff_equation&oldid=628067216#Temperature_dependence_of_the_equilibrium_constant     
Latrissium (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree with you. I'll turn my hand to that next. KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I edited the error propagation section; I think that it works better now. Will work on your other suggestions soon. KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The needs-references error propagation section