Talk:Physical chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Chemistry This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not received a rating yet on the importance scale.

[edit] Chemical physics vs. Physical chemistry

Chemical physics is a stub. Semantically, is there enough of a difference between that and physical chemistry to warrant separate articles? -- Christopherlin 03:06, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) (forgot to log in)

There is a small difference between physical chemistry and chemical physics but asking around no-one can explain it properly. Generally physical chemists (like myself) have a background in chemistry while chemical physists have a background in physics. I have read papers where the author has referenced both chem. phys. and phys. chem. journals. Afn

[edit] Random comment

I wanted to add a term to your glossary, since good encyclopedias include technical terms one might not find in ordinary dictionaries. The structure of your site does not make it obvious where to add the word "bristance". My father was trained in ordnance in WWII, and used "bristance" to describe the maximum pressure a given chemical reaction could generate. I haven't looked hard enough to find an alphabetical listing, nor any headings for chemical reactions or explosives or explosive materials. I guess I could not blame you if you wish to wait before fleshing out technical terms of a mostly military nature, but then, you might want to rethink your blanket recommendation that the work is to be done without bias or discrimination. I believe that some forms of non-racial discrimination are good. Indeed, "discriminating" used to carry a positive connotation. Anon

I believe the term is brisance.Tex 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willard Gibbs

I agree wih Sguzior that the Intro is not the place for Gibbs, but I don't think he should be the only one under a rubric called "Beginnings." I would put him in a paragraph of his own at the top of the '"Important physical chemists" section, which I have done. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)