Talk:Sulfate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Sulfate is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] SO4 disambiguation
Possibly add a disambiguation page for this, as currently it only directs to the National Identification Service.
[edit] Sulfate ion
I dont think it is true that two of the oxygen atoms in S04 are double bonded I think they are all single bonded with formal charges of -1 leaving the suphur with a formal charge of +2.
- you are wrong the sulfur is an exception along with many other gases from period 3 down. these gases form the same number of valence e-s as bonds. the d orbitals is where the octet rule is getting thrown out. Period has has no 3d orbitals but because it is so close in energy they can form bonds in those 3d orbitals. (Posted by anon 68.61.205.189)
Otherwise the sulphur ends up with a broken octet? six bonds to an atom? I know sulphur can do this but i don't believe this is one of the cases, SF6 is where sulphur bonds with flourine in a double cross in three dimension (octahedral molecular geometry)
Plus having two oxygens with double bonds would create a situation for resonance, this is not mentioned about the ion.
What gives?
- The article (as it was drafted) is the one that was wrong. The sulfate ion is perfectly tetrahedral in both solution and the solid state, there is no distinction between the oxygens. It is hence hypervalent: I shall leave discussion of the description of hypervalent bonding to that article, but the situation is the same as in sulfur hexafluoride. Physchim62 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Missing Citations
The ‘Main effects on climate’ section has had a citation missing tag for a while. I have been unable to find links to Pincus & Baker 1994 or Albrecht 1989. The information came from a diagram in Haywood et al 2001 and reproduced on page 5 of [ http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/OpenDay2006/DA_OpenDay2006.pdf]
Maybe someone with access to Haywood et al could do a better job of extracting the information.
Is a link to that pdf worth putting in the article? There is also a video [ http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/OpenDay2006/duncan_a.wmv] but that is 19MB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C-randles (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Sulfate?, No its sulphate!
How can people not spell things correctly, its sulphate not sulfate, i mean we dont call sulphur sulfur do we? i am doing a science course in college and in no book does i say sulfate, it says sulphate. try using Microsoft word, the spell checker says sulfate is wrong and sulphate is right, so why do people spell it wrong constantly? Can someone please atleast think about this.
Jaxx_77 (The closer to the blinding light you come, the darker the shadows that are bourne behind you...In the shadows I will lurk, for I will never be just a memory and in this world of darkness and light, I will be the darkness and you can be the light) 12:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Simply, because we follow IUPAC. Thanks for your consideration. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- What books are you reading? The spell checker even now on my browser says that sulphur is incorrect. LoyalSoldier 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- See Sulfur#Spelling --Spoon! 11:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
