Talk:Manganese dioxide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Manganese dioxide is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, 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. | ||
 |
This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry. | ||
| Core | This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance 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] Smell
What does it smell like? --HomfrogTell me a story! 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC) MnO2 is a rock, and most rocks dont have vapor pressures, so one cannot smell them.--Smokefoot 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs review
Even diamond has a vapor pressure, steel too.
Anyway, the "other oxides" section is not relevant. If someone could put up some stuff on the synthesis of MnO2 it would be better than the stuff on KMnO4. It smells like damp chalk btw. And it stains you fingers brown! Spgoo1 03:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unclear English
This article is hard to read due to poor English usage. Quoting one particularly incomprehensible section: "Forms of MnO2 useful as an oxidizing reagent is not a straightforwardly stoichiometric reagent, far from it. The method of reagent preparation, sample history, and solvents are serious considerations." I'd clean it up, but I have no idea what information those sentences are attempting to convey. 97.82.247.200 18:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the strange English. The section should be more comprehensible now.--Smokefoot 00:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move the article to Manganese dioxide?
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was Move, I suppose. Duja► 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
We had a related discussion on Talk:Osmium tetroxide, where it was decided to move the article from "osmium(VIII) oxide" to osmium tetroxide. I recommend that we move this article to what people call this stuff, the dioxide. TiO2 is named Titanium dioxide. Not sure that I have the administrative authority/power to make such a move. Please register your concerns if you have any on this move.--Smokefoot 00:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why. Manganese(IV) oxide is less ambiguous and more accurate, apart from being IUPAC recommended. What would be accomplished by moving it? Loom91 13:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- We moved Osmium(VIII) oxide to what everyone calls that stuff - Osmium tetraoxide. Otherwise these articles are hostage to orthodoxy vs the more common terminology. And the term manganese (IV) oxide is in a sense ambiguous because the stoichiometry is not explicit. Professional journals and monographs refer to this material as manganese dioxide, not manganese(IV) oxide. For an analogous case, please see the discussion at Talk:Osmium tetroxide. There was no discussion for titanium dioxide. Thanks, --Smokefoot 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- But what is the benefit of a move? The header contains both names and manganese dioxide redirects here. The current title is IUPAC preferred and doesn't seem to present any problems as a title since, except for one other line, the text of the article refers to the compound as "MnO2" which can be read however one wishes. — AjaxSmack 07:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- In response - what is the benefit of the primary name being more appropriate? This decision is not super important, but in the scheme of things, it seems that our priority would be to have the most useful and common name as the title and subsidiary names redirecting to that one name. One could have calcium(II) chloride as the master name and calcium chloride direct to it, so what's the problem with that? Nothing except that the hierarchy of the redirects makes a statement of prioritizing names - legacy naming vs the appropriate name, orthodoxy (IUPAC) and who got there first - or appropriateness. WE-chem has fairly consistently come down on not supporting IUPAC since the naming is unconventional and nonintuitiive, not to mention unused. But I sense that I am losing this argument. Oh well...--Smokefoot 13:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't opposing the move request, just seeking more information. I was surprised that Wikipedia does not have a more fixed policy on naming but that's probably OK. Without clear guidance, WP:COMMONNAME is a good enough reason for the move. After all, the redirect argument works both ways. — AjaxSmack 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- In response - what is the benefit of the primary name being more appropriate? This decision is not super important, but in the scheme of things, it seems that our priority would be to have the most useful and common name as the title and subsidiary names redirecting to that one name. One could have calcium(II) chloride as the master name and calcium chloride direct to it, so what's the problem with that? Nothing except that the hierarchy of the redirects makes a statement of prioritizing names - legacy naming vs the appropriate name, orthodoxy (IUPAC) and who got there first - or appropriateness. WE-chem has fairly consistently come down on not supporting IUPAC since the naming is unconventional and nonintuitiive, not to mention unused. But I sense that I am losing this argument. Oh well...--Smokefoot 13:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- But what is the benefit of a move? The header contains both names and manganese dioxide redirects here. The current title is IUPAC preferred and doesn't seem to present any problems as a title since, except for one other line, the text of the article refers to the compound as "MnO2" which can be read however one wishes. — AjaxSmack 07:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- We moved Osmium(VIII) oxide to what everyone calls that stuff - Osmium tetraoxide. Otherwise these articles are hostage to orthodoxy vs the more common terminology. And the term manganese (IV) oxide is in a sense ambiguous because the stoichiometry is not explicit. Professional journals and monographs refer to this material as manganese dioxide, not manganese(IV) oxide. For an analogous case, please see the discussion at Talk:Osmium tetroxide. There was no discussion for titanium dioxide. Thanks, --Smokefoot 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Electrical Conductor or insulator?
Is metal oxides are electrical conductors rather than insulators?--Tohyf (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NFPA Rating
OK, so I checked 3 different MSDS (Sigma Aldrich, J.T. Baker, Alfa Aesar). All differ in their NFPA rating: Sigma Aldrich: 0-0-0, J.T. Baker: 2-0-1 and Alfa Aesar: 2-0-2 Some confusion stems from the fact that some companies use a system that it very similar to NFPA. J.T. Baker calls theirs SAF-T-Data. In that system the rating is 3-0-3. But this is NOT the NFPA rating and should not be confused with it. I will change to 2-0-1.Xenofonos (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this is a fairly general problem, but probably exacerbated in this case by the fact the MnO2 can be anything from fairly dead (pyrolusite) to a pretty reactive oxidant. I'll raise this with User:Physchim62, who is trying to bring some semblance of order to our safety data (though I think he hates NFPA ratings for precisely this reason!). Walkerma (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed I do! Sometimes NFPA 704 values can be found on the International Chemical Safety Card, but in this case they haven't been included. Health=2 seems a bit high to me, I would have classified it as a 1-0-1-OX, but this just goes to show the problems with the system: who do we believe?! Physchim62 (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Indeed, Reactivity=0 would also be reasonable for most forms of manganese dioxide, although the fact that it is an oxidant does make it more dangerous in certain fire circumstances (NFPA 704 is specifically designed for firefighting hazards). Physchim62 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
