![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is chromium (II) acetate soluble in water at STP? -- VGF11 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an answer to -- VGF11:
In an open-to-air environment, chromium(II) will be oxidized to chromium(III). Therefore, you have to dissolve chromous(II) acetate under anaerobic conditions in oxygen-free water. Under the latter conditions, I know that chromous(II) acetate anhydrous gives a brown solution. Still, even under oxygen-free conditions, decomposition of the quadruple bond is observed to some extent. In time, the color of the solution is turning bright blue, the color of the hexaaqua monomer of Cr(II)... -- Shambra77 16:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I generated a fake structure for this molecule by getting the X-ray diffraction data for a similar compound from
Cotton, F.A. and Hillard, E.A. and Murillo, C.A. and Zhou, H.-C. (2000).
"After 155 Years, A Crystalline Chromium Carboxylate with a Supershort Cr-Cr Bond". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 122 (2): 416–417.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link),
with the relevant data at ACS Supporting Information, hacking together a molfile, and editing it in pymol. It's not strictly accurate: it looks to me as if the bond lengths from the Cr to the H2O are wrong, and for some reason the angles from the Chromium atoms to the acetates aren't 90° like in the X-ray diffraction drawing. I put my molfile in the image page, so if you can do better given the data, go for it!-- Slashme 22:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I just went to figure out what that would look like, and I see it's just been done! -- Slashme 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm missing the term 'chinese lantern'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.159.147 ( talk) 17:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
The below mentioned query is mainly for Smokefoot. I've recently added Beneš et al.'s reference for the preparation of the anhydrous derivative from chromocene. These scientists were the first to obtain the anhydrous derivative in a straightforward manner (not via sublimation etc.). I don't understand why my addition was stroke out by Smokefoot, as I merely added a reference to a currently existing text. Now my addition doesn't contain any subjective interpretations of their work ("advantageous" etc.). Would you care to explain? Thanks.-- Shambra77 16:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand and agree with the majority of your corrections. Since the synthesis of the anhydrous derivative from chromocene had previously been mentioned when I'd started editing this article, I just added a reference to the already-existing text. In my opinion, there are two options: Either Beneš et al. are given credit on their work (as Cotton, Peligot and van Niekerk received theirs) or the description of obtaining the anhydrous derivative from chromocene is struck out from Wikipedia (because of lack of reference). Thanks for lighting up my way in editing Wikipedia articles. I hope to do better (and check more thoroughly) next time. I certainly learned something new today! Another thing - I've just noticed an earlier message from you, bearing the title "Congratulations". I hope it was not treating my editing sarcastically - I truly try to make Wikipedia better and broaden people's knowledge through this medium. It's nice to have learned from you. In my opinion, if you were the chief editor of this article, you did a very fine job. Way to go, and have a nice day! -- Shambra77 ( talk) 17:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
As I've said before, I'm new at editing here; there's no need to respond so nastily, especially when I'm trying to learn, contribute, cooperate and treat you and the Editorial with respect. Let's act like adults and advance this article together. Do you agree with adding Beneš et al.'s reference? -- Shambra77 ( talk) 18:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.90.71 ( talk)
Could you provide me with general guidelines as how to expand this article? Do you desire specific details to appear in this text or do you think it is suffieciently informative? -- Shambra77 ( talk) 19:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Was wrong (6); changed to right (5). -- Shambra77 14:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I tried to create a better SMILES for this page. What I have so far does not work. Please help if you can. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Cr2+ 196.121.15.25 ( talk) 22:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The article features a great ball-and-stick model as well as a perspective drawing. Its iconic quadruple bond also gets an explanation which I find easy to follow - perhaps a drawing of the MO interaction would elevate it.
The talk page has proved to be very informative. It lists inexcusable behaviour, as well as a Wikipedian's reaction to the situation. They provided advice specific to editing Chemistry articles on Wiki which I find to be a good reference
Aromatic Thiol (
talk)
00:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)