Comments:Hydrated protons pair off

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


this article is inaccessible to the layperson, and of dubious importance. why is it posted as news? it should be in a journal -benjamin

This concerns an unusual discovery about things that are very fundamental - water and acid - so I don't think it's of dubious importance. It's news because this major development was only published yesterday. Yes, the article does assume some high school chemistry, but no more - it's impossible to understand any scientific discovery without that. All technical terms (except pH) can be clicked on for further explanation. The original journal article is cited, and here is a quote from it:
The Cl- anion was modeled as a negatively charged van der Waals sphere with its parameters taken from our previous study.40 Since the MS-EVB3 potential has Lennard-Jones interactions between hydronium hydrogens and the other ions, a Lennard-Jones potential is also added between the hydronium hydrogen and Cl-, such that HH-Cl- = 2.650 Å and HH-Cl- = 0.028 kcal/mol.
With no wikilinks! I think this news piece is nothing like a journal article! Walkerma - (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a couple more sentences that try to convey the basic news in a less technical way. I think I did jump into the heavy technical description a bit soon, so thanks for your feedback. I'd love to speculate on how this might affect things like w:Proton exchange membrane fuel cells, in order to show the value of such scientific work, but it would be mere speculation. Walkerma - (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NiceEdit

I commend some interesting news that's not politics (IE. International relations, governments, elections, etc.) (Not that those are illegitimate or something), it's pure science and interestingly explained (For someone who'se forgotten how do to molarity). 68.39.174.238 06:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Science affects our lives at least as much as politics, I think the public needs to hear the science news too. Walkerma - (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

yawnEdit

chemistry is still boring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.198.163 (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

ImageEdit

What was wrong with the image? Why was it deleted? It added to the news item. --Bduke - (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree! Apparently something about a 24 hour limit for major changes to a news story - but I explained that science doesn't work that way. Fortunately it's been restored. See this discussion. Cheers, Walkerma - (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

^__^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.235.37 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)