Jump to content

Talk:Quantum electrochemistry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • This article as written has virtually nothing about Quantum electrochemistry, what it is, why it should be separate from Electrochemistry, (all of chemistry is based on quantum mechanics). All this article is about is some historical highlights about some participants in the subjects development, including the article creator. Sort of an advertisement. All of these references and pointers to other works is fine and useful, but this article really needs some content. 21:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I completely agree, I feel someone should move this article into the Chemistry infact there are many seperate divisions of chemistry that have been seperated from the Chemistry article. I don't see why they should all be merged so that there is a large and powerful compiled article instead of many different scattered articles. I don't have the power to move things and I'm fairly new, otherwise I would have moved this article. Aznph8playa 22:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current text is almost entirely about the work of a single person (Dogonadze) and coworkers. I have flagged this so that people may take note and fill in the blanks regarding the work of others, e.g. Marcus. AcidFlask 17:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

inadequate article[edit]

I agree with the criticism - the English is poor, the article lacks clarity and objectivity. What would people think of marking it for cleanup?

Paulc1001 17:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC) A better treatment of the subject matter can be reorganised under the title of "Electron Transfer Reactions", of which electrochemistry is one example. Like all other chemistry, electron transfers has to comply with laws of quantum mechanics and there is no general discipline called quantum electrochemistry.[reply]

Yes, it is not at all clear what quantum electrochemistry would be. Electrochemistry with an emphasis in quantum mechanics? The title is somehow redundant, it's like call BCS theory, quantum BCS theory. That is, I am just emphasizing that "many" have applied quantum mechanics to chemistry, and thus electrochemistry, before the 1960's (see Linus Pauling). I don't mean to marginalize Revaz Dogonadze contributions or the breadth of his influence, but it seems that the angle this article is written from is a little misleading. To say he discovered the field seems a bit much, perhaps you could say he expanded the field? Perhaps some of this should be emphasized in the biographical entry for Dogonadze, and it first be clarified there what precisely he has offered which is somehow not already present in the field of chemistry. This may be that he was an important forerunner in promoting and explaining this particular marriage of electrochemistry and quantum mechanics in the international community, and perhaps that his particular viewpoint was unusually cogent and beautiful. Cypa 04:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with electron transfer[edit]

I'm for merging the two articles, though I think there is enough material to have them separate. Maybe merge them until someone comes alog who wants to spend the time doing it? Also, what is the neutrality tag on the article for at this point? I'm not sure what is being said that is non-neutral. Everything on the page at this point, except maybe the citations, is pretty general stuff. Cypa 18:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Dear friends, Heitler, London, Schroedinger, Planck, Pauling, Oppenheimer were not specialists in the field of Quantum Electrochemistry. The scientific school in this field was founded only in 1960s. Please, see the Revaz Dogonadze Memorial Issue of the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Interfacial Electrochemistry (J.Electroanal.Chem, vol. 204, 1986). With kind regards, Prof. Dr. Zurab D. Urushadze, 15 December 2005
Dr. Urushadze, thank you for the comments. Could someone choose one or two results of Dogonadze's which are unique to quantum elctrochemistry, explain them on the article page with equations and explanations, show how this was the first application of so and such, and then reference that? Cypa 03:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added important material about the role of Professor Revaz Dogonadze. With kind regards, Prof. Zurab D. Urushadze, 16 December 2005

Dr. Urushadze, thank you for the kind words about Dr. Dogonadze, but this page must be about quantum electrochemistry (QEC), not about the legacy of Dr. Dogonadze. See magnetohydrodynamics for an example (or BCS theory - note that neither page is very good, but both are far better than our page. For example, Hannes Alfvén is the celebrated initializer of MHD, but the page is about the science he created, not his legacy as a researcher. If it is appropriate to say that Dogonadze is the originator of QEC, then we can say that, and not much else needs to be said. This page is pressumably about a field of chemistry called quantum electrochemistry, and there is, as of yet, no electochemistry or quantum mechanics to speak of on this page. We cannot splice together a collection of quotes, some of which in grammatically incorrect English, that simply display that several people hold another in high regard, and say that shows he originated an entire field of science. If he originated a field of science, then let us show the things he originated, with interwiki links, and scientifically meaningful descriptions. Furthermore, this page is not about declaring the worth of QEC. It may be useless, it may be wonderful. Dogonadze may be brilliant, he may be average; there is a NPOV policy here at wikipedia that we must comply with, and so it is not the place of this article to declare how good, exciting, etc., this subject is. We are to discuss how it is used, has been used, and what its basic principles are. Perhaps we can include one sentence of abstracted (passive voice) praise -- ie., "Dogonadze is revered among some who study quantum electrochmisty, as being the father of the subject." From now on, please try to write entries to this page from a neutral perspective. Cypa 00:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The actual theory: A new attempt[edit]

I am not a quantum chemist. I am not an electrochemist. I am not the two combined. But - I tried a first swing at explaining what QE actually IS, instead of just celebrating Prof. Dogonadze. If it is really studied by "very many professional researchers", then it should be fairly easy to find (or produce) an outline of what the field actually involves... Jaeger5432 | Talk 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]