Talk:Debye–Hückel equation

Incorrect unit for A

The unit for A is said to be kg^1/2 * mol^-1/2 but a simple unit analysis will show that it is incompatible with the equation given (which yields m * mol^-1/2). The reference is for the 1998 book of Hamann and Hamnett which I do not own, however the second edition from 2007 does not give this equation explicitly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjodah (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deviations from Raoult's Law

Can someone provide information on how activity coefficients demonstrate either positive or negative deviations from Raoult's Law? 171.64.133.56 22:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

variables in Debye length

Hi 152.1.193.141, thanks for your edits in this article but what do the variables mean in the new section on Debye length? Could you include an explanation in the article? V8rik 20:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link for reorganization

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science ChrisChiasson 07:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the book I used that contains the English translation of the Debye papers on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/collected-papers-Peter-J-Debye/dp/B0007DSIIQ/ref=ed_oe_h/002-4411067-7189663?ie=UTF8&qid=1190011478&sr=8-4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisChiasson (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for others on wiki links

I have sometimes duplicated wiki links to other articles inside the theory section because I believe it is becoming large enough to warrant its own article and I don't want to have to go through to determine what links need to be made again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisChiasson (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a course

Hi all. I've seen the parts of the article, and it looks too much like an academic course. Brr, scary.46.193.167.226 (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC) BST[reply]

Debye-hückel limitting law equation

I have two questions concerning the expanded form of the debye-huckel limitting law. First of all, would it not be better to specify that "log" refers to the natural logarithm (ln) and not the base-10 logarithm. Also, the denominator used (8*pi*relativepermitivity*permitivityoffreespace*k_b*T) is itself an approximation. More formally, one would add the term (1+kapa*a_0), where kapa is the Debye screening length and a_o is the ionic-radius. Wouldn't it be better mention the fact that we approximate this term to equal unity? -- Billjoie (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Debye–Hückel equation/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I would suggest that the page be re-written to separate the contents of the historical paper from the derivation. An explanation of the Debye-Hueckel/Kirkwood charging process is missing, and that section of the derivation (the evaluation of integration constants) could be done more clearly, with a particular focus on the activity coefficient.

Also, the Debye-Hueckel model does not conform to a Helmholtz model of the double-layer, rather a Gouy-Chapman model. I will make that edit myself.

Dm215 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 13:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)