Contents

Talk:Miscibility

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

fully miscible[edit]

Several pages reference the term, but the definition is not easily directed to on Wikipedia. 150.135.93.62 (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a dicdef? Should it be moved to Wikitionary? Krik 23:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be fine if there was more scientific description and more examples, going into detail. In other words: It's a stub. Gadriel 03:58, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Looks like it has expanded enough to make this obsolete.RJFJR 23:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of a mouth full:

Inaldehydes and ketones the hydrogen bond makes greatcheese can form with a lone pair of electrons on the carbonyl oxygen atom.

Can we find a simpler example? RJFJR 23:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from Miscibility?

--Scott 19:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. DMacks 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the actual noun that should be described here is "miscibility", since "miscible" is simply an adjective. You wouldn't have a page for "soluble", but a page for "solubility", right? -- Guitarmankev1^(TALK) 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that much of a high traffic page, so I'll just go ahead and do it. Hmm, there's already a wiki page Miscibility which redirects to here. So how do we do fix this? I don't know the policy. I'm pretty sure I read something saying not to copy+paste it. Millancad 05:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current Miscible was a result of a merger of the old Miscible and Miscibility pages. I stand by my comment at the time about he what to call the resulting merged page. I listed it to get others' input and eventual admin action. DMacks 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move. Reginmund 22:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:ADJECTIVE#Policy. — AjaxSmack 03:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) reads in part It is recommended that adjectives be redirected to nouns. Talk:Miscibility backs this up; Perhaps we could even close this discussion as an uncontroversial move request. Andrewa 09:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This article has been renamed from MiscibletoMiscibility as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 18:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to fully address temperature dependence of miscibility. Component fluids (e.g., oil and water) may become completely miscible at a high enough temperature called the "consolute point." The mixture exhibits interesting critical behavior at the consolute point. This is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcruise (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, this page is in Category:Chemical properties. However, to my knowledge, miscibility is a physical property. It appears that Category:Physical properties would not be appropriate. That being said, shouldn't the page be removed from the current category (and ideally, moved to a more appropriate one)? PaplooTheEwok (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a SME, but I wonder why butanone was the chosen example. Wouldn't Sodium Chloride be equally acceptable, since its the best known (chemically) solid material known to mankind? Bcwilmot 08:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quote from the abstract of 'Immiscibilty in Liquid Metal Systems', JMS, 1968, available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00550987 as PDF. Depending on the detail desired, the Mott # math (claimed correct immiscibilty prediction of 85%) from the abstract, or further details from the paper could be included to give a quick way to say "are these two metals immiscible?" which is 1st order useful to a person reading about immiscible metals.

The original Hildebrand formula was based on a solubility parameter, δ, and the atomic volume, V, and immiscibility was predicted between two liquids if 1/2(V A+V B) (δ A−δ B)2>2RT

Mott introduced a correction term in this expression to allow for the difference in electronegativity (χ A−χ B) between the two component elements and defined a Mott number,

12(VA+VB) (δA−δB)2−2RT23060 (χA+χB)2, where T is the melting point, in degrees absolute, of the more refractory metal. It was postulated that if the calculated Mott number for a given binary alloy system was greater than the number of bonds that could be formed, the two metals would be immiscible in the liquid state. In an earlier paper, the Mott number was compared with the lower Pauling valency of the two elements and when this is applied to 1401 known alloy systems, the overall agreement is 85% compared with 59.9% conforming to the simple Hildebrand rule.

172.56.4.181 (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be very little coordination between this topic and Solubility?