Talk:Law of definite proportions

Untitled[edit]

From my understanding the mass of water is 32/33 from oxygen (2*16) and 1/33 from hydrogen? __________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.130.231 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

law of definite proportions means what ? can anyone understand what the product of iron and oxygen might contain 27% oxygen or 48%oxygen?

im a little lost

^{say what???}Small Text

__________________________________________________

The law of definite proportions is also attributted to Jeremias Benjamin Richter in 1792. Does anyone have a reference that would clarify this? Camarks 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

law of raciprocal propotion[edit]

law of raciprocal propotion states"when two element combines with constant weight of the thirds element then the ratio they do so will be same or simple multiple of ratio in which they combine with each other". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.195.164 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

law of multiple propotions[edit]

law of multiple propotions states"when two elements combines together to give two or more compounds then the weight of the one element combines with fixed weight of other bears a simple whole number ratio to one another".(By naran dumre,Nepal) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.195.164 (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

In the last paragraph, the "related early hypothesis" was not Proust's hypothesis, it was Prout's hypothesis. These are two different people. I made the correction but someone said is was not significant and reverted. I think a correction to an historical error is significant, no? Bganong (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right! My apologies. I did not read your edit correctly. William Prout did in fact propose the later hypothesis of the unit of mass of the hydrogen as the fundamental multiple of all atomic masses. I will correct the text so it is more clearly stated. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

… may violate the law due to isotopic variations[edit]

It would be reasonable to remark—before digressing to non-stoichiometric compounds—that the mass-based Proust’s formulation fails miserably wherever isotopic composition is non-uniform. Whether the substance is a simple molecule or a polymer is utterly irrelevant.

On the other hand, with the amount of substance (instead of mass) the law survives isotopic variability. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]