Talk:Diffusion-controlled reaction

This article is rated Start-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.

The information in this article remains on a very vague level. It would be very nice to find a (mathematical) relation between the reaction rate constant and the diffusion coefficient of the reactants. 62.198.69.162 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 19:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the unit Msec suppost to be M^-1 s^-1 , as in per mole per second, as apposed to Megaseconds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.133.119 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Bueller 007:

On 29 January 2020 (just over a year), editor Bueller 007 deleted the section Applications in biology, with the comment that "this entire section is lifted from Diffusion limited enzyme, which is not only redundant and stupid but also a violation of the MoS." However I have just examined the Revision history of both articles, and actually the section was copied FROM this article (Diffusion-controlled reaction) TO the other article (Diffusion-limited enzyme) on 21 November 2013. The section then stayed in both articles until it was deleted from this article, so that the net result was that the section was moved from this article to the other.

This means that the reason for deleting this section was not really valid. It is true that we should not have identical sections in two separate articles, but some editors may wish to debate whether or not the other article should be merged back into this one. I do not yet have a strong opinion either way, but I am opening the question to invite comments from others. Dirac66 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The table in the section "viscosity dependence" is referenced to [3] Berg, Howard, C. Random Walks in Biology. pp. 145–148. My copy has less than 140 pages. Can someone provide the proper edition of the book used for this reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucell (talk • contribs) 07:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrxBrx 1. Please verify the above-mentioned reference which you added on 11 Feb 2021. I notice that the source code says <ref name ="NIST">, which many editors use as a code for publications of the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST). I am wondering if some NIST document was the intended reference for these numerical values instead of the book by Berg, perhaps because the ProveIt gadget used to add the reference did not work as intended.

2. The reason I want to verify this reference is that recently (29 April 2022) another editor made large changes to the values for water in the table saying only "Fixed error in calculation". I find that edit suspicious, but I would rather see the source of the data (Berg or NIST?) before reverting it. Perhaps you could check the source and revert the edit of April 29 if required. Dirac66 (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]