Talk:Van der Waals forces: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Paul Wormer
No edit summary
 
imported>Subpagination Bot
m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details))
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = Van der Waals force
|                cat1 = chemistry
|                cat2 = physics
|                cat3 =
|          cat_check =
|              status = 4
|        underlinked = yes
|            cleanup =
|                  by = --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 04:26, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
}}


{{WPimport}}
The WP article is 100% mine. Got Wiki comment that it should be sectioned. Good point.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 04:26, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
The WP article is 100% mine. Got Wiki comment that it should be sectioned. Good point.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 04:26, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Did the sectioning --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:26, 1 October 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 17:10, 15 November 2007

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Weak forces between (closed-shell) atoms and molecules. Attractive for long distances, repulsive for short distances. Sometimes used as synonym for the attractive London (dispersion) force (the only attractive force between noble gases). [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories chemistry and physics [Please add or review categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English
Fountain pen.jpg
NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
I worked on this article on Wikipedia, and intend to maintain and develop it on the Citizendium.
Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

The WP article is 100% mine. Got Wiki comment that it should be sectioned. Good point.--Paul Wormer 04:26, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Did the sectioning --Paul Wormer 09:26, 1 October 2007 (CDT)