 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010) |
Comments
editWe need a better figure, which shows more than 3 spectra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.128.218 (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
These articles should be merged asap. The proper spelling is "isosbetic point" someone who knows how to merge articles should do so immediately.
ISOSBESTIC is the correct spelling.--RobinStokes 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Done, I merged both articles and made some clean up.--Nevermore78 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, all Dears!, but we should think about, and that as soon as possible, to full rework the first part of this article (not the application), as the whole definition and a lot of the explanation is quite a similar mistake as almost all other articles on the NET, including IUPAC & SAS & Co's !!!
- Take a view at Isobestic Point Sorry: ARGOS++ 22:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have read in some very reliable and appreciated book (in Russian) that the term arised not actually from sbestos (extinguishable; the Gold book variant), but from sbestikos (extinguishing). There is also reference to: Thiel A., Dassler A., Wulfken, F. Fortschr. Chem., Physik und phys. Chem., 1924, Bd, 18, № 3. Could anybody check this source and/or express their opinion? Extinguishing here looks for me to be more appropriate than extinguishable.--81.198.35.190 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)