Jump to content

Talk:Oxygen: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Reverted Reply
→Plural: new section
 
(44 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{American English}}
{{article history
{{article history
|action1=GAN
|action1=GAN
Line 55: Line 56:
|otd10date=2021-08-01|otd10oldid=1036299124
|otd10date=2021-08-01|otd10oldid=1036299124
|otd11date=2023-08-01|otd11oldid=1168204867
|otd11date=2023-08-01|otd11oldid=1168204867
|otd12date=2024-08-01|otd12oldid=1237571941
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Science|class=FA}}
{{WikiProject Elements|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Elements|class=FA|importance=Top|vital=yes}}
{{WikiProject Materials|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Materials|class=FA|importance=Mid|vital=yes}}
{{WikiProject Biology}}

{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|importance=top|category=Natsci|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}}
}}
}}
{{American English}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 74: Line 73:
}}
}}
{{archives|age=365}}
{{archives|age=365}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Atomic theory#Earliest empirical evidence|atomic hypothesis]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Earliest empirical evidence) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/520000279|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Earliest empirical evidence","appear":{"revid":327059068,"parentid":326977759,"timestamp":"2009-11-21T04:47:53Z","removed_section_titles":["Birth"],"added_section_titles":["Earliest empirical evidence"]},"disappear":{"revid":520000279,"parentid":519974764,"timestamp":"2012-10-26T19:03:48Z","removed_section_titles":["Earliest empirical evidence"],"added_section_titles":["Early Development"]},"very_different":"26≥17","rename_to":"First evidence-based theory"} -->
}}

== "High-energy oxygen" theory ==

The claim, currently included in the lede, that

:[[Allotropes of oxygen#Dioxygen|Dioxygen]] provides most of the [[chemical energy]] released in [[combustion]] and aerobic [[cellular respiration]]

is part of a very wide campaign by a Wikipedia editor to insert references to his theory in many science articles (so if you're trying to research it on Wikipedia, you'll likely come across another page edited in the same way by the same person). This theory, which describes oxygen as a "high-energy" molecule, is pretty fringe-y, and culminates in such statements as

:the lower heating value is directly proportional to the amount of oxygen consumed in the combustion

which, of course, it isn't. Branched alkanes differ in their heating value (but not in the amount of oxygen consumed in their combustion) from the unbranched alkane they are based on. (See also [[ring strain]], [[aromaticity]], [[triple bond]]).

(It's well-known that for restricted classes of fuels, a rough approximation of the heating value can be obtained by considering only the elemental composition of the fuel, or even just the amount of oxygen required for its combustion. See [[Weir formula]] for a 1949 paper that's pretty clear about that.)

I strongly feel this theory should be removed from Wikipedia. It's non-notable, violates the scientific consensus, has been introduced by a single COI editor, and I believe (though others may feel differently) that it qualifies as both a fringe theory and pseudoscience. Asking whether it's the oxygen or the fuel which "provides" the chemical energy for a reaction is a question which, in standard chemistry, simply makes no sense. (It does make sense, of course, if you consider nuclear energies, but the results are then very different from the predictions of this theory).

I've brought this up in a number of places:
* the author's talk page at [[User talk:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr#Photosynthesis]]
* WP:FTN at [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Chemical energy and related articles]]
* my user page is where I currently keep notes: [[User:IpseCustos]]
* individual articles' talk pages. Unfortunately, there's quite a few.

I've also fixed a few pages, but was, of course, reverted.


== Oxygen-15 natural occurrence ==
My question is two-fold:
# If I'm wrong and it's actually perfectly good science and in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, could someone please tell me?
# If I'm right and Wikipedia has been widely damaged in an attempt to push pseudoscience, how do I fix it? Is an RfC the next step?


Shouldn't oxygen-15 be listed as "trace" rather than "synthetic" , since trace ammounts are produced naturally by lightning and in the sun. [[Special:Contributions/174.103.211.189|174.103.211.189]] ([[User talk:174.103.211.189|talk]]) 04:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
[[User:IpseCustos|IpseCustos]] ([[User talk:IpseCustos|talk]]) 18:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
::Up to his old tricks again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_188&oldid=1082426428#Carpet-bombing_of_articles_on_Thermodynamics_with_undeclared_self-citations]. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 22:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC).


== oxygen is not the most abundant element on earth. iron is ==
== RfC about oxygen providing energy ==


thought that should be changed [[Special:Contributions/2605:A601:AA0D:F900:9CA4:FB25:36E:D726|2605:A601:AA0D:F900:9CA4:FB25:36E:D726]] ([[User talk:2605:A601:AA0D:F900:9CA4:FB25:36E:D726|talk]]) 05:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 05:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1658120473}}
{{closed rfc top|result=While consensus was to remove the claim, it was removed for reasons of WP:COI}}
Should a statement be included that oxygen provides most of the chemical energy in combustion? [[User:IpseCustos|IpseCustos]] ([[User talk:IpseCustos|talk]]) 04:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' claims, unless they can be sourced to multiple RS independent of the editor. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 05:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC).
*'''Remove''' claims, in the absence of multiple, independent, reliable sources that unambiguously make the claim and indicate that it is important to do so. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 18:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' claim in the absence of reliable sources making the statement. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''Remove''', unless it can be demonstrated that reliable sources show this to be the ''current scientific consensus''. The ones currently used fall far short of that standard. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 06:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''Explain''' The view that oxygen provides "most of the chemical energy in combustion" is growing in acceptance. It is certainly vital in the [[fire triangle]]. However, the full story is complex. Oxygen is a [[Triplet oxygen|triplet diradical]], a rather unusual chemical species, that in part explains both why it can form ~20% of the atmosphere while (under some circumstances) reacting readily with other elements and compounds abundant in nature. A 2017 article [[DOI:10.1021/jacs.7b04232]] (open access) discusses this in detail and cites Schmidt-Rohr among many others. I think that the way forward for Wikipedia is to give more explanation, not rely on simplistic statements. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 13:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
*:That article presents Schmidt-Rohr's work as a non-standard perspective. That tends to suggest that the text currently in question, which includes [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oxygen&type=revision&diff=948329366&oldid=947308938 an addition] to the [[MOS:LEDE|lede]] as well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oxygen&type=revision&diff=698768494&oldid=698228068 the body] and is quite unambiguous, should still be removed. I'd rather not have a point that is ambiguous, up for debate, or in need of qualification in the introduction to the article on oxygen, of all things. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
* '''Remove''', is this oversimplifies an exceedingly complex interaction. --[[User:StellarNerd|StellarNerd]] ([[User talk:StellarNerd|talk]]) 20:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


:*'''Remove''' Reliable sources are needed to keep that claim. [[User:AnneDant87|AnneDant87]] ([[User talk:AnneDant87|talk]]) 17:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
:Oxygen is the most abundant specifically on Earth’s crust [[Special:Contributions/99.17.2.140|99.17.2.140]] ([[User talk:99.17.2.140|talk]]) 08:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. The claim has now been removed, from this and many other articles. I believe it is extremely unlikely that a consensus would form in favor of reintroducing the claim, so this RfC can be closed, IMHO. [[User:IpseCustos|IpseCustos]] ([[User talk:IpseCustos|talk]]) 17:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}


::Define abundance. By number fraction, i.e., actual number of atoms, oxygen is by far more abundant over the entire Earth. There is a greater mass fraction of iron but that's simply because it's heavier. However, as stated in the article, there is a greater abundance of oxygen by mass in the Earth's crust and biosphere. <small>'''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]]''''' ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])</small> 13:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
== "High-energy oxygen": I'm sorry this discussion is a mess ==


== Lavoisier's contribution, "Sur la combustion en général", mentions neither "vital air" or "azote" ==
The discussion concerning "high-energy oxygen" is a mess. That's my fault, and I'm sorry and will try to do better in future, choosing a single central venue for discussion when possible.


I've been doing some basic research into the etymology behind Oxygen, and found that Lavoisier's contribution states that:
* Most of it is on [[WP:FTN]] at [[WP:FTN#Chemical energy and related articles]].
* Some of it is on [[User talk:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr]] and [[User talk:IpseCustos]].
* Some of it is on [[Talk:Photosynthesis]].
* Some of it is on this page, [[Talk:Oxygen]].
* There's a plea for help on [[Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Chemistry]].


::''This and other experiments on combustion were documented in his book Sur la combustion en général, which was published in 1777. In that work, he proved that air is a mixture of two gases; 'vital air', which is essential to combustion and respiration, and azote (Gk. ἄζωτον "lifeless"), which did not support either.''
Since so many articles are involved (57 articles assigning the chemical energy of oxidation to the oxygen molecule), I might have missed some.


However when actually reading "Sur la combustion en général", neither "vital air" nor "azote" are ever mentioned:
Again, I'm sorry, I realize this is making life harder for other editors who just want to get an overview. If there's anything I can do to actually improve the situation, rather than adding more and more posts to various discussion forums, please let me know?


[https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Franklin/Franklin_pdf/Mem1777_p592.pdf]https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Franklin/Franklin_pdf/Mem1777_p592.pdf
[[User:IpseCustos|IpseCustos]] ([[User talk:IpseCustos|talk]]) 09:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


The closest he came to defining either (as far as I could find) is the line:
:I am a published expert in chemical energy and bioenergetics, the field under dispute here, and have credentials as a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Everything I have written on this topic builds quantitatively on chemical textbook principles of the relations between bond strengths, chemical energy, and heat or free energy release. According to these textbook principles, conversion of relatively weak electron-pair bonds, as found for instance in O<sub>2</sub>, to stronger bonds releases energy, which means that relatively weak bonds store chemical energy. I have not deleted other editors’ content in any major or disruptive manner but rather ''added'' fairly brief technical statements prompted by the context (and have also made numerous unrelated advanced technical edits in articles within my expertise, e.g. on formal and applied thermodynamics, chemical equilibrium, kinetics, acids/bases, mass in special relativity, NMR spectroscopy, electrochemistry, statistical mechanics, materials, solubility, etc.).
:
:My (and a few colleagues') careful and quantitative thermodynamic analyses have elucidated notable but previously unexplained facts of chemical energy and bioenergetics, and have been published in detailed and accessible peer-reviewed articles by reputable publishers such as the American Chemical Society. <ref name="Weiss2008">{{cite journal | last1 = Weiss | first1 = H. M. | year = 2008 | title = Appreciating Oxygen | journal = J. Chem. Educ. | volume = 85 | issue = 9 | url = https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231267944 | pages = 1218–19 | doi = 10.1021/ed085p1218 | bibcode = 2008JChEd..85.1218W | access-date = March 13, 2017 | archive-date = October 18, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201018083423/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231267944_Appreciating_Oxygen | url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="Schmidt-Rohr 15"> Schmidt-Rohr, K. (2015). "Why Combustions Are Always Exothermic, Yielding About 418 kJ per Mole of O{{sub|2}}", ''J. Chem. Educ.'' '''92''': 2094-2099. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00333. </ref><ref name="Merckel2019"> Merckel, R. D.; Labuschagne, F. J. W. J.; Heydenrych, M. D.(2019). "Oxygen consumption as the definitive factor in predicting heat of combustion", ''Appl. Energy'' '''235''': 1041-1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.111</ref><ref name="Schmidt-Rohr 20"> Schmidt-Rohr, K. (2020). "Oxygen Is the High-Energy Molecule Powering Complex Multicellular Life: Fundamental Corrections to Traditional Bioenergetics". ''ACS Omega'' '''5''': 2221-2233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b03352. </ref>
:
:Examples of questions answered include:
:
:- Why is combustion or aerobic respiration of organic molecules always exothermic, and why is the heat of combustion of an organic fuel in a fire (LHV) directly proportional to the amount of O<sub>2</sub> consumed?
:- Why do carbohydrates have less than half the heat of combustion, per gram, of fat?
:- Why does fermentation of glucose produce only 2 ATP, while respiration of glucose + 6 O<sub>2</sub> produces 30 ATP? (Attributing this difference to incomplete decomposition of glucose in fermentation is invalid, because splitting glucose up all the way into 3 CO<sub>2</sub> + 3 CH<sub>4</sub> releases only 15% of the energy of glucose combustion with 6 O<sub>2</sub>, and complete decomposition of glucose into 6 formaldehyde molecules would release no energy at all.)
:- How is nearly half of the energy of aerobic respiration released by the reaction of O<sub>2</sub> at Complex IV of the inner mitochondrial membrane without any bonds of an organic molecule being broken?
:- Why do plants need two photosystems in tandem?
:- What is the source of the energy of the photons (~200 kJ/mol) emitted, for instance by fireflies, in bioluminescence, and why O<sub>2</sub> the only indispensable reactant in bioluminescence?
:- Why was life energetically limited before the widespread availability of atmospheric oxygen?
:
:My brief explanations answering these questions in relevant Wikipedia articles have led to friction with editors who for some reason seem uninterested in providing explanations of such notable facts (even after repeated prompting, they have not shared sources showing alternative valid explanations of the notable science questions listed) and accepting their conceptual consequences.
:
:In any case, as soon as I understood the viewpoints and expectations of other editors, I started to work on consensus phrasing that took these concerns into account where possible. Specifically, we have consensus that in general terms combustion and aerobic respiration “releases the chemical energy of fuels/nutrient molecules and oxygen”, and I have accordingly revised the contested phrasing in a significant fraction of the articles in question. '''Can we build on that consensus?''' In a few other cases, I have documented every important statement with a reliable secondary source (textbook with specific page number or official standard) and thus fully met Wikipedia requirements.
:
:In the course of this discussion, individual editors have opined that incorrect statements are fine on Wikipedia or that experts should not edit in their area of expertise; notable scientific facts backed by reliable secondary sources (textbooks) have been deleted. This is rather disappointing. I hope that the community of science editors on Wikipedia more broadly will carefully examine the veracity and notability of the specific disputed statements and their contexts, in the cases where consensus has not yet been reached. [[User:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr|Klaus Schmidt-Rohr]] ([[User talk:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr|talk]]) 16:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
::There is no such consensus. The word "together", in the phrase I agreed might be an acceptable compromise under certain conditions, is crucial. [[User:IpseCustos|IpseCustos]] ([[User talk:IpseCustos|talk]]) 17:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
:::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_188&oldid=1082426428#Carpet-bombing_of_articles_on_Thermodynamics_with_undeclared_self-citations]. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 22:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC).


::''Ainsi, pour résumer, l’air est composé, suivant moi, de la matière du feu comme dissolvant, combinée avec une substance qui lui sert de base et en quelque façon qui la neutralise''
{{talkref}}


In English:
== Adding table of thermal and physical properties ==


::''Thus, to summarize, air is composed, according to me, of the matter of fire as a solvent, combined with a substance which serves as its base and in some way which neutralizes it.''
I have a couple of tables from my heat transfer textbooks that would probably be helpful, especially for engineers and scientists. It's a table of properties versus temperature at atmospheric pressure. (Note: for some reason it isn't pasting as a table here, but when editing an actual page usually it does, the practice page I just pasted it to worked...)


The wikipedia text that claims he called these "vital air" and "azote" stems from reference [18]: "The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements." [https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch00hamp/page/500/mode/2up]https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch00hamp/page/500/mode/2up
Table of thermal and physical properties of saturated liquid O2:
Temperature (K) Density (kg/m^3) Specific heat (kJ/kg °C) Dynamic viscosity (kg/m s) Kinematic viscosity (m^2/s) Thermal conductivity (W/m °C) Thermal diffusivity (m^2/s) Prandtl Number
100 3.945 0.962 7.64E-06 1.94E-06 0.00925 2.44E-06 0.796
150 2.585 0.921 1.15E-05 4.44E-06 0.0138 5.80E-06 0.766
2.00E+02 1.93 0.915 1.48E-05 7.64E-06 0.0183 1.04E-05 0.737
250 1.542 0.915 1.79E-05 1.16E-05 0.0226 1.60E-05 0.723
300 1.284 0.92 2.07E-05 1.61E-05 0.0268 2.27E-05 0.711
350 1.1 0.929 2.34E-05 2.12E-05 0.0296 2.90E-05 0.733
400 0.962 0.942 2.58E-05 2.68E-05 0.033 3.64E-05 0.737
450 0.8554 0.956 2.81E-05 3.29E-05 0.0363 4.44E-05 0.741
500 0.7698 0.972 3.03E-05 3.94E-05 0.0412 5.51E-05 0.716
550 0.6998 0.988 3.24E-05 4.63E-05 0.0441 6.38E-05 0.726
600 0.6414 1.003 3.44E-05 5.36E-05 0.0473 7.35E-05 0.729 Holman, Jack P. (2002). Heat Transfer (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. pp. 600–606. ISBN 9780072406559.
Incropera 1 Dewitt 2 Bergman 3 Lavigne 4, Frank P. 1 David P. 2 Theodore L. 3 Adrienne S. 4 (2007). Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 941–950. ISBN 9780471457282.
700 0.5498 1.031 3.81E-05 6.93E-05 0.0528 9.31E-05 0.744
800 0.481 1.054 4.15E-05 8.63E-05 0.0589 1.16E-04 0.743
9.00E+02 0.4275 1.074 4.47E-05 1.05E-04 0.0649 1.41E-04 0.74
1.00E+03 0.3848 1.09 4.77E-05 1.24E-04 0.071 1.69E-04 0.733
1.10E+03 0.3498 1.103 5.06E-05 1.45E-04 0.0758 1.96E-04 0.736
1.20E+03 0.3206 1.115 5.33E-05 1.66E-04 0.0819 2.29E-04 0.725
1.30E+03 0.296 1.125 5.88E-05 1.99E-04 0.0871 2.62E-04 0.721 [[User:Jlefevre76|Jlefevre76]] ([[User talk:Jlefevre76|talk]]) 03:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:It failed to paste properly because double spaces and single line breaks are automatically ignored in normal text. Also, [[WP:IINFO|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics]], and you did not provide complete source details. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 06:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::.74 1,00Е+03 0,3848 1,09 4 [[Special:Contributions/128.0.81.225|128.0.81.225]] ([[User talk:128.0.81.225|talk]]) 09:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to include my sources, or maybe they just didn't paste as expected.
Holman, Jack P. (2002). Heat Transfer (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. pp. 600–606. ISBN 9780072406559.
Incropera 1 Dewitt 2 Bergman 3 Lavigne 4, Frank P. 1 David P. 2 Theodore L. 3 Adrienne S. 4 (2007). Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 941–950. ISBN 9780471457282.


::''In 1777 he published his work on combustion under the title "Sur la combustion en general." Lavoisier showed that air is essentially a mixture of two gases, which he called "vital air" and "azote."''
== Symbol O ==


I don't disbelieve that Lavoisier started calling the two components of air "vital air" and "azote" at some point after his discovery, and the etymology of Oxygen aligns well with him mentioning that a lot of combustions produce acid later in the paper.
I was taught O is a letter not a symbol. [[Special:Contributions/2601:881:202:2980:5D1A:9254:4721:BFFD|2601:881:202:2980:5D1A:9254:4721:BFFD]] ([[User talk:2601:881:202:2980:5D1A:9254:4721:BFFD|talk]]) 15:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


...But I'm not sure where Clifford A. Hampel, from ''"The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements,"'' found the terms "vital air" and "azote". From what I can gather, it can't be found in ''"Sur la combustion en général"''.
:In this context, the term "symbol" refers to [[chemical symbol]]. O is the chemical symbol for oxygen. [[User talk:Praseodymium-141|<sup>141</sup>]][[User:Praseodymium-141|Pr]] 17:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


Now this is all hyper-nitpicky for sure, and maybe I've overlooked a very important line in Lavoisier's paper and I'm all wrong here, but when I came upon this discrepancy I figured it might be worth pointing out. :-) [[User:Fiets38|Fiets38]] ([[User talk:Fiets38|talk]]) 23:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
== Breathing ==


== “Dark Oxygen” found deep underwater ==
I could find nothing in this article about oxygen being the reason we breath, and it being the element that combines with food to produce the energy to keep us alive. Am I wrong? Did I over look it? A huge number of readers will not know this, and this is the most important feature of oxygen from our point of view. So I added it to the introduction, which should always contain the information that readers will find the most important. [[User:Nwbeeson|Nick Beeson]] ([[User talk:Nwbeeson|talk]]) 23:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/22/dark-oxygen-in-depths-of-pacific-ocean-could-force-rethink-about-origins-of-life] “ Charged metallic lumps found to produce oxygen in total darkness in process akin to how plants use photosynthesis” [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:It is covered in [[Oxygen#Photosynthesis_and_respiration]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 03:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


== Image ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023 ==


Why does the image keep changing from gaseous to liquid O2 [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:D03:89D4:9DA3:31CD:BFE5:1E18|2603:8080:D03:89D4:9DA3:31CD:BFE5:1E18]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:D03:89D4:9DA3:31CD:BFE5:1E18|talk]]) 00:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Oxygen|answered=yes}}
The sentence "The body's circulatory system transports the oxygen the cells, where cellular respiration takes place." is missing the word "to". It should read "The body's circulatory system transports the oxygen TO the cells, where cellular respiration takes place." [[User:ChiCub08|ChiCub08]] ([[User talk:ChiCub08|talk]]) 21:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Cannolis|Cannolis]] ([[User talk:Cannolis|talk]]) 21:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


== Plural ==
Это страница обсуждения. Пожалуйста, соблюдайте правила страницы обсуждения.


H, C and O, if referring to [[hydrogen]], [[carbon]], and [[oxygen]]; should be [[plural]]ized as H's, C's, and O's (with [[apostrophe]]s); as opposed to Hs, Cs, and Os (no apostrophes); to avoid confusion with Hs = [[hassium]], Cs = [[cesium]], and Os = [[osmium]]. The fact that hassium is an unstable, artificial element which has never been procured in macroscopic amounts, doesn't mean that clarity isn't compromised by the absence of said apostrophe. I remember, a chemistry book which was available online for free as a [[PDF]], did said plurals without an apostrophe; which annoyed me. [[User:Solomonfromfinland|Solomonfromfinland]] ([[User talk:Solomonfromfinland|talk]]) 03:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Вы не вошли в систему. Ваш IP-адрес будет общедоступным, если вы внесете какие-либо изменения. Если вы войдете в систему или создадите учетную запись, ваши правки будут связаны с именем пользователя, среди других преимуществ.
Контент, нарушающий какие-либо авторские права, будет удален. Энциклопедический контент должен быть проверяемым с помощью ссылок на надежные источники.
Продвинутый
Специальные символы
Спр

Latest revision as of 03:04, 31 December 2024

Featured articleOxygen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 14, 2008, and on September 5, 2017.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 6, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 20, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 28, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 6, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 1, 2004, August 1, 2005, August 1, 2006, August 1, 2007, August 1, 2008, August 1, 2009, August 1, 2010, August 1, 2012, August 1, 2014, August 1, 2021, August 1, 2023, and August 1, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Oxygen-15 natural occurrence

[edit]

Shouldn't oxygen-15 be listed as "trace" rather than "synthetic" , since trace ammounts are produced naturally by lightning and in the sun. 174.103.211.189 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oxygen is not the most abundant element on earth. iron is

[edit]

thought that should be changed 2605:A601:AA0D:F900:9CA4:FB25:36E:D726 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen is the most abundant specifically on Earth’s crust 99.17.2.140 (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Define abundance. By number fraction, i.e., actual number of atoms, oxygen is by far more abundant over the entire Earth. There is a greater mass fraction of iron but that's simply because it's heavier. However, as stated in the article, there is a greater abundance of oxygen by mass in the Earth's crust and biosphere. Polyamorph (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lavoisier's contribution, "Sur la combustion en général", mentions neither "vital air" or "azote"

[edit]

I've been doing some basic research into the etymology behind Oxygen, and found that Lavoisier's contribution states that:

This and other experiments on combustion were documented in his book Sur la combustion en général, which was published in 1777. In that work, he proved that air is a mixture of two gases; 'vital air', which is essential to combustion and respiration, and azote (Gk. ἄζωτον "lifeless"), which did not support either.

However when actually reading "Sur la combustion en général", neither "vital air" nor "azote" are ever mentioned:

[1]https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Franklin/Franklin_pdf/Mem1777_p592.pdf

The closest he came to defining either (as far as I could find) is the line:

Ainsi, pour résumer, l’air est composé, suivant moi, de la matière du feu comme dissolvant, combinée avec une substance qui lui sert de base et en quelque façon qui la neutralise

In English:

Thus, to summarize, air is composed, according to me, of the matter of fire as a solvent, combined with a substance which serves as its base and in some way which neutralizes it.

The wikipedia text that claims he called these "vital air" and "azote" stems from reference [18]: "The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements." [2]https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch00hamp/page/500/mode/2up

In 1777 he published his work on combustion under the title "Sur la combustion en general." Lavoisier showed that air is essentially a mixture of two gases, which he called "vital air" and "azote."

I don't disbelieve that Lavoisier started calling the two components of air "vital air" and "azote" at some point after his discovery, and the etymology of Oxygen aligns well with him mentioning that a lot of combustions produce acid later in the paper.

...But I'm not sure where Clifford A. Hampel, from "The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements," found the terms "vital air" and "azote". From what I can gather, it can't be found in "Sur la combustion en général".

Now this is all hyper-nitpicky for sure, and maybe I've overlooked a very important line in Lavoisier's paper and I'm all wrong here, but when I came upon this discrepancy I figured it might be worth pointing out. :-) Fiets38 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Dark Oxygen” found deep underwater

[edit]

[3] “ Charged metallic lumps found to produce oxygen in total darkness in process akin to how plants use photosynthesis” Doug Weller talk 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Why does the image keep changing from gaseous to liquid O2 2603:8080:D03:89D4:9DA3:31CD:BFE5:1E18 (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plural

[edit]

H, C and O, if referring to hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen; should be pluralized as H's, C's, and O's (with apostrophes); as opposed to Hs, Cs, and Os (no apostrophes); to avoid confusion with Hs = hassium, Cs = cesium, and Os = osmium. The fact that hassium is an unstable, artificial element which has never been procured in macroscopic amounts, doesn't mean that clarity isn't compromised by the absence of said apostrophe. I remember, a chemistry book which was available online for free as a PDF, did said plurals without an apostrophe; which annoyed me. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxygen&oldid=1266326832"