Talk:Hydrogen

Template:Hydrogen development--Mion 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by David M. Elementbox converted 16:07, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 15:17, 20 Jun 2005).

User's comment

The specific heat is given for the H2, although 99% of Hydrogen is of the H1 variety. I find it confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.47.218 (talk) 16:40, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Hydrogen. Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

Archives

/Archive 1: Dec 2004 - Aug 2006

The spin of a hydrogen atom

What is the spin of a single hydrogen atom?

Pretty much the intrinsic spin of its lone electron. There is no angular momentum in the 1s orbital, and the intrinsic spin of the proton is less than 1/600th as much, and doesn't contribute in a significant way (although of course there are energy differences betweeen electron and proton spin alignments-- that's the famous 21 cm microwave line).

The spin of the proton is the same as that of the electron. Its magnetic moment is much smaller.

Shambolic Entity 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen energy carrier or source of fuel or energy?

gas cost money to make it useable to cars but they hike up the price so it evens out economics but w/e hydrogen is also found in the ground in teaxs or is that helium i am not sure. I think it is a fuel.Barry White 06:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Liquid hydrogen - Hydrogen merge

I'm proposing the merger because the liquid hydrogen article seems rather short and would probably be totally covered by the contents of this one. After all the liquid form is just a part of the desciption of the full molecule? - Dammit 09:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong against merge, The article hydrogen is about hydrogen physics and on a atomic level, where as liquid hydrogen is a fuel. Mion 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote against the merge. There should be some uniformity in how this is treated in the various articles on elements. Helium, which is a featured article, has Liquid helium broken out as a seperate article. The Liquid nitrogen article on the other hand simply redirects to the Nitrogen article. To me the Helium template makes more sense since I think there is enough material out there to write a full article on Liquid Hydrogen that would otherwise bloat the Hydrogen article. The Liquid Hydrogen article as it is right now is a stub and needs work.Badocter 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Since consensus seems against the proposed merge, I've proposed an alternate merge to hydrogen economy, which seems to be where the applications of liquid hydrogen are. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The arguments where to keep it at its own and give it a go to expand it, so i am against the new proposal, in itself you are right, every hydrogen related article is related to hydrogen economy, but the whole range about hydrogen is 80 to 100 articles and we cant put them all into hydrogen economy.it has to wait until we have a hydrogen portal, and yes you can start one, reg.Mion 00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose This is a very unsuitable merger. Only part of the liquid hydrogen article relates to the topic, much of it relates to use in rockets. The best idea is to expand the liquid hydrogen article to cover things like its physics, its properties outside of fuel use, its presence in planets such as Jupiter, etc. Walkerma 04:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal is withdrawn, case is closed. -:). Mion 11:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"H2" in applications section

I understand that it is important to emphasise whenever one is referring to diatomic hydrogen, but starting a sentence with a summation formula may seem somewhat unprofessional, and more importantly, it leads the line spacing to be upset in some browsers. Can we replace some of those "H2"s with real prose? Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen Compounds

It is mentioned that hydrogen forms compounds with elements which are more electronegative. If you look at an ordered electronegativity list you will realize that hydrogen bonds with many elements even more electropositive ones. Of course the electronegative elements such as the halogens react with hydrogen much more readily. A few examples of electroposative compounding: Lithium, Calcium, Copper, Silver, Sodium, Potassium, Rubidium, Cesium, Barium, Beryllium, magnesium, Uranium, Gadolinium. I keep going back and forth, searching element-hydrides. Every one I search for has a hydride. Maybe every element has a hydride (?) Scot.parker 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that technically, HF, HCl, HI etc. are not hydrides but chlorides, iodides, etc. I'd also have to guess that some of the noble gases may not form stable compounds with hydrogen. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrections

I've corrected the introduction because:

1. Some organic compounds do not contain hydrogen e.g. tetracholoromethane, tetrafluoroethene, PTFE, etc.
2. The Schrodinger equation can be solved for ions of other elements e.g He⁺.

Ewen 08:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Applications section, it is noted that Hydrogen is used in preference to any other gas because of its high Thermal Conductivity but I think it should refer to its high Specific Heat Capacity.

If we are in fact talking about Thermal Conductivity then we need to show the value in the List of thermal conductivities. --Graham Proud 10:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please delete the false statement in "Natural occurrence" "Still, hydrogen is the third most abundant element on Earth." Hydrogen is not the third most abundant element on Earth, it is the fourth, and that's not counting the earth's core (see the article on "Earth"). However, the article that statement is taken from "" is an appropriate reference to use in the later section on "Hydrogen as an energy carrier". Use it as a reference along with the other one at the end of the section. --

There is a grammatical error which is continuous in the discussion and in the article. "an Hydrogen" is correct gramatically; "a Hydrogen" is incorrect. Could someone fix this please Thanks from Luke [13th of May 2007] 2:30PM (AEST)

"An" precedes vowel sounds, the "h" of hydrogen is not silent. Femto 12:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hindenburg

Reading the wiki article on the Hindenburg disaster, I think it should be pointed out that the cause of the crash has not been 100% decided Mattmore17 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, that the Hindenburg’s "shell" was coated with aluminum powder and iron oxide it help regulate temperature. Today this mixture is used as rocket fuel. If the Hindenburg was filled with (he) it still would have went down in about the same amount of time. Besides hydrogen is about as flammable as gasoline.

Steven Loiselle, Mi

Amount of hydrogen in universum

How much there is hydrogen in universum? I thought that a mount was 90 %. So is 75 % correct?Hannu 11:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you'd read a little further, you would have noticed the reference given, which is a NASA web page and gives the figure as "three quarters":

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971113i.html

Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's by mass. By number of atoms, it's closer to 92%. SBHarris 21:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Electrolysis of water

As the article stands now, there is only a single, two sentence line about electrolysis, and it is all the way down in the Laboratory Syntheses section.

"The electrolysis of water is a simple but expensive method of producing hydrogen. Typically the cathode electrode is made from platinum."

1st of all, this method is not more expensive than digging up fossil fuels, refining them, and then extracting the hydrogen. Currently, the amount of hydroxy gas (H H O or 2H₂O(aq) → 2H₂(g) + O₂(g)) produced from water is very much relative to the set up of the system, the frequency used etc. Various voltages, amperages and frequencies have been used to various degrees of effectiveness. The cost is, of course, relative to the source of electricity used. There are many people who claim to be getting extremely high (even over unity) returns by using the resonant frequency of water. Regardless of whether these claims are true, this method should be given more than a cursory footnote, as it IS very simple.

2nd, produced on a mass scale (an ocean based plant using salt water and solar power for example) this method could be very reasonable, low maintenance, and environmentally friendly. Remember no greenhouse gasses are produced by electrolysis. Oh, and the cathode doesn't have to be platinum... it can be made from stainless steel or a number of other cheaper metals.

I propose mentioning this method and its long and successful history in the opening blurb, and giving Elecrolysis its own section. The article now makes it seem like hydrocracking is the only viable solution... and there are numerous problems with that method; not the least of which being the scarcity and growing expense of hydrocarbon fuels and the pollution associated with using them. The current article paints electrolysis as economically unfeasible and basically dismisses it off hand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JahSun (talk • contribs) 11:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion. Even better, write a small, separate article about the subject and then put a two-paragraph summary into this article, with a link to the more detailed stuff. Make sure you reference everything thoroughly, as this article is now a Featured Article, and hence, we have to keep up the quality. Good suggestions so far, always good to have knowledgeable people on board! Make sure you sign your posts using ~~~~. Use the preview to see what it does. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Scary statement of the day "Regardless of whether these claims are true, this method should be given more than a cursory footnote, as it IS very simple."

Please dont insert your well-intentions but off-the-mark edits - you are talking to pseudo-science. No the electrode need not be Pt. But greenhouse gases are definitely generated by electrolysis (unless you subscribe to perpetual motion). Electrolysis is powered by electricity that is powered by the burning of fossil fuels (or hydroelectric, nuclear). So you are not going to get more energy out that you put in. Let experts in electrochemistry or electrical engineering make these edits, stick to making suggestions. BTW, hydrocarbons are not scarce - the US just does not like the owners of the reserves. And when we get done with petroleum, there is 1000x more natural gas. --Smokefoot 14:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Electrolysis works. It's been known and used since Faraday, in the 19th century. It is not pseudo-science, and no one is talking about perpetual motion. Obviously electricity must be used, but hydro-electric, solar, wind, tidal, and geo-thermal power (among others) do not generate greenhouse gasses. BTW hydrocarbons are quite a bit more scarce than sea water...

JahSun 15:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, but just try to burn that seawater... Yes, Echem generates H2, so what?? One consumes more energy than one inputs! Would be nice to see a scientific reference (a real journal with editors, referees and all that messy stuff) to the "Belona report" - which still looks like a commercial advertisement and may be erased later. --Smokefoot 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what your gripe is. Hydrcracking uses more energy than it generates as well. Are you suggesting people shouldn't know about electrolysis because it obeys the law of conservation of energy? Oh, and you don't burn the sea water... you burn the gas that comes off the sea water after a current has been applied. Many of the methods of generating H₂ mentioned in the article are less efficient than electrolysis or are even purely theoretical. (engineering cyanobaccilus to make hydrogen etc.) JahSun 15:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to JahSun, I don't think the issue of whether or not eletrolysis is more polluting at the end of the day belongs within the scope of this article at all. We have a separate article on the hydrogen economy, where such issues can find their place. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you Samsara for politely helping me stay in-line. Back to you JahSun: okay maybe electrolysis should be considered for hydrogen production - I leave that call to the financially-guided engineers who run refineries. But neither hydrocracking nor electrolysis is a route to energy, just a reshuffling of our energy content. It was fun sparring with you, best wishes --Smokefoot 16:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise ;-) A good debate is healthy as long as no one takes it personally. All the best... JahSun 16:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, people don't use reforming from natural gas to make hydrogen because they're dumb. You could burn natural gas to make heat to boil water to turn turbines to run generators to make electricity to run electrolysis plants. But it's more efficient to simply strip the H2 off the CH4 when you have it. On site H2 made this way is about .32 cents a lb, while electrolytically produced H2 is 3 to 6 times more expensive. [1]. You want to demonstrate electrolysis is neat? Great. Produce hydrogen that way for less than 0.32 cents a lb., or point me to somebody who does. Have at it. SBHarris 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The costs you speak of are relative, not fixed things. At the moment you are correct, but neglect to factor in the cost of acquiring the natural gas itself. On site hydrogen reforming may be cheap, but the cost of delivering liquid hydrogen fuel is nearly the same as electrolysis. Furthermore, no one has mentioned the costs of electrolysis using hydro-electric power, tidal, or wind. In an ocean based plant using the sea water (a natural electrolyte which electrolyzes better than pure water) with tidal power, wind, and solar operating in tandem the costs would be VERY cheap. And, the costs must be considered to be amortized over the lifetime of the plant. Solar panels, windmills, and tidal generators have a one-time, fixed cost, and then they run basically for free until repairs become necessary.

Statistics designed to make electrolysis of water look expensive are easy to fabricate. However, you must show where these supposed costs are coming from. In addition, the people who claim that electrolysis of water is as polluting as hydrocracking always assume that the electricity must be generated by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas. People conveniently overlook all the factors that don't suit their basic belief or economic interest. Take away the subsidies to the oil and gas industries, factor in the public health costs, add the money spent on security, and the transportation costs to bring it to market... and then see if it is truly cheaper. JahSun 13:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

atmospheric hydrogen

Is the amount of hydrogen gas being produced by us, or perhaps of some consequence of climate change at all significant in terms of changing the atmospheric concentration of hydrogen? What is the rate of flow of hydrogen gas from the atmosphere into space (and thus presumably the rate of production of the gas on land/sea)? Does hydrogen gas limit the decomposition of methane and carbon monoxide?

Also, is the absorption/emission spectrum of hydrogen such that it does function as a greenhouse gas? (I ask this regardless of whether the amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere is something that we have any control over.)

Validity of statement of the Hindenburg statement

"(Regardless of the cause of this fire, this was clearly primarily a hydrogen fire since skin of the Zeppelin alone would have taken many hours to burn)." I question this statement greatly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.7.154 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Hydrogen 5

I read in the book Exempt from Disclosure: The Disturbing Case About the UFO Coverup, 2nd Edition, 2006 by Robert M. Collins, pages 159-161, that an alien energy device (ED) code named "Crystal Rectangle" recovered in June 1947 had been found to contain a sphere containing a hydrogen isotope of four neutrons. This device was reportedly loaned by the TI Advisory Group-6 to NASA and flown onboard and used during three U.S. Space Shuttle missions (STS-92, STS-97, and STS-106). The ED supplied voltage from 9 volts/0.5 amperes to 1100 volts/100 amperes. (Page 163, in op. cit., DIA Scientific Intelligence Report, Top Secret, 19 APR 2001, Top Secret Control NR: 01-04-2231-TI)

Our physicists have bombarded Tritium to make Hydrogen 5 which dissipated in nanoseconds. Perhaps an indirect process may be successful.

[[2]]

In 1939 Hans Bethe calculated the Sun's energy production, which results from the fusion of four hydrogen atoms (each of mass 1.008) into one helium atom (mass 4.0039). No direct fusion is possible, but Bethe showed that the probabilities of the four steps of the "carbon cycle" can account for the energy output. A carbon isotope of mass 12 reacts successively with three hydrogen nuclei (protons) to form the nitrogen isotope of mass 15; energy is produced through the fusion of a fourth hydrogen nucleus to release a helium nucleus (alpha particle) and the original carbon isotope.Larry R. Holmgren 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen plus oxygen equals an oxyhydrogen flame wich is so strong it can easily slice through steal.

Hydrogen abundance

The articles says this: Still, hydrogen is the third most abundant element on Earth. This does not sound correct to me. Oxygen Silicon Iron would all exceed Hydrogen in quantity. Can someone confirm this? GB 05:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I checked the reference myself and it actually says on the earth's surface - no just making up the earth or its crust, so I changed text to say surface. GB 05:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is missing the ionization energies of hydrogen.

9-12-06