Talk:Oxygen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oxygen is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

	This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details. This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Question

Why are ozone and O2 discussed under the section of compounds of oxygen? They are not compounds.

[edit] Question

Question: what are Oxygens unique features

[edit] Event

An event mentioned in this article is a August 1 selected anniversary

[edit] Change

Elementbox converted per Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements 11:56, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 10:34, 22 Jun 2005).

[edit] Removed

This was removed from the article, but might have a place in further versions:

The process by which oxygen reacts with other elements or chemical compunds is called oxidation, though the term has since been generalised by chemists to also refer to electrochemistry processes not involving oxygen. Oxygen is not necessary for oxidation the way chemists use the term (removal of electrons from something).

[edit] Question

QUESTION: In the movie The Abyss, they used liquid oxygen to breathe in their deep-diving suits. Is this practical fact, or fiction?

That wasn't pure liquid oxygen. Rather, it was an inert fluorocarbon liquid that is capable of dissolving much larger amounts of oxygen than ordinary water can. I'm not sure what the technical term is, but it is indeed real; that rat they immersed in the movie really did breathe the stuff, and it's being studied as a possible therapy for people with certain lung conditions (not sure whether deep-diving is another use it's actually being considered for). Trying to breathe pure liquid oxygen would kill you, on account of freezing you solid and oxidizing all your biomolecules. --BD

[edit] Image

The "image" of oxygen, below the description of the element as either clear or blue, is a pale-ish, grainy image that makes it look pink! This image should be removed, because it is only when you click on the picture that you realize it is a picture of a clear glass jar containing ... NOTHING! (which, by the way is probably plain air, so it is only about 21% oxygen, the rest being mostly Nitrogen). This needs to be eliminated or deleted...--Dahveed323 16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is Oxygen Manufactured??

The commercial manufacture of oxygen is completely missing from this article.

[edit] Angle

What is the angle between the covalent bonds of an O atom, eg in H2O, N2O? (IIRC it's not the same for all molecules, because the H repel in water) -- Tarquin 17:52 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

According to my ancient A-level databook, it's 104.5 deg in H-O-H, 109.0 deg in CH3-O-H, and 115.5 deg in CH3-O-CH3. IIRC, 109deg is the "standard" value. -- DrBob

[edit] Photosynthesis=

I'm questioning the veracity of this statement: "Free oxygen, as on Earth, is thermodynamically unstable, but exists through the action of photosynthetic plants." I'm no expert in the field, but from my reading I'm pretty sure the genesis of free oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is traceable to photosynthesizing anaerobic organisms long before the evolution of anything we would classify as a "plant". Much of the free oxygen given off as waste by these anaerobes combined with free iron and sank to the ocean floor, but when the supply of free iron was used up, most of the oxygen waste made its way to the atmosphere. Perhaps terrestrial plants jacked the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere up to its current level of 1/5, but most likely the majority of molecular oxygen even today came from the anaerobes... Anyway, any specialists out there who agree the use of "plants" in this sentence is off the mark? JDG 20:48, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, please change to "photosynthetic organisms". --mav 01:33, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Stars

"In fact stars wouldn't produce light without oxygen." - Is this true? What's the basis for this? Alex.tan 07:41, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. If anyone wants it back in, please provide a reference. WormRunner 06:48, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is clearly not true. Stars form their light by a nuclear fusion (I think), forming hydrogen into helium. Oxygen has no place in a star!

Oxygen has no place in a star (unless that star is super-massive and fusing heavier elements, or in the process of causing a Nova.)

Not true, in fact in most > 2nd generation stars, the hydrogen to helium fusion is predominantly catalyzed in something called the CNO cycle. Which is to say, oxygen (and carbon and nitrogen) is a very important catalyst in the process.

Oxygen does have a place in a star but the statement at the top clearly isn't true.

[edit] O2 oxygen is the most stable form of oxygen.

It would be better to say, "O2 is the most stable form of oxygen. Oxygen is very reactive, forming many stable compounds with many elements."

Wes Hughes

how about "O2 is the most thermodynamically stable form of elemental oxygen" Gingekerr 09:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Octium

Who calls it octium and why? [[User:Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO|Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO]] 03:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's its systematic element name. -- Ponder 05:15, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think it is ok to consider this trivia rather than a widely used alternate name. I've moved it out the opening sentence to avoid this possible misperception. [[User:Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO|Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO]] 05:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gee, would the systematic element name for Boron be Pentium? *grin* WCFrancis 18:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

               THIS IS WRONG!

"Molecular oxygen (O2, often called free oxygen) on Earth is thermodynamically unstable." --- It is WRONG to say that O2 is thermodynamically unstable. O2 is the most thermodynamically STABLE form of oxygen. True, oxygen does spontaneously form many compounds with other elements, but it is still the most thermodynamically stable form of oxygen. ----- Wesley Hughes whughes@northstate.net

[edit] O2 is the most stable form of oxygen

              THIS IS WRONG!... and you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oxygen"

this is actually right. Please note the context -- oxygen ON EARTH is thermodynamically unstable. the statement did not say "molecular oxygen is a thermodynamically unstable FORM OF OXYGEN" The point is, free oxygen cannot exist on earth unless it is constantly being replenished, precisely because it will spontaneously form many compounds with other elements. This is, however, not the case, say, IN SPACE, where the great distance between individual molecules largely prevents chemical reactions.

The distance between molecules is a kinetic factor, not a thermodynamic factor, and therefore does not affect the relative thermodynamic stability (in terms of standard change in Gibbs energy) of monatomic versus diatomic oxygen. Gingekerr 09:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applications

"In the 19th century, oxygen was often mixed with nitrous oxide to promote a kind of analgesic effect."

I'm pretty sure I was given an Oxygen/Nitrous Oxide mix by an ambulance crew once (in 2002, in Canada). The paramedics said they use it because it wears off really fast once they stop administration, which is nescesary if the emergency room doctor wants to administer any other drugs.

From the current text. "Some scientists have proposed to use the measurement of the radiance coming from vegetation canopies in those oxygen bands to characterize plant health status from a satellite platform." -- has this actually been done. If not, it sounds like original research and not appropriate in this article. Either way, "some scientists" doesn't replace need for a citation.

[edit] Missing physical property

I am unable to find the standard molar entropy of oxygen (or any other element for that matter) in the Wikipedia. Hey guys, don't forget that the entropy scale, unlike the enthalpy and Gibbs function, is absolute. Oxygen has a physically defined standard molar entropy (around 200J/Kmol IIRC) which should be mentioned in the article.

[edit] Oxygen is naturally poisonous?

Or so I was told one day. I came to this article to try to ascertain this fact, but no mention of it is found here. Basically oxygen in an activated state is toxic to cells at atmospheric pressure, etc. and without vitamin C, etc. we would die from the very oxygen that sustains us, and also why a lot of cells die in oxygen presence who are adapted only to anaerobic living. -- Natalinasmpf 23:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to define poisonous - virtually everything can be poisonous in sufficient amounts (and we all do hold different definitions of poisonous). A good article should clarify that oxygen can be deleterious to cells and that free radicals are produced in the process of aerobic respiration but that oxygen is more helpful than harmful to humans (yes we're all so Homo-sapiens-centered) at certain concentrations and is thus not a poison at those everyday concentrations.

also singlet oxygen is pretty toxic in a way that triplet oxygen isn't.

Simfish 09:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery

Please expand this article.
Further information might be found in a section of the talk page or at Requests for expansion.

The notion of who "discovered" oxygen is somewhat disputed...I don't think the article should necessarily come out and assign that honor to any one person. I've briefly illustrated in Theories and sociology of the history of science, but I hadn't heard of Michał Sędziwój before, and there's an insufficient amount of material between here and his biography article to say how what he did was similar to or different from later investigators. If anyone would care to enlighten us, that would be greatly appreciated. -- Beland 23:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Link

Clicking on

Oxygen Therapy – The First 150 Years

gets response:

 Forbidden
 You do not have permission to access the requested file on this server.

Sorry that I neglected to sign the previous. Just checked link and have same response. -- WCFrancis 17:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed it. If access changes, it is still here for easy restoration. -- WCFrancis 17:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O₄?

Does O₄ actually exist? I would like some references to its puported discovery because as is, it looks like a hoax to me. 24.247.85.157 02:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Use google before you accuse someone of lying please.

Darrien 01:55, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

It's quite a leap from "looks like a hoax" to accusations of lying, Darrien.

How so? Following the definition of the word, I find it quite easy to jump from "looks like a hoax" to "lying". Especially since in an encyclopedia, any hoax would be deliberate misinformation. If any definition fits the word "lying", "deliberate misinformation" would be a very accurate one.

I would call it a leap. Sying something looks like a hoax and saying that it is a hoax are two totally different things. It's like the difference between suggesting and accusing.Hackwrench 21:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The leap is from the healthy skepticism that 24.247.85.157 displayed to (seemingly) taking it as a personal insult.

That's not what we are discussing. We are discussing the leap from "hoax", in the context of an encyclopedia, to "lying". Not the leap from "hoax" to "personal insult".

To someone not well versed in chemistry, I don't think it would be obvious that O₄ would be called tetraoxygen. Without knowing that term, it would be nearly impossible to find on Google; without being able to find a reference to it on Google, one might easily infer that it's a hoax.

One need not publicize their inferences. Asking for a reference is enough.

One needs patience when dealing with people who are not familiar with the customs of wikipedians. I imagine 24.247.85.157 is just such a person. Anyway, isn't the talk page exactly the place where one should publicize one's inferences when one is skeptical of the content of an article?

What do wikipedia customs have to do with tempering one's opinion?

It has everything to do with the necessity of tempering one's opinionHackwrench 21:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should parenthetically note the name in the article. HorsePunchKid 02:19, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Very well, I have just done so.

Thank you. Perhaps that would have been a better solution than admonishing 24.247.85.157.

I would think that admonishing new users is something that would be encouraged.

Darrien 06:07, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Darrien 03:44, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Well, maybe not "nearly impossible", but it takes a non-trivial search to get any related information,

You consider "oxygen O4" non-trivial?

Yes; yes I do.

I thought that adding more relevant keywords to a search was standard practice when using search engines.

I picture my mother (a biologist, even!) trying to verify the existence of tetraoxygen. I can almost guarantee that she would have significant trouble finding a reputable reference. As I said, even with that search, reputable references aren't immediately obvious. Hence, non-trivial.

Oh, so you can read your mother's mind? I can picture any number of things with varying degreees of basis in reality Hackwrench 21:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

When I search for "oxygen O4", the third link is to nature.com. The 18th link is to nih.gov. I would consider those immediately obvious.

Darrien 06:07, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

and even then, a lot of the results aren't particularly reputable... Aranizer, anyone? ;) HorsePunchKid 02:26, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Darrien 03:44, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

HorsePunchKid 05:03, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing a reference, Darrien. But to clarify on when I said it "looks like a hoax", I googled searched for the term, "O4" because I don't know how to search for "O₄" on Google. I also did not know that the name of this allotrope was "tetraoxygen" because I knew that ozone is not called "trioxygen" in daily life and therefore I assumed that O₄ had a name other than "tetraoxygen" but I did not know it. When Google returned its results, none of the pages brought up were even close to what I was looking for, and that is why I assumed it was some sort of hoax. I do fully apologize if my wording seemed too harsh, but when I seen it, I could not at all believe anything that I saw, for I never, in my entire life, heard or saw description of this substance outside of Wikipedia. That is why I asked for a reference, because after all, it is a good idea to Cite sources, especially if what is said seems unbelievable. Can anyone of you please give me some slack for not knowing how to request it more politely at the time?

Your request for a reputable source was not the problem.

I'm just asking for a reference on the article page, and I am only am a 19 year-old high school graduate who has never attended a college course.

This is what I have a problem with. If you don't know anything about a subject, why be so quick to make accusations of a hoax? A simple request for a reputable source is enough.

Why? Because it's enjoyable, of course! Hackwrench 21:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, full apologies for being so rude, disrespectful, and for not paying close attention to Wikiquette:(. 24.247.85.157 16:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to apolgize, everyone makes mistakes. Darrien 06:07, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

If people didn't make mistakes, there would be no apoligies... That's what people apologize for.Hackwrench 21:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions both the 'red oxygen' O₄ allotrope as well as an occurence of an (O₂)₂ molecule in liquid oxygen, which could also be written O₄. Can someone expound on whether these two allotropes are different instances of same thing, or completely different? [I could muddy the waters a little here by educatedly guessing that perhaps it's (O₂)₂ with the mooted O₄ double-dumbell shape and further guessing that red O₄ is actually tetrahedral - much like molecular phosphorus, which is tetrahedral P₄. I'd then suggest (positronic?) delocalisation of the holes in red O₄'s electron cloud. Thinking about it, that would explain why it packs together so tightly.] Cyrek 17:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spaces after ()

How come a change from "nitrates (NO₃⁻)are" to "nitrates (NO₃⁻) are" isn't recognized in a diff? Laundrypowder 17:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It is, it's just it doesn't show up as red, because who ever heard of a space with a font color? --Ruff ^{Bark away!}

[edit] Discovery of Oxygen

I know a collector of antiquarian chemistry books, and he says that the book in which Priestly announced the discovery of oxygen was published in two volumes, with the discovery of oxygen announced in the second volume. Apparently this second volume was actually published after Lavoisier published the book announcing his discovery of oxygen, although the first volume was published before Lavoisier's announcement. This makes Lavoisier the first to publish (although why it actually matters beats me. Gingekerr 09:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well that would be verifiable by looking up the books in question. I think Lavoisier gets no credit because it is now fairly well known he was basically trying to take credit for what Priestly had found. Of course that's all bound up in English vs continental rivalry, tension, etc. But this bit about Michał Sędziwój is what really troubles me. Is he really acepted as discovering oxygen? Usually when we speak of someone predicting or assuming an element, we say that, not call them the discoverer. What evidence is there for Sędziwój's claim? It is well accepted? - Taxman ^Talk 02:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The 1st edition was published in 1774 [1]. Was this all three volumes? I don't know, but in 1775 we apparently have all 3 volumes http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/priestley.html Jooler 06:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Triplet oxygen

It is written here that triplet oxygen has a single bond, while singlet oxygen has a double bond. This is completely false. The electrons in question here both reside in the doubly degenerate pi antibonding orbitals. The only difference between singlet and triplet oxygen is whether or not the electrons have their spins pointed in the same (triplet) or opposite (singlet) direction. Whichever state it is in, the electrons still reside in the pi antibonding orbital. Bond order is calculated in molecular orbital theory with the equation (# bonding electrons - # antibonding electrons)/2. In the case of oxygen, taking into account all the valence bonding interactions from the s and p orbitals, we get (8-4)/2=2. Thus, both spin states of oxygen have a double bond. -- (128.197.112.233)

[edit] Making oxygen

I removed the following section from the article. It is really awkward and contains mistakes, but may be worth including if/when fixes are made to it:

The easiest way to make oxygen is to use Hydrogen Peroxide and to speed up the reaction use a catalyst. The best catalyst is called Mnganese (IV) oxide. This makes oxygen easily. The Chemical equation = H²O² + Manganese (IV) Oxide −− H²O + Oxygen + Manganese (IV) Oxide. Another way to make oxygen is by using hoffmans voltmeter on water but this uses a lot a electricity so is very expensive

Edgar181 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just about any metal can catalyze the disproportionation of hydrogen peroxide to some extent. As far as I know, the best catalyst to make oxygen from peroxide is an enzyme called catalase, which produces oxygen faster than peroxide can diffuse into the active site of the enzyme; this is called a diffusion controlled process. Also, a section on making oxygen would be incomplete without a discussion of photosystem II, which is responsible for making virtually all the oxygen gas on Earth in the process of photosynthesis.

[edit] Discovery of dioxygen hexafluoroplatinate

Information about Neil Bartlett can be found in Chemistry Third Edition by Raymond Chang (McGraw-Hill) pages 900-901. --Droll 09:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] atomic weight / history

History should probably give a clue when an atomic weight was first associated with oxygen. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxygen consumption

isn't there a balance between breathable oxygen generation and consumption? whenever we breath and exhale we are trapping what was previously breathable O2, into useless CO2. this also happens whenever something is burned, whether a candle, gasoline or deisel in an automobile, propane in a barbeque, or plant life in a forest fire. These are all kept in check by land (trees, etc..) and sea (algae, etc..) plantlife that convert the CO2 back into useable O2, however combustion also produces H20 and CO.

are there any natural processes that convert H2O or CO back into useable O2? with the advent of vehicles that run on hydrogen and emit only H20 as a 'pollutant' we will be trapping even more breathable oxygen molecules into H20.

also is the balance between consumption (breathing, burning, cars, etc...) and generation (plantlife) of O2 even known?

Sahuagin 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flamability

A friend of mine was relating how where he worked one day they were venting oxygen and had an explosion. I asked what exploded. He said it was the oxygen. I said that oxygen didn't burn; there had to be another gas/ substance present to cause an explosion. You can imagine the rest. Can you clarify in writing so I can show him?

well if it was a pressurized oxygen tank it could be that the tank exploded. either way the pure oxygen would quickly lead to nearly spontaneous combustion of nearby flammable materials.

"OXYGEN If an Oxygen cylinder is found to be leaking, evacuate the work area immediately and contact Laboratory Services at x9039. Oxygen enriched atmospheres cause normally noncombustible materials to be extremely flammable. Many substances will burst into flame in the presence of pure oxygen. Be prepared to evacuate the building." source document

Sahuagin 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

While there are several references listed at the bottom of the article, there are is only one citation in the text at the moment (added by me for 02 presence in the earth's crust). Some of the numbers in the text will contiue to be changed as authors find conflicting numbers in other sources (I expect the 46.6 figure that I replaced is published somewhere, but without a citation I have no idea where.) The lack of citations seems to be a pattern in many of the other articles on elements as well. Reference lists are not a substitute for citations.Badocter 09:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For abundances, specifically, see also the newly-created abundances of the elements (data page). Femto 13:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrochloric acid

The article says "Hydrochloric acid (HCl) does not contain oxygen." But this is not true, because hydrochloric acid is a solution of hydrogen chloride in water (H₂0). It would be more accurate to say that pure anhydrous HCl does not contain oxygen. --Seven of Nine 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement's entirely redundant, so I've removed it. Not least because HCl is only one example anyway. Furthermore, I think adding a remark about anhydrous HCl would just confuse things. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for fixing it. --Seven of Nine 15:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery

Now that this is linked from the main page, is there someone who could corroborate Michał Sędziwój's discovery of oxygen? The Polish article on him doesn't even mention the word for oxygen, and the references in the other article link him mainly to Christian Rosenkreuz who wasn't exactly a reputable scientist. Moszczynski 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] paramagnetism

The article states: '... paramagnetic due to the negative exchange energy between neighbouring O₂ molecules.' Is oxygen not paramagnetic because the triplet state is the ground-state, so it has two unpaired electrons, and hence it is paramagnetic. And it does not matter whether it is in gas, liquid or solid state? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What I wanted to add .. paramagnetism is not unusual, and compounds are not 'unusually paramagnetic', that makes no sense. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it sort of does. Many compounds are slightly drawn to a magnet, but for just a handful is the attraction so strong that you can use a magnet to pick them up. Oxygen is one of these. S B H arris 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is paramagnetism, but every single atom in an odd group in the periodic table is paramagnetic, but most of them you don't encounter as a gas. Oxygen is a diatomic gas, which makes it indeed a notable one. But if I am correct, some of the metal-containing enzymes are also paramagnetic. And there are more naturally occuring compounds, which are paramagnetic (though for organic compounds it is seen less often, mainly in intermediates of reductions, but sometimes in stable compounds). But it is merely semantics. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, which elements are "gasses" is matter of the prejudice you have from being at the temperature you live at. They're ALL gasses at SOME temp! And all solids at some temp, except for helium at low pressure (which manages to stay liquid). But even for elements concentrated in this fashion, except for a few ferromagnetics you couldn't tell using a good magnet, which were and weren't paramagnetic, without some very fancy scales. Oxygen is different. You have to play with LOX and a magnet, and some other melted elements with a magnet to get a sense of the qualitative difference. S B H arris 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxygen Ring

Is it possible for oxygen to form a ring structure by itself? If not, why not? --Oranjemens

None has been seen, so far as I know. See [2]. The other chalcogens readily form rings, and one day we may see a ring form of ozone. But the larger ring forms are unstable due to QM reaons I don't understand on an intuitive basis. It may be simply that, as in many other compounds, if you're an element that lacks d orbitals, you lack the "space" to make certain large extended structures. Compare the ease that Si has in doing this with O, with carbon's many problems. It's all in the size. S B H arris 21:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split O2 to its own article

I suggest that oxygen allotrope O2 needs its own article, just like ozone and tetraoxygen for example. Some information in this article can be placed in the main article. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vincent de Ruijter (talk • contribs) .

You could do it, but the oxygen article when talking about the free element still needs to spend most of its time on the most common allotrope, so there will be a lot of duplication. A separate main article for the most common allotrope is not done with other elements, with the possible exception of the carbon allotropes. I think best to have interesting but relatively uncommon allotropes (ozone, etc), like interesting but less common isotopes, as separate main articles with summary subsections in the element article, which covers everything, including the most common form in detail. See tritium and deuterium articles, which are still summarized under hydrogen. In this case, there is a main protium article, which sort of parallels what you suggest here. But I think protium and hydrogen could have been merged. S B H arris 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What SBHarris said. Femto 12:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposed: Splitting the Oxygen article just for the diatomic version would logically conclude with doing it also for hydrogen, nitrogen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine. Ozone is a special case which deserves special treatment. Greg L 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SBHarris, and I'd like to note that the protium article is a disambiguation page, and the relevant page linking to it is Hydrogen atom, which mostly treats quantum mechanical aspects of the atom. I think that's important enough to merit having two different articles, but O2 isn't interesting enough to warrant a split. Confiteordeo 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Greg L hit the nail on the head, i oppose Qaanaaq 10:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] elements on earth

Oxygen is being presented as the seconde most abundant element on earth. In Iron page, iron is also presented as being the second most abundant element, alumunium being the first one, which is contradadictory. This must be corrected, thanks.

Well-spotted. From the page on Earth composition it looks like iron is the most abundant element (by mass) with oxygen second, and aluminium some way down the list (though still very much top 10). The source for this is OK, but I'd prefer a better one before I change things. If you can find one, please edit away ahead of me. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

See abundances of the elements (data page) for some raw data cites. Femto 10:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Silica also claims to be the seonc most abundant. Qaanaaq 10:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/x/y/Talk%7EOxygen_09cb.html"

Talk:Oxygen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Question

[edit] Question

[edit] Event

[edit] Change

[edit] Removed

[edit] Question

[edit] Image

[edit] How is Oxygen Manufactured??

[edit] Angle

[edit] Photosynthesis=

[edit] Stars

[edit] O2 oxygen is the most stable form of oxygen.

[edit] Octium

[edit] O2 is the most stable form of oxygen

[edit] Applications

[edit] Missing physical property

[edit] Oxygen is naturally poisonous?

[edit] Discovery

[edit] Dead Link

[edit] O4?

[edit] Spaces after ()

[edit] Discovery of Oxygen

[edit] Triplet oxygen

[edit] Making oxygen

[edit] Discovery of dioxygen hexafluoroplatinate

[edit] atomic weight / history

[edit] Oxygen consumption

[edit] Flamability

[edit] Citations

[edit] Hydrochloric acid

[edit] Discovery

[edit] paramagnetism

[edit] Oxygen Ring

[edit] Split O2 to its own article

[edit] elements on earth

Views

Navigation

Search

[edit] O₄?