Talk:Properties of water

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals / Core  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.

Self-diffusion coefficient of water[edit]

I tried to add the self-diffusion coefficient of water at 25°C to the Chembox under "Properties" , but it does not appear, when I want to see it in the preview or in the page. However, in the "View History" my addition to the Chembox appears. Since I am not so experienced in contributions to the English version of Wikipedia, somebody might be helpful to add the relatively important quantity "Self-diffusion coefficient" to the Box under "Properties"!Dr. Manfred Holz (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2013[edit]

you should not allow people to be able to edit like this as this makes Wikipedia a very unreliable source therefore i will not be donating today thank you for your time reading this your good brother water (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted. --ElHef (Meep?) 21:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

basic rules of chemical nomenclature[edit]

Where does the sentence "In keeping with the basic rules of chemical nomenclature, water would have a systematic name of dihydrogen monoxide" come from? The reference given (Leigh, pp. 27–28) does not say such a thing. The systematic name should rather be hydrogen oxide. The sentence I just quoted misleads the reader into thinking that "dihydrogen monoxide" follows any accepted nomenclature.

Until this is clarified I have added the [where?] tag.

Benzocaine (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

New science - melting point UNKNOWN ! Pure water is fluid at -17C !!![edit]

Believe it or not, but a Swedish TV-programme, showed that absolutely pure water (wich is far from destilled water) doesn't freeze even at -17 C !!! By "absolutely pure" is physically ment H2O molecules only. Not a trace of any ions. Its freezing point is little below -17, but the scientists were not certain that the water was absolutely pure. As soon as objects made of plasic, metal or wood is put down in the pure water with a temperature of -17 (but still very fluid), ice was forming around the objects. Boeing720 (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgot, nothing was said about the preassure. But the focus was entirelly on the pureness of water. If a different air preassure was used, then the whole laboratory must be preassurized. (or depreassurized) Boeing720 (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link that goes even further (down) Boeing720 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not about purity, but about supercooling, which is not thermodynamic cooling. Materialscientist (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read this instead - do You still say that this has nothing to do with water and purity ? "4000 molecules" I cannot help thinking they all are common H2O's ? Why revert my entire edit, I was about to re-formulate my text. (the part about Celsius). Of course -48C/-55F is "supercool" in a sence. But please read the article, it explain why wavy water doesn't freeze. The more pure the lower the freezing point gets, as I understand it. Its of value also for higher temperatures aswell. And like I wrote earlier today, a glass of fluid but "pure" water had a temperature of -17 C. They just stated that it was not enough to use destilled water, but it seems clear to me that the new science is interesting if nothing else. Boeing720 (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, purity matters in all phenomena, but the key here is supercooling. Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess You know much more about thiese issues than me (given Your alias, no offence ment), but even if it was a long time ago now, I have in Swedish "Jag har också trasslat in mig i Mollierdiagrammet" - it's a bit disambigous but means "I have also been captured in the Mollier diagram" (there was a picture illustrating its complexity aswell). So I'm no total fool about water, ice, steam etc.

And "Supercooled liquid water must become ice at minus 55 F not just because of the extreme cold, but because the molecular structure of water changes physically to form tetrahedron shapes, with each water molecule loosely bonded to four others, according to the new study by chemists Valeria Molinero and Emily Moore" and "Yet in very pure water, “the only way you can form a nucleus is by spontaneously changing the structure of the liquid,” she adds." isn't enough to be of encyclopedic interest ? Somehow ? Perhaps my contribution was taken from the wrong end, so to speak. (Concerning purity) But I cannot agree to Your statement that this article is about the subject of supercooling, but sooner about of water in its physical sence. The issue isn't how to cool down the water, and a temperature of -48C/-55F are not that hard to obtain and do occur in nature (Antarktis , Sibiria). But here is explained why it cannot be liquid at even lower temperatures than that. An aboslute freezing point, if You like. And down to that temperature, water can obviously be fluid. And often are, in rivers for instance. And in sea water if we fully disreguard purity. I leave it to You though, but I think something ought to be written about it. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Calculation of the Ka value[edit]

For example:

Ka(H2O) = [OH
]÷[H2O] = (Density(OH
)÷Molar mass(OH
)÷Molar mass(H+
))÷(Density(H2O)÷Molar mass(H2O)) ≈ (?g/L÷17.01g/mol)×(?g/L÷1.01g/mol)÷(999.97g/L÷18.01g/mol) ≈ ?mol/L×?mol/L÷55.52mol/L

But how to get the Density(OH
) and Density(H+
)? Or is it possible to get the [OH
] and [H+
] directly?

Thanks. (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Dirac66 answered at Talk:Acid dissociation constant. DMacks (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)