Talk:Spin isomers of hydrogen
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Needs explanation as to why the release of heat is undesirable. -- Leonard G. 03:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why is orthohydrogen refered to as the triplet state, and parahydrogen is the singlet state?
If this page is correct (i.e. ortho- and para- hydrogen refer to alignment of the spins of the two protons in a H2 molecule, not alignment of electron and proton spins in a H atom), then there's a problem with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHGb02_14a . The problem is that in that article they are referring to alignment of electron and proton spins. I am assuming this article is correct, and removing the reference from the SHGb02_14a article to ortho- and para-hydrogen. 21:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a significant difference in the energy released when para or ortho hydrogen is combined with oxygen to form water? I got the impression from a patent that one is less explosive than the other....??
Since virtually all the ambiguitiies mentioned in earlier questions have been addressed and the theoretical basis of ortho- and parahydrogen is now clear, I ve changed this article to Start class. I don't think I've seen the name "spin isomers" appled anywhere else, so we should consider a different title to this article - I admit that an alternative doesn't occur to me at the moment. Gadolinist (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(I have moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page as a new section.) I suggest the title "Orthohydrogen and parahydrogen". These words are redirects now, and I think they would be the words most readers would search for. Dirac66 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The figures in this article need improvement. The ortho vs. para figure would be better with a white background, while the graphs on this page are overcompressed in jpeg format. SVG would be better! 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not willing to re-do the image again just to satisfy the artistic sensibilities of one user. This is Wikipedia - as soon as I make you happy, someone else will just come along and say the original was better and revert it. Xaa (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
para/ortho ratio at 20K
The article claims that at 20K the ratio of para-H2 in thermal equilibrium is 99.95%. I've added a "citation needed" for that number. If I do the math with the partition functions given later in the article (using EJ = B*J*(J+1) with B=7.35meV) I arrive at Zpara=1.0000 and Zortho=0.0018, so the given ratio should be ~99.82%. I've cross-checked my T-dependent curves for Zortho/Zpara with Fig.1 from ApJ 516 (1999) 371, and they perfectly match, so I'm pretty sure my math is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I inserted a reference to Rock's text which has a table showing No/Np = 0.002 at 20 K, corresponding to 99.8% para which value I inserted. And then I noticed your comment, and I see that you and Rock are in agreement. Dirac66 (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
At the very least, an equation for the position of an electron requires three variables: one for each physically perpendicular plane in three-space. The basis for this article implies that there is only a single plane in which the electrons spin.
This article and the article about "Spin Isomers" should be deleted.
See the Wikipedia article on "Isomers" which, by that definition, is applicable to a compound though may also be applied to unbound, elemental hydrogen. (Two atoms of hydrogen). A "Nuclear Isomer" refers to physical differences at a sub-atomic level and to other elements known to radiate in the EM spectrum, so is not applicable.
- The article is not bogus. The physics described is real and supported by references to reliable scientific books and articles.
- It is true that the word "isomers" is confusing here because it does not have the same meaning as for chemical isomers which are of course much better known and more important. But "spin isomers" is the term used in the scientific literature so it is not is up to Wikipedia to change it. Dirac66 (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Although this section is factually correct, it is poorly written and cited. First off, the reference for PASADENA is not the actual paper where the term is first published. There is also no mention of the related ALTADENA effect. Second the oxford-instruments page is no longer valid. 3rd, the Duckett group site from York and one of their papers are referenced but oddly there is no mention the the SABRE phenomenon in the article. I think this section needs to be rewritten and expanded. The PHIP review article by C.R. Bowers would be an excellent source to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny31292 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)