Talk:Hydrogen

Template:Chemical Element 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).

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.

Decomposing Natural Gas

I think getting hydrogen from "decomposing" natural gas is actually called "reforming hydrogen from natural gas", (using steam) but I'm not positive if this is just the name for one way of getting it. --Ben 09:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) Steam reforming of natural gas

Hydrogen production

I suggest it should be a section dedicated to hydrogen production. This would avoid telling about it in the first section and allow a more complete listing of all production alternatives, e.g., add photoelectrochemy, artificial photosynthesis, and water splitting using the heat of a nuclear power plant through a chemical cycle.

It should also be more about hydrogen storage: briefly comment pressurized, liquid, and hydrides, with their advantages and draw-backs. --Philipum 09:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I was wanderign why there is nt more detail on the physics side of the hydrogen atoms. Things like thermoluminescence.

Applications

"Hydrogen fuel cells are being looked into as a way to provide power with lower emissions than hydrogen burning internal combustion engines." That can't be right, and the article on Hydrogen car is clear that the only emission is water vapor. Maybe we meant "fossil fuel-burning internal combustion engines".

Well technically, hydrogen internal combustion engines would likely produce NOx emissions for the same reasons gasoline engines do. But feel free to change the article; it could probably be clearer.

Two questions here,

a. What happens if you breathe hydrogen gas? Apart from becoming dangerously flammable I mean. Let's say you still had plenty of oxygen mixed in...

b. If hydrolysis uses an electric charge to release hydrogen and oxygen gas, and oxygen-and-hydrogen isn't just flammable but -explosive-, then wouldn't it explode every time you did that? Electric current has a way of igniting things.

Answers:

a. My understanding is nothing in particular. I believe oxygen / helium / hydrogen mixes are used for ultra-high-pressure diving breathing mixtures. Your voice would sound funny, though, like helium only more so :)

b. Electrolysis doesn't mean there's a spark, or that there's ever mixed hydrogen and oxygen present. The hydrogen comes off one electrode, the oxygen off the other (or opposite sides of the fuel cell or whatever). Evand 03:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CGH2

Compressed gaseous hydrogen redirects here; yet there is a link to that article (thus redirecting to this page) under See also. This article doesn't seem to discuss compressed gaseous hydrogen at all. Shouldn't either the CGH2 article be written/restored, or that form of hydrogen be discussed here? Phaunt 11:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Software

There is a drum machine called Hydrogen. Official website.

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).

Stand alone atoms of hydrogen

The existence of stand alone atoms of hydrogen is disputed. The current text of the article implies its existence: Under the extremely low pressure in space — virtually a vacuum — the element tends to exist as individual atoms, simply because there is no way for them to combine. According to the article "Hydrogen - element #1" by David L. Bergman (http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/hydrogen.pdf) I quote "Stand-alone atoms of hydrogen are unstable and do not exist". So H is always H2 Brz7 18:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The linked article looks like pseudoscience. The recombination energy is positive but in high temperatures the equilibrium in this reaction is shifted toward atomic hydrogen since atomic hydrogen has higher entropy than the molecular one. Also low pressure shifts the equilibrium toward atomic hydrogen since the recombination results in drop of pressure. The spectrum of atomic hydrogen is different from molecular hydrogen and both can be observed. Interstellar space is full of atomic hydrogen (21 cm line). Poszwa 01:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Any drawbacks?

Are there any drawbacks to using hydrogen in any way? I would be interested to know.

It makes your voice sound funny? (what do you mean?) --njh 09:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

revert of 2005/10/24

User:Cyclotronwiki, your capitalization was ...unusual in English, to put it mildly (and then the kWh in the infobox was just not correctly capitalized). http://home.att.net/~cat6a/fuels-VII.htm is not a good reference. The numbers don't add up, it doesn't cite their sources, and it contains other errors. Kilojoule and kilowatthour per mass unit are easily converted, why have both but not MJ/m³ or kJ/mol (the H2 qualifier is only needed with mole-based units). A separate Template:Elementbox_heatingvalue is not necessary, we can include that through conventional code, unless we're planning to include something like the heats of combustion to other elements. And even then it would be more meaningful to list separate enthalpies of formation for oxygen and those elements. The effort is appreciated but I think we can do better.

As to the incorrect STP note in the properties template (a section which is used with all the elements and also contains properties at the melting point for example and other thermodynamic values not at STP), specific conditions are best included as parentheses directly with the value they refer to. Femto 12:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Why connect hydrogen with Hindenburg disaster really?

I corrected the quote below yesterday to say hydrogen was inccorrectly connected with Hindenburg disaster. However, someone has reverted it and I am not fucking getting in a flame war. Do me a favour though, dig around with google and see what is out there. It shouldn't be hard since its well documented. Linking hydrogen with that accident is like saying TWA Flight 800 was brought down by kerosine. Should we then edit that article to reflect that? We cant have it both way.

It's NOT like saying Flight 800 was brought down by kerosene. If there was a nonflammable or far less version of kerosene (like diesel) that 800 could have been using, and didn't, and the kerosine it DID use blew it up, then that would be appropriate. Something that actually WAS the case with Hinderburg. It would have flown perfectly well on helium, which has 93% the lifting power of hydrogen. But the only source of helium in 1937 was US gas wells, and at the time, we refused to sell the Nazis any, so they had to make do with hydrogen, or not fly. They chose to fly. And got burned for it. Steve 06:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Since hydrogen is 14.5 times lighter than air, it was once widely used as a lifting agent in balloons and airships. However, this use was curtailed when the Hindenburg disaster convinced the public that the gas was too dangerous for this purpose. Or what is the reasoning behing mentioning Hindenburg? William

It hardly made it any clearer to replace "convinced" with "dubed". ("Duped"? as in 'knowingly mislead' seems rather unfitting.) Clarifying this potentially misleading sentence about public opinion is a matter of the form, not of the facts. Femto 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Opps, sorry about that. You are right I intended to use duped and I agree its too strong a word. Should have used something like "incorrectly linked", so yeah my edits weren't as helpful as I intended. However, I kind of still think mentioning the accident together with hydrogen is a bad idea, unless you put an effort to mention hydrogen wasn't the primary cause. To see why, observe what happen to Americans when Bush mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence. I wouldn't push it further though since it seem like it is acceptable to most wikipedians. William

(They wonder about the omission of WMDs in such sentence?) Oh, I for one think that even an only potentially unclear phrasing is worth improving. Just no idea how right now. Femto 14:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

what is hydrogen fusion and what does it do

(146.129.250.100)

You could start reading at hydrogen fusion (redirects to nuclear fusion), depending on what you want to know. Femto 16:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Most abundant element

I have just reverted 68.23.144.46's edit, in which they removed the statement that Hydrogen is the must abundant element in the universe. Now if the article stated "Hydrogen is the most abundant form of matter in the universe", then your argument (Not enough about the universe is known to assume it's the most abundant. Changed to world) would be more applicable. --Dan East 21:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Known universe, then

I also recall it's not the most abundant in the world, so my edit was wrong in the first place - I apologize for the error. However, once again I state, as "the universe" is, simply put, everything, we will never know enough about it to make such distinctions as "most" and "least." Therefore, while "world" is not, "known universe" is more applicable.

Then perhaps a qualifier is in order. --Dan East 05:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I Have a Question about Hydrogen Atom

I have a question about hydrogen atom in Modern Physics. Why may we estimate its radius by $E={\frac {<P>^{2}}{2m}}+U(r)$ then we go next step of something like...etc..(sorry but I forget the details).

Can it be calculated by classical mechanics? Or it can't be? And by Wilson-Sommerfeld's quantumlization theory,radius of H can be elpise shape,but how do we calculate it in this case? --HydrogenSu 17:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It can be calculated with semi-classical mechanics, in the Bohr model, and gives essentially the same number. Which is a shock. But since Bohr's theory makes other wrong predictions, people are embarrassed about using it to make this good one. Steve 06:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Revisions indicated

I think that we should refine this article further. It leaves the wrong impression that H2 is an energy source (it is an energy transfer agent, there is no H2 to be mined, as the article eventually explains). "Despite its ubiquity in the universe, hydrogen is surprisingly difficult to produce in large quantities on the Earth." Poppycock. It is very easy to make H2. "another promising method involves the conversion of biomass derivatives such as glucose or sorbitol at low temperatures using a catalyst." Such processes are merely an expensive type of steam reforming it seems, one strips H2 from a hydrocarbon concomitant with formation of CO2. "The electron is bound to the proton by the Coulomb force, the electrical force that one stationary, electrically charged nanoparticle exerts on another." Nanoparticle!? " It has a high capacity for adsorption, in which it is attached to and held to the surface of some substances." What is "capacity for adsorption"? Are we talking, e.g. about Pd adsorbing H2? "It reacts violently with chlorine and fluorine, forming hydrohalic acids that can damage the lungs and other tissues." do we need to link to "lungs" and "tissue"? Suffice it to say that H2 reacts with halogens to give HX. We need a section dedicated to production, it seems. And a separate section sources (where we can comment on the nonexistence of H2 wells), and a section on uses. I was under the impression that Haber-Bosch does not use H2 per se, but relies on in situ steam reforming, i.e. N2 + CH4 + H2O to NH3 + CO2 (not balanced). Any help? Smokefoot 04:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Storage

Perhaps there should be a section to discuss the various methods of storing hydrogen with their associated challenges. i.e. hydrides, compressed gas, etc. Porcupine911 05:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Added paragraph under "Electron energy levels" describing the 1420 MHz fine structure transition which is used by astronomers to map the distribution of atomic hydrogen gas in the Galaxy. User:SETIGuy 13 Februay 2006

Not an application?

The use as a coolant and the triple-point-cell temperature calibration are concrete applications. Why the "<!--not an application-->" comments? Femto 12:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I guess the answer depends on one's definition of an "application" or as the article says "The element has several other important uses" (emphasis added), then lists triple point calibrants and use as a lifting gas etc. IMHO, a triple point calibrant is not the basis for many peoples' livelihood. Important, or just a factoid? One could list as an "application" the use of H2 in chemistry "magic shows" to illustrate combustion. It is used as a fuel is certain gas chromatograph detectors. My skepticism, and this comes from someone who like this little molecule, is whether we want readers thinking triple point calibrants and the like are "important." In any case, thank you very much for your comment and feel free to remove my comments - I was trying to stimulate this very discussion and have no attachment to this article, which does contain much useful information. Cheers,--Smokefoot 17:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Question; why doesn't the liquid hydrogen in the shuttle's booster lift the booster?

If the liquid hydrogen in the booster was used to fill a blimp, how much weight could the blimp lift? Could it lift the booster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progman3K (talk • contribs)

Hydrogen can lift things by making them less dense than air. Liquid hydrogen is not less dense than air. Hydrogen gas and liquid hydrogen are lighter than most other elements and compounds when they are at the same temperature and pressure, but there is a large pressure difference between liquid hydrogen and the air outside. If the air outside were liquified too, it would float.

Note that the blimp would float better than filled with hydrogen if the pressure inside were reduced to a hard vacuum, but the structure would collapse. Hydrogen floats because, with the same pressure, it has less mass (see Ideal gas law). The same for hot-air balloons. Hot air takes up more space for the same mass, so hot air 'floats'. --Splarka (rant) 07:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

But to answer the original question: The shuttle's tank holds 2 million L of liquid H2, which has a mass of 0.14 million Kg. Since a kg of H2 lifts 15 times its own weight (about) when converted to gas in air, then that's a lifting power in slight excess of 2 million kg for a blimp with that much H2. And the fully loaded shuttle (including fuel and boosters), as it happens, is just about 2 million kg. So there's just enough lift in that much H2, to take up the whole loaded thing. If you take it up with an unloaded H2 tank, presuming it went into the blimp, it's only 1.86 million kg, which should give enough weight for the blimp. So that would work, I thin. With a blimp AND a fully loaded liquid hydrogen tank, it would be a very near thing. And even if you made it, it would look REALLY silly. Steve 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Image in Appearance

The current image used for Hydrogen is a lot like the one used for Helium, and doesn't really show that it is a colourless gas. Perhaps the image from the German version (slightly edited) would be a better one to use in the article? --Scot^t 10:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

On board H2 reformation?? Say WHAT?

I took out the wacky idea of on-board H2 reformation from biofuels. If you already have the biofuels, you just burn them in your car! Trying to get the H2 out of them first just wastes energy and emits the same CO2. Unless you've got an on-board Stargate to dump the CO2 into? Biofuels are greenhouse neutral, like wood, anyway-- the problem is we don't have the land to make enough of them. Not enough sunlight and plants in North America to power North America, unless we want to give up food :( A better way to use hydrogen is to make it with nuclear or some kind of renewable energy, then synthesize your favorite alcohol using air or fossil CO2, for transportation. This is also greenhouse neutral. However, an article on H2 is not the place to push any particular H2 use ideas. The hydrogen economy is already referenced.Sbharris 21:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And why have we removed the Hindenburg from the section on H2 combustion?

A better illustration photo hardly exists.Steve 22:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen molecule

Hydrogen molecule redirects here: could we have some data on the bond length and dissociatiation energy of molecular hydrogen? Physchim62 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fifty different forms of hydrogen

Including allegedy, H²⁺. can someone explain to me how a ground state atom with one electron can lose two electrons to become a dication? sounds like bs to me. Xcomradex 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously that should be H₂^{+. I've fixed it. SBHarris 04:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)}

Hydrogen bonding and clarifications

There's a link to Hydrogen bond in the see also section, but no mention at all of the phenomenon in the text. Am I being bio-centric in thinking it should at least get a passing reference?

Also, I've read this sentence a few times now: "Hydrogen is not a pre-existing source of energy like fossil fuels, but a carrier, much like a battery." but I can't figure out what it's trying to say. Maybe I'm just dense but it doesn't seem to mean anything at all. Any clarifications? Opabinia regalis 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay here is the translation:

1) "Hydrogen is not a pre-existing source of energy" = there is no hydrogen to be mined or used out there. 2) "like fossil fuels, but a carrier, much like a battery" any H2 produced and burnt elsewhere is simply a way of conveying energy from place (of its manufacture) to place. This description is popular with DoE as a means of reminding wll-intentioned but naive enthusiasts that the H2 economy is not about finding H2.--Smokefoot 00:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Wouldn't it be clearer then to say that H2 can't be mined and has to be synthesized before being used as a fuel? Unless that really is a recognized DoE phrase, in which case some reference to them would be useful. Evidently at least one US resident is oblivious, so I'm guessing non-US people wouldn't be familiar with DoE public information usage. Opabinia regalis 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one that killed the "non-sequitur". I agree totally with your sentiments implied above and in recent edits - but what can we do - put a giant disclaimer about the fact that there might be hydrogen in water but its not the kind you are looking for and that there are no H2 wells out in those square states? I should look for the DoE document--Smokefoot 00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there really that much confusion on the subject? Anyone who's read and understood the "different meanings of hydrogen" section shouldn't be confused. (Hrm, maybe I shouldn't ask that question if I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.) Opabinia regalis 01:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A proposal to tighten this article

This article is potentially influential, so we should take steps to fix it up. Presently though, the article seems too long. Also, it appears contains a number of topics that readers outside of atomic physics would not find pertinent:

• 2 screenfuls on "Isotopes" when an article Isotopes of hydrogen exists already
• 1 screenful on Electron energy levels" when hydrogen atom already is a full article
• 1 screenful ea on "Hydrogen as an energy source" near the bottom and near the top the thing I wrote on "Hydrogen as an energy carrier". While there is a full article hydrogen economy.
• also I recommend removing the stupid (IMHO) ampoule of (supposedly) H2. Readers understand the meaning of "colorless gas"!

So please join in and lets discuss this thing.--Smokefoot 03:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO the isotopes section should stop at tritium and leave the rest to the isotopes article, especially since everything beyond tritium is a lab case anyway. I don't have a problem with the length of the energy levels section per se, but it's very wordy for the amount of information it contains. The chemical and physical properties section, on the other hand, is just sad - one sentence about general properties and then a subsection on combustion. Surely there's more to say? And yes, "here's a picture of that stuff you can't see" strikes me as pretty pointless, though a lot of the element articles have them.

I think the whole article suffers from constantly harping on the fuel source thing. I didn't dig through the history to see if this just accreted over time or what, but it's unorganized and needs to be concentrated into one section. The biological treatment is too skimpy (or, as in hydrogen bonding, nonexistent). There's also a large number of unsourced statements in the article that are in need of referencing. The energy levels, synthesis, and compounds sections are pretty much referenceless. Opabinia regalis 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with cutting isotopes to the short remark on the first three and offloading the rest to the main article on H isotopes (make sure all the info is there). Also, there's a very good reason why hydrogen in biology is skimpy-- its full role is too large to really be writable. Hydrogen, like carbon and oxygen, IS biology (no biochemistry takes place without it, so you may as well just reference this to the articles and subarticles on biochemistry). The best you can do here (and also for carbon and oxygen) is look the role of elemental hydrogen in biology and write articles about elements that occur in smaller amounts. Nitrogen is about has close as I think is possible to look at as a separate element in biology, and there are articles on nitrogen cycle and so on. But there's a bigger full article on biology and magnesium, so nitrogen is surely getting short shrift. BTW, we had a similar problem in the page on atoms: a section on "use of atoms in industry" was ridiculous. We finally settled on the role of use of SINGLE atoms in industry. SBHarris 17:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cut down some heavy redundancy in the isotope section as a start. Femto 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-organization?

To my eyes the ordering of the sections doesn't have a natural flow. Might I suggest something like the following?

1. Different meanings of "hydrogen"
2. History
3. Natural occurrence
4. Isotopes
5. Electron energy levels
6. Elemental molecular forms
7. Chemical and physical properties
   1. Forms
   2. Combustion
8. Compounds
   1. Covalent and organic compounds
   2. Hydrides
   3. "Protons" and acids
9. Production
   1. Laboratory routes to H2
   2. Industrial routes to H2
   3. Biological routes to H2
10. Applications
    1. Hydrogen as an energy carrier

The "Forms" section under "Isotopes" looks like it would be more appropriate under "Chemical and physical properties". Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, though all the compounds you list (like acids) imply applications of the COMPOUNDS. Perhaps this is another unwritably long task like hydrogen in biology, and best left alone. In applications (OF THE FREE ELEMENT) which is about all we can space for, the main ones for H2 are (in terms of million tons H2 used) are in onsite ammonia production and hydrcarbon cracking for light hydrocarbon fuel production. These should go ahead of hydrogen as energy carrier, which is hypothetical (mostly) and in any case is well described in main article hydrogen economy. SBHarris 17:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

In addition to the rewriting and reorganization, the article needs more inline citations - and of the ones that exist, two are linked to the same basic fact (amount of hydrogen in the universe) and only one is a "traditional" academic source. I added some refs to a gen-chem text that covers this stuff in the industrial processes section, but the isotope and ortho/para ratios especially need citations, and there are whole sections that are bare. Opabinia regalis 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For summarized facts from sub-articles (isotopes of hydrogen), or for other linked topics (orthohydrogen), it should suffice when the references are inherited from there. Strictly, not this article needs a cite for the equilibrium ratio but orthohydrogen. Femto 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. IMHO, we still need to cite sources for whatever is included in the article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say put the relevant references in both places, for clarity if nothing else. If the citation is in the smaller article the fact is still referenced; it's not a matter of using another Wikipedia article as a source. It would be a pain if this were a widespread practice, though, because tracking down which of a group of related articles contained the reference for a particular fact would be a pain. Opabinia regalis 00:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Out-sourcing references is fine and preferred according to Wikipedia:Summary style#Citations and external links. Wikipedia articles themselves may not be reliable sources, but the references which back their facts are. Not every basic fact needs a cite when it's available elsewhere. I don't see an organizational problem (on the contrary) in referring to more specific topics for more specific cites. Femto 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO specific factual statements made in this article should still be cited here - obviously more specific references to subjects only discussed here in very general terms aren't needed. Matters like the orthohydrogen ratio should definitely have a citation here because, although orthohydrogen is mentioned, it isn't a child article summarized here - so summary style guidelines don't really apply. Opabinia regalis 00:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I need help!!!

I Need these following Facts: Number p+, Number e-, Numer of n0, Period Number (row), Family/Group Number (column), State at ROOM Temperature (solid, liquid or gas), Is it a metal, non-metal, metalloid, or noble gas.

I need those facts for the following elements: Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Sodium, Magnesium, Phosphorous, Sulfur, Chlorine, Potassium, Calcium, Boron, Flourine, Chromium, Manganese, Iron, Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, and Iodine.

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)