Talk:Nitrogen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Nitrogen has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 7, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
January 5, 2017 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Untitled[edit]

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by David M, and Malcolm Farmer. Elementbox converted 12:08, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:15, 18 Jun 2005).

Information Sources[edit]

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Nitrogen. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Nitrogen Statistics and Information,USGS Periodic Table - Nitrogen, 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.

Cryogenic History[edit]

It is worh mentioning that Nitrogen was first liquified in 1883 by Wrobleski and Olzewski. (Taken from "Cryogenic Technology" edited by Robert W. Vance, published by John Wiley & sons inc. 1963)

Scheele[edit]

Scheele discovered nitrogen in the same year as Rutherford.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nitrogen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

MO diagram...[edit]

The molecular orbital diagram here in the allotropes section([[1]]) is quite different from the one for the same molecule given here([[2]]. The bonding 2p pi orbitals are lower in energy compared to the bonding 2p sigma orbital as per the latter while the one in this article shows the opposite picture. As my understanding of molecular orbital theory is quite limited, i am not sure which one is correct. Although what i have learnt till now tells me that the latter is correct, i think it would be best to let someone with a better understanding of the theory to have a look and suggest an edit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.159.88 (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The scale is somewhat exaggerated: the energies of the 2sσ, 2pσ, and 2pπ orbitals are actually very close. I redrew the MO diagram here from Clayden, Greeves, and Warren (p. 94), but they left out this detail for simplification (since it wasn't their focus, although in that case I would've thought it sounder to use O2 as the example instead). The bonding 2pσ orbital should indeed be higher in energy than the bonding 2pπ orbitals because the 2s and 2p orbitals are still similar enough in energy at N2 to have a significant bonding interaction, decreasing the energy of the 2sσ orbital and increasing that of the 2pσ orbital (see ChemWiki for a more complete explanation). I have replaced the diagram and tagged the old one for deletion, as it is wrong. Thank you for alerting me to this! Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)