Talk:Oxygen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Oxygen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 14, 2008.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Elements (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is a vital article.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  • Archive 1 through January 2008.
    (when it became a Featured Article)

Article vandalised with Jason Preistly name and TV show cross references being inserted instead of joseph preistly. JDN

merge Activated Oxygen into ozone?[edit]

Should we merge the new article Activated Oxygen into the ozone article?--Stone (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes Vgnsh20011 (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oxygen molecule image[edit]

Oxygen discharge (spectrum) tube
Oxygen O2 molecule.

I have replaced the oxygen discharge type image with an image of the oxygen molecule. If someone finds a good place for the discharge tube image, please place it there. Ulflund (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

solubility[edit]

"Oxygen is more soluble in water than nitrogen is; water contains approximately 1 molecule of O2 for every 2 molecules of N2, compared to an atmospheric ratio of approximately 1:4. The solubility of oxygen in water is temperature-dependent, and about twice as much (14.6 mg·L−1) dissolves at 0 °C than at 20 °C (7.6 mg·L−1)."

Error here (can't edit b/c new user): the 7.6 mg-L-1 solubility is at 30ºC, NOT at 20ºC (source: http://www.ysi.com/media/pdfs/DO-Oxygen-Solubility-Table.pdf and many other easily available sources on google). Someone please correct this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.175.26 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This section appears to me to be contradictory and confusing. If there are 2 molecules of dissolved nitrogen in water, compared to 1 molecule of oxygen, then isn't nitrogen more soluble than oxygen ? If the key point here is that there are 4 nitrogen molecules in the air for each 1 molecule of oxygen in the air, then how does the solubility depend on this ; the unit being given for the solubility does not indicate this.Eregli bob (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes its is confusing. The first statement appears to be showing that the dissolved oxygen-nitrogen ratio (mol/mol) in water is relatively more oxygen-rich than the equivalent oxygen-nitrogen ratio in air, but in both cases there is more nitrogen. The second is about the inverse temperature relationship of the (satuarated) dissolved oxygen concentration (mg·L−1) in water. I think it may be necessary to go back to the source (Emsley) to see what is being claimed there. Pyrotec (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't THAT confusing. Gas solubilities are related to partial pressures. If nitrogen's partial pressure is 4 times that of oxygen in air (which it is), if they had the same solubility, they would present in a 4:1 ratio of molar content dissolved in water, as well. But they aren't-- it's down to 2:1, which indicates that oxygen is twice as soluble as nitrogen in water. The second paragraph only has to do with the temperature-sensitivity of oxygen's solubility, and ignores nitrogen (as it should, since these are more or less independent things, and the presense or absense of nitrogen has almost nothing to do with how much oxygen dissolves in water).SBHarris 20:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Make this article.....[edit]

Make it simpler and more understandable — Preceding unsigned comment added by YohohoTheBest (talkcontribs) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have to tell us where you live, what your primary language is, how many years of education you have (what year in school you are). WP articles on things like elements are aimed about about the level of U.S. high school seniors or high school graduate (no college required). SBHarris 20:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

i would change the following sentence: "two atoms of the element bind to form dioxygen, a very pale blue, odorless, tasteless diatomic gas with the formula O2". oxygen gas is clear and colorless; it is only pale blue when it s a liquid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assiramnes (talkcontribs) 22:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


incomplete info.....[edit]

Info on isotopes is missing (i.e., exact masses, including mass defects). This info would be of particular interest to chemists, physicists, and the field of mass spectrometry. Dha250 (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you try clicking on the link saying "Main article: Isotopes of oxygen" right after the section header and the infobox isotopes header? That page gives the exact masses. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ubiquitous O compounds[edit]

Oxygen is the most abundant element by mass in the crust, the oceans, and of course us. And second most common in most materials around us. Unless you live in a metal house, wear BN ceramics, and got diamonds on the soles of your shoes, etc., that's true. I tried to get something to that effect into the lead. I think oxygen is so common that it's easier to describe common things that don't contain O than those that do. It's so common I can't summarize except to say that. Some editor disagreed and reverted me. Okay, so let's see you do better. SBHarris 05:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 June 2013[edit]

In the 'Safety and precautions' section, please change this sentence:

"Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O 2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa (equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure)."

to this sentence:

"Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), equal to about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure, or 2.5 times the normal sea-level oxygen partial pressure which is about 21 kPa."

This will clarify the sentence. The current phasing implies that 21 kPA is about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure, but actually it should say that 50 kPa is about 50% oxygen composition at standard pressure. Dshackleford (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Dshackleford (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Reatlas (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Discovery[edit]

29-07-2013 The article gives preference to the independant American discoverer of Oxygen in spite of the fact the English discoverer of Oxygen published it first. This should be changed by an edit expert to credit the English discoverer Priestley first in the sentence. The author of this article has not paid due respect to that, and somehow is insinuating the discovery ought to be awarded to the American by putting his name first in the sentence when it should be printed second or actually - if at all. Does Wikipedia want to maintain credibility or allow the article authors to perpertrate bias and bend the truth of history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.54.203 (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What American? Scheele was Swedish. Vsmith (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
He was Pomeranian. He spoke Swedish, but only when not yapping. SBHarris 18:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting removal of reference[edit]

I've removed the reference used after "for example, about two-thirds of human body mass" in the articles lead section. The reference doesn't specify the fact it is used for, and seems to be of a questionable quality for a FA lead. Grrahnbahr (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Can a gase be tasteless?[edit]

In my work I once wrote that oxygen, as a simple substance, is a tasteless gase. All the university laughed at that thing. But the English Wiki does state the same that I said. Does it have any sense that a gase can be tasteless or have taste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.96.128 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Chlorine and other halogen gases have nasty tastes, and all gases that turn into acids (HCl) taste very sour. Of course oxygen and nitrogen are tasteless. Can you taste pure air? SBHarris 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Discovery[edit]

The information in the article and infobox regarding the discovery of oxygen do not agree; Priestley is not mentioned in the infobox, and the dates for Scheele are different. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

For reasons of space the first discoverer is usually the only one mentioned in the infobox. Scheele gets the spot because he found it first, although Priestley was the first to publish his discovery. As for the date, it seems to be not entirely certain, but it was probably discovered around 1772 and was certainly discovered by 1773. (Perhaps we should use "1772?", to show this uncertainty?) Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
For whatever free text description, there is available for the infobox: |history comment label= (LH text), and |history comment=.
I think, encyclopedically "space" is not an argument. More so electronically (unlimited page size + hyperlinks). OTOH, info could be left out because it is not relevant or too detailed. And with your reply, Doublesharp, is that discrepancy solved/disappeared (an explanation on the talkpage does not count). -DePiep (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Discoverer of oxygen is Polish alchemist Michał Sędziwój, who called it "food of life" (lat. Cibus vitae). Sędziwój knew that "the food of life, hidden in the air" is essential to life (humans, animals and plants), and that it passes from air into the blood [1]. Sędziwój received oxygen through the experimental distribution of potassium nitrate during the roasting; his experience he described in his work: "Twelve treaties philosophers stone" (1604). Stated that there is a body of nitrate, containing the "spirit world" (so-called oxygen, recognizing it as the Sorcerer's Stone), enabling the lives of people and animals. So he knew that the gas is a component of the air and is essential to life. Oxygen was discovered by Carl shed again before 1773, but the discovery has not been published in 1777. At that time, the discoverer of oxygen for two years was considered Joseph Priestley, which receives oxygen by heating mercury oxide (II) and collecting the emitted gas.

Currently the 2nd paragraph doesn't mention the countries of the inventors. So I would suggest: Uppsala (sweden) and Wiltshire (UK) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.237.61 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

[1] Maciej Iłowiecki: History of the Polish science. Warsaw: Publishing House "Interpress", 1981, p. 55. ISBN 83-223-1876-6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.242.53 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Edited the molecular structure description[edit]

… of dioxygen to be consistent with standard descriptions from high quality US and EU university texts [specifically citing the molecular orbital (MO) diagram and description of Barrett], providing this standard MO description, a nearly precisely corresponding MO diagram from wikimedia commons, removing the unnecessary Purdue genchem coursework citation, calling for a good, solid, secondary chem source for the triplet description, and providing a better preliminary description of the Pauling model and source.

If you are going to edit/change this, do so only if you have source in hand, and it is a solid text or secondary chem source, and as clearly draw your information from your source as did from mine. The earlier vague description and unreliable sourcing cannot remain here; it is just unrepresentative of the status of this field and information, and overall sub-par chemical description and sourcing. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving images around so the appearance of the article is more acceptable; please hold. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I made the article presentable after the mol structure edit, by moving images: moving the liq O2 image to the article section on liq O2, moving the space-filling O2 to the infobox (which requires that the whole info box markup language appear, until other editing is done), and then moving the paramagnetism trickle image to left side.
The discharge image is moved here, because there is no explanatory text for it in the article (at all, and so no context to place it):
Blue white greenish glow from an oxygen discharge tube.
please reintroduce this image when it has a proper encyclopedic context. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I am once again moving this intellectually "orphaned"—completely unexplained, heretofore not-even-mentioned—image of the discharge, here to Talk, and again, asking in the Edit summary, and here that it not be returned to the article until its purpose/utility to the explanation of the article subject, oxygen, is clear—i.e., that it remains out, until the image can be integrated, via useful text, into the article. So, please don't revert the edit again, without both an Edit summary explanation or without addressing the matter here: please attend to the substantial issue I raise. Not doing so is disrespectful, wastes time, and does not move the article toward GA status. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
My opinion: we have in all our element article a "real and true" image from the element in the info-box. Why we need only in oxygen a scheme? A discharge tube show us a physical property, the greenish hue from the oxygen similar or because to the "aurora borealis". This makes oxygen visible and is an important property. So please re-edit the article and put the scheme out from the box in an other place in the article! Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree. The ball scheme is not the essential element image (nor is the electron config scheme, for example). We expect it in the appropriate section. -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Replaced the space-filling model of O2 in the infobox with the liquid oxygen image, as that requires much less context than the oxygen discharge tube image. Note that this is for consistency with all the other element articles, which use a picture of the element in the infobox, as opposed to a structure. Perhaps a solution would be to just include two pictures in every element infobox: one would be a picture of the element, and one would be a representation of the structure of the most common allotrope(s)? Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Usually allotropes are in picture #1 already (as in tin). Does a structure image not overlap the crystal structure image, as content? And if not, would that not be a better area to have the allotrope images (ie, near the crystal image in the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I am a chem Prof, and interested in pedagogy—accuracy of material, and the value of any given set of statements in advancing student (reader) understanding. I have no interest whatsoever in maintaining paradigms simply for sake of doing so. FIrst, there is no "our" at wikipedia; that is, there is no "in all our element articles". What should happen in any given article is what is best for understanding of the title subject. Second, at STP, the chemical element in question is something that cannot be seen, and hence the form of O2 that is most familiar to the readership (invisible gaseous dioxygen) is poorly represented by the lede (infobox) image. That is to say, opening the article with a O2(l) image is just as abstract, but less meaningful, than opening it with a space-filling representation of the homonuclear diatomic. (Caveat, the image legends here are substandard, and so more needs to be done with the graphics legend than is currently done.) Third, extending your logic, images of compounds such as sucrose and penicillin should appear as piles of near-to-indistinguishable white powder, because that is an "image from [sic.] the element" compound. Nonsense. What all others do, and have done is immaterial. The question is, what is best as an explanation of the material being presented. A molecular formula is more meaningful in these latter cases than piles of white powder; an image of a homonuclear diatomic (properly explained in legend) is more meaningful than a misplaced test-tube of liquid that is (trust us) gaseous dioxygen, condensed and collected. Fourth, pedagogically, it is simply silly to suggest that the image of the O2(l) is more useful and informative where it is now placed, than lower, near the Physical properties subsection; that is to say, per your edit, the O2(l) image is now misplaced with regard to best teaching of this material. FIfth, any argument that presentation of the space-filling representation of O2 is best placed where it is, now—after the infobox, as the third image, even after ozone—is similarly pedagogically specious. Sixth, the redesign needed to put such a limited value O2(l) image first, rather than where it best explains and informs its concepts, had as a result the lengthening of the infobox. This edit, this revert putting O2(l) back into the infobox necessitated moving the MO diagram to left side of article, further mucking the article about; what was a reasonably professional appearance for an article opening (in this professional's opinion), is no longer. Seventh and finally, there has been no firm objection to including the discharge image, just an objection to including it without any article textual content related to it.
The fact that some editors appear to believe that this decision-making logic is acceptable—that teaching chemistry is about superficial visual experiences unrelated to deep understanding, so that the hard thinking and work required to stimulate deep understanding is not required—this editorial philosophy goes a long way to explaining why it's more important to be consistent to an artificial, fundamentally illogical infobox standard set by "Lor' knows who" —rather than to think independently and create a unique article opening that is best for a complete novice student to begin to understand oxygen chemistry. I can only imagine that there are not many combined years of broad teaching experience yet, on your side of this debate.
Regardless, I will not revert you. (You should mull over this, be persuaded, and change the article back, despite it flying in the face of an anonymous, pedagogically weak infobox image precedent.) But just know, by any objective standard, regardless of what consensus you muster, the article opening is not better, but worse for the changes. So do as you wish, I will not fight further about this. And feel free to add the discharge image. I look forward to its textual integration into the teaching of the article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: I'm a chemical engineer with diploma, also interested in "real-life" pedagogy and an owner of a privacy museum for the elements. Your "red" bulb oxygen molecule is more distracting than a discharge tube or the liquid-blue oxygen. Why red, why the puzzling thick bulbs? Why is the sky blue? Why is the aurora borealis in the main green? How we can show an invisible things visible? Why are the colorless gas neon is red? Believe me all my visitors are enthusiastic to see the luminous light of the oxygen discharge tube and see the true blue color of the pure liquid oxygen. Now all my visitors understand the blue color of our atmosphere ... Please think about this too! Real-life is more important than only a dry curriculum! Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@User talk:Alchemist-hp: The space filling image is not mine, and I do not state that it is perfect, simply far preferable to the obfuscating reversions. I have no doubt you have experience in your area, but not sufficient in this one, surely: the "puzzling thick bulbs" are a standard, meaningful space-filling model of elemental oxygen as found at STP, where its meaning derives from the scale of the "bulbs" as a representation of approximate van der Waal radii as an indicator of the approximate dispersity of the molecule's valennce electron cloud (see the SFM article, and [1] for more information, and [2] for the experimental basis for space-filling representations). As for the "[w]hy red," you again convey naivete regarding the modern teaching of chemistry: while I did not create this image, I can say most assuredly that it was given the red color because this is the most common colour given to oxygen atoms based on modern molecular graphics representations, e.g., see CPK coloring, alongside blue for nitrogen, black for carbon, etc. You are free to teach as creatively and [literally] unconventionally as you wish at your "priva[te] museum of the elements," but I ask here that you honour standard conventions and encyclopedic advice, and revert the stylistic, creative, and non-standard thrusts that you have introduced, and return the article to where it was (with liquid oxygen, whose colour is immaterial to the color of the sky, back to the section on liquid oxygen, and the standard colour and representation of oxygen to the infobox), before you reverted my thoughtful, professorially informed work without discussion. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
You wrote: "Regardless, I will not revert you.", then do it please. Thanks. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── re Leprof 7272, about the opening image (infobox picture). I will respond to some minor and major issues.

#0 It is "our" wikipedia all right. That includes you, and is an acceptable way of speech. This is not a courthouse about private property.
#2Caveat, the image legends ...- picked up, addressed and edited. See #below.
#3 extending your logic, ... nonsense. As you conclude. I note that it is you who does extending the logic into what we both find nonsense. As for the intention: compounds and elements do not need to be treated the same. An element is still an element at atomic level. Molecules are not per se. A structure showing in a compound article is very to the point IMO, as is the elements appearance in an elements article. Adding those images of compounds, you can propose at WT:CHEMICALS for example. You might meet me there saying it's not a good idea for compounds.
pedagogically; teaching you write. In general those are a useful guide to find article requirements, but as it is used here it is overused and overweighed. Because, an encyclopedia is there to describe it, not to teach it. Whenever pedagogical/teaching needs would cross with descriptive requirements, the teacher looses. This reads like a conflicting situation to show the point; but usually these needs flow together nicely. In other words: to teach about oxygen, a teacher indeed might choose for good reasons to start with another image. However, to describe oxygen, we can start with a picture that says "This is oxygen".
You post that the molecule is the point to start introducing oxygen. I disagree. Oxygen in a compound is still the element oxygen. Also, molecules are just the chemical part of stuff. Elements are just as well a physical matter. For example, it's isotopes must be described as well, but again not in the opening text/image. Promoting the chemicals to the top-level would be undue weight for that aspect.
If you try to pursue the claim 'we can not see it in our world, so we must use a schema illustration' (my rewording), that is not that convincing. The current picture already is an alternative solution. (By the way, when you teach, introducing oxygen, what do you tell first: that it's a gas, so not liquid or solid in nat.state or that it's diatomic molecules?).
I skip the more impressionist arguments like "an artificial, fundamentally illogical infobox" - difficult to argue with. I'd like to learn how we can improve the infobox, but that is not in there. As for "standard set by "Lor' knows who" " - well, the standard was set by us. that is: including you.
To conclude, quite simple, article "oxygen" best open with an image that says: "this is oxygen". To make sense with the image, it is OK to have different state values (explained nicely). When you open with an image "spacefilling (ball) scheme of oxygen molecule", there are already three abstractions in the opening. And, of course, all this and more can be in specialized sections. -DePiep (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This matter and your arguing of it is so much nonsense. Your presentation of liquid oxygen is a presentation of a chosen molecule of it, and not a focus on the element. You can comment snidely on the expression "artificial, fundamentally illogical info box", but I have made this argument and case at the Template Talk page for these info boxes, and illogical it is (arbitrarily showing forms at STP for most elements, but esoteric solid and liquid forms for others, on the apparent basis of particular editor perceptions of image attractiveness). So, pour scorn on it all you will, the argument is based on reason and chemistry, and not image prettiness. FInally, at issue is whether it is more abstract to present a model of the diatomic nature of the gas, or a picture of state of the element that no reader will ever see. Your and your cooperating editorial cohort's abilities (a) understand this, and (b) argue contrary to it, by communicating a depth of chemical understanding in clear academic English, are limited. I have nothing further to say, or argue with you on the matter. Enjoy your article. It certainly pleases the two of you, even if it is largely useless in any real academic context. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Caption of the infobox image[edit]

As Leprof 7272 made me notice, I think the infobox image caption needs improvement:

(Current caption):
Liquid oxygen, oxygen bubbles

For example, the word "bubbles" is right for the alt-text, because that is what you see in the picture. But the caption should describe what it is (see WP:EIS: alt & caption).

I think these text elements are to be considered:

  • "oxygen", "liquid"
  • "at T, P"
  • 'boiling"
Negative: "bubbles"

Now the non-S T, P are unknown for this picture (maybe available in its source?). And the 'bubbles' are boiling oxygen, am I right? The LOX article says:

boiling point of 90.19 K (−297.33 °F, −182.96 °C) at 101.325 kPa (760 mmHg).

However, this is the lede picture, so I don't think the caption needs to be this precise & complete. b.p. is specified below in the infobox. OTOH, as a reader semi-unfamiliar with this topic, I surely would like to have the bubbles described/mentioned/explained. The other bubbles I ever saw were in boiling water and gaseous refreshers. (so, these bubbles, are they steam or CO2?, the reader asks). From all this I propose a more summary caption:

(proposal A):
Liquid oxygen, boiling (oxygen is liquid below ca. −183 °C (−297 °F), at 101.325 kPa)

Any alternatives or remarks? -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: your proposal A is better and perfect for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposal A is fine with me. Might we want to state that the bubbles are of gaseous oxygen, as well? Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Will change it, further improvements not prohibited. Eh, isn't that "gaseous oxygen" said with the "boiling"? Any other simple description? -DePiep (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done (Proposal A). Further discussion welcome. -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I myself would like to replace the very technical pressure "101.325 kPa" with something simpler (layman-talk). Could use the "ca." wording. -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Other idea: write and link only: (at atmospheric pressure) without "101.325 kPa"!? I think that's enough. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I boldly brashly made a change, but thought better of it and so I reverted it.
My idea was (proposal B): Liquid oxygen boiling<br>Oxygen is a liquid below −183 °C (−297 °F) (at atmospheric pressure, 101.325 kPa).
My idea now (proposal C): Liquid oxygen boiling:<br>Oxygen is a liquid below −183 °C (−297 °F) (at atmospheric pressure).
(plus a few &nbsp; and {{nowrap}}) YBG (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd cahnge: at-values in brackets as we do elsewhere. Keep the comma to keep readable text; use ca. for correctness. Write atm press is better, but no need to link unless you want to define it; then we can use atm (as abbr)?).
  • (proposal D)
Liquid oxygen, boiling (at atmospheric pressure, oxygen is liquid below ca. −183 °C (−297 °F))
-DePiep (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I prefer relegating pressure to the end; temp seems a more important focus point. YBG (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • (proposal E)
Liquid oxygen, boiling (oxygen is liquid below ca. −183 °C (−297 °F), at atm)
  • Yes check.svg Done
I made it this (proposal E) into the infobox. My own proposal. I should be wiki-killed for this. OK then, if it is by Good Editors (the problem is, you only get killed by ANI admins). -DePiep (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Discharge tube prose edited strongly[edit]

…for fundamental errors, illegibility of prose, and failure to provide sources. See Edit summary and hidden note in text. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

REVERTED BY DEPIEP. SEE [3], so all errors of Alchemist reintroduced, and properties and molecular structure returned to being admixed/confounded. Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
If you know it better, so correct it simple! I think you as a prof. at a university have enough literature for this work. Only to say "... fundamental errors ..." is counterproductive. I'm in the main a chemistry-photographer with the intention to make images that show us the elements in true, like oxygen in a discharge tube. And ... Wikipedia isn't only for chemistry students, Wikipedia is for ordinary peoples too. Did you ever saw the elements in real life? If not, so you are invited to visit me at my private museum. I'd like to show you the fascinating elements. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I made corrections to your error-filled prose about the discharge tube, and your friend DePiep reverted it, along with changes to the MO section, and edits to the physical property content. I have elevated the matter, so others can address your edits and your friends personal reversion. I have nothing more to say to you about this. Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This paragraph does contain errors and vague statements, and the references do not support any facts except that a discharge might happen in oxygen. I am sure a whole article could be written on the topic, but would be far too excessive for this page. Leprof 7272 was right to draw attention to the problem, but did overtag the issues. One dubious tag was probably enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
On my talkpage, Leprof 7272 pointed out that my blanket-revert was overdone (see here). I did agree, and noted that I won't touch the page for a while to prevent uncomfortable editconflicts. Unless asked. -DePiep (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
There has been no change to anything mentioned above. The paragraph on molecular structure is still united with information on physical properties, and the paragraph describing the discharge tube is still written in poor English. Whatever was reverted on 7 March should be returned. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the discharge tube paragraph with a short summary of molecular oxygen spectroscopy. This seems more appropriate since this is a page on molecular rather than atomic oxygen. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What gave you the idea that this article is exclusively about molecular oxygen to the exclusion of atomic oxygen? While each isotope (oxygen-16, -17 and -18), has its own page, this article seems to me to be the obvious place for information about atomic oxygen in general. If I've missed something here, please explain it to me. YBG (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The hatnote says "This article is about the chemical element and its most stable form, O2 or dioxygen." Atomic oxygen is at Allotropes_of_oxygen#Atomic_oxygen. --Kkmurray (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I misunderstood your use of the term 'atomic oxygen', which I mistakenly took to mean the chemical element itself, i.e., discussing properties and characteristics of the chemical element that are common to all isotopes and allotropes. Thank you for the clarification. By the way, did you find a more appropriate article in which to insert the paragraph you deleted? YBG (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I have now re-read this entire thread in context, and I understand that the paragraph deleted may have had significant problems with it. If that is the case, fine; I was reacting to the simple description in the last paragraph that made me think that it was deleted only because it was not on-topic. YBG (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Physical properties / oxygen solubility[edit]

If I check the sources correctly (here: engineeringtoolbox.com) the quoted figures jump between fresh water and salt water without explaining. The text starts with a figure for fresh water at 0 and jumps to give the figure for salt water at 20 °C. Pls check someone who knows chemistry, I am just a theologian who is used to checking sources and read critically.

temperature 0 °C 20 °C 30 °C
Fresh water 14.6 mg/l 9.1 mg/l 7.6 mg/l
Salt water 11.2 mg/l 7.2 mg/l 6.1 mg/l

Kipala (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

For such figures there should be a book or study paper cited, not just a private page without references. For instance you could go to Google Scholar, or Google book search or just try basic Google searches for something like "Oxygen solubility" prokaryotes (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I surely will not do it! Not my glass of beer Kipala (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Michał Sędziwój[edit]

A source suggests that it was actually Michał Sędziwój who discovered Oxygen. Please see: Maciej Iłowiecki: Dzieje nauki polskiej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo „Interpress”, 1981, s. 55. ISBN 83-223-1876-6.--93.159.155.30 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's an English language source for the same. Praemonitus (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

How much oxygen do we need?[edit]

Toxicity is nicely described, and the article also indicates how vital oxygen is, but in what amount? Without oxygen we'd lose consciousness and die, but at what minimum level can we continue to function? How does this vary between sea level and altitude adapted humans? What tolerance ranges exist for other kinds of life forms? Is there a Wikipedia page that already gives this information on aerobic requirements/tolerance, and if so, where?--Egmonster (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Obscure image[edit]

This image is very difficult to comprehend. The purpose is good, but the caption promises more than the image delivers. Like, which object is the magnet, where is the stream of oxygen, and which way is up? Does anyone have a better one we can put here?

I'm pretty sure it's like in this sketch from the description: http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~moloney/AppComp/1999Entries/clamp.gif MayorGayer (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Phlogiston contradiction[edit]

In the same paragraph:

"non-combustible substances that corrode, such as iron, contained very little [phlogiston]"
"one of the first clues that the phlogiston theory was incorrect was that metals gain weight in rusting (when they were supposedly losing phlogiston)"

How could iron lose phlogiston if it contained very little to begin with? Shouldn't it be gaining phlogiston when rusting, which is consistent with the weight gain? Am I missing something here? MayorGayer (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)