Talk:Carbonation

message: The article states:
"It is commonly said that shaking a carbonated beverage will cause large amounts of foam to erupt upon opening, and it is often believed that shaking a bottle containing a carbonated beverage will cause the pressure inside to rise. In fact, when a pressure gauge is attached to a pressurized bottle of a carbonated beverage, it is found that the pressure within does not increase. It is instead the formation of tiny bubbles from the agitation that causes the foam; upon opening, the size of the bubbles will rapidly increase due to the reduction in pressure, resulting in excessive foaming."
This can be proven false by anyone with a plastic container containing a carbonated beverage.  Seal the container, apply pressure with your hand to the outside, shake the container, apply pressure again. There will be a noticeable difference in pressure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly second this - the statement given is absurd and the experiment described is what I would have suggested. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But but but...that would be original research! Atario (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and removed this section for the reasons given above, and also because it is completely unsourced. If someone can give a well-sourced proof that the pressure does not increase, they are welcome to add it back in. Beatfox (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaking

message: I took the liberty of deleting the global warming section as I am certain that it is just bs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Japadrum (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: Carbonated liquids can pose a potential hazard; if shaken or jolted in an enclosed space such as a bottle or can, the carbonation can cause pressure to build to the point where it could cause a violent, explosive decompression when the seal is broken that could possibly cause injury.
Cause injury? to whom? Dappled Sage 21:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: what does this mean?

message: How can you tell
----
 which soda has the most carbonation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.191.19 (talk • contribs) 
look at how many bubbles there are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.172.178 (talk • contribs) 
:The correct answer is to look at the price. Whatever is cheapest has the most carbonation. I have no idea why. Ewlyahoocom 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How can you tell which soda has the most carbonation?

message: Soda=Diabetes 
Further, what happens to the carbonic acid when the 
drink goes flat? Are the bubbles carrying the acid 
traces? What ensures the sense of homogeneous distribution
of bubbles?
Thanks, Eliot
:No, it doesn't have the same fizzy sensation, because there are no bubbles. It tastes the same. You can see from the formula at the top of the article that there is an equilibrium between aqueous carbonic acid and gaseous carbon dioxide. I guess you could say the bubbles are "carrying the acid traces", because they are made of carbon dioxide. —Keenan Pepper 04:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  soda 

message: Is it true that in a perfectly clean glass with no dirt contamination (dust etc.) effervescence cannot happen as there are no seed crystals for the fizzing to start? I mean, as an example, if you pour champagne in a cleanroom clean glas the champagne rests rather dull and fizzy-free? --Abdull 09:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suggest you check out nucleation. Christophe Lasserre 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk from Effervescence 

message: carbonated water is made by carbonation. Neither is a particually complicated thing, and they don't really merit their own articles. It would be useful to have the info for both on the same page. I say merge' - Jack (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Carbonation is a specific example of effervescence. Surely Carbonation should be a subtopic in effervescence, not vice versa. 195.137.93.230 03:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effervescence is not the same as carbonation 

message: Is this section vandalism? As far as I know Carbonation has nothing to do with Caffeine. When this section is removed or edited, please remove the essay-entry|section tag. Thanks.--France3470 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now removed this section completely as no one has responded. If this was indeed part of the article please revert my changes.--France3470 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of Caffiene 

message: tellme and if i can ill do it Yupi666 00:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing this template because this article has a couple of photos and it's not clear what kind of diagram would be useful. If you re-add it please add some detail about what kind of diagram you want. --pfctdayelise (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: what diagram do you think its needed?

message: What is the source of the CO2 used in carbonating beverages such as cola?  Anybody know?  It someone know for sure it would be a good addition to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.162.56 (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think people get too much into that because of all of the many, many tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by carbonated beverages around the world and its affect on global warming. If you stop and think about it, the amounts must be enough to get a surprised whistle out of anyone. Everyday around the world people open literally millions of carbonated beverages. Traumatic (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, at first that sounds like an absurd suggestion, but if the carbon dioxide is produced by the breakdown of mineral material (e.g. limestone) then it COULD add to the global CO2 load.  This question of how carbonation is done is very important and a glaring omission from this article.Fredwerner (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the CO2 come from for the carbonation? 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Wow here's a fairly good comprehensive article in October 2009 Wired magazine online edition about the effects of carbonation on human taste senses
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/your-tongue-the-carbon-dioxide-sensor/
Thomas Dzubin (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reference in "Wired" magazine, October 2009 

message: I came to this article hoping to find at least some origin theory for our modern methods of carbonation. I'm a homebrewer, and frequently use bottle conditioning, and I am curious to know if anyone has any idea when that method of carbonation (which seems the most archaic) was first discovered, or where the first known documenation of carbonation occurs.  Is there any information on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.178.154 (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of carbonation? 

message: The file :File:Soft Drink.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at :File:Soft Drink.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days.  Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use candidate from Commons: [[:File:Soft Drink.svg]] 

message: The file :File:Soft Drink.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at :File:Soft Drink.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days.  Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use candidate from Commons: [[:File:Soft Drink.svg]] 

message: This article is too narrow in focus for the title. The term is not just used in the context of soft drinks. For example, what about the serious problem of carbonation in reinforced concrete? When reading the reinforced concrete article I need to know what is meant there by carbonation, but this article gives me no help. Where else should I go? --Remotelysensed (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. To make a start, I copied the first sentence from the reinforced concrete article here, and clarified the ambiguity. — Sebastian 00:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too narrow 

message: I disagree with the redirect. The reason is that I searched for "Carbonat ion" Now I understand that the proper term is "carbonate ion" instead, but I would have still preferred to see a link towards the molecule carbonate ion. Perhaps this can be mentioned in the list of potential redirects? 2A02:8388:1601:E000:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Carbonat ion is not, and has never been a redirect. When one enters it in the search, it now says "Did you mean: carbonate ion", which is what the OP needed in the first place. — Sebastian 00:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: We need to figure out what these mean because the articles are converging, thanks in part to my unwitting efforts.  IUPAC does not mention these terms.  The main thing is a good source.   
Org Syn has 124 mentions of "carboxylation", but they always seem to be decarboxylation. It has about 6 mentions of carbonation, usually of Grignards and the like.  
Maybe carboxylation is the making of carboxylic acids from CO2, and is a subset of carbonation, the result of any treatment with CO2 (e.g. in making cyclic carbonates).--Smokefoot (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My first thought is that carbonation would be the addition of a carboyl group, making it the parent class to both carboxylation and formylation - by extension that definition would have to include acylation, which feels a little odd. I'll see if I can find an actual ref. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Wait, I'm thinking of carbonylation aren't I... --Project Osprey (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I think carbonation generally involves the formation of a carbonate and could be viewed as a specific type of carboxylation where the carboxyl group is attached to an oxygen atom.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried and then gave up on chemistry sources (March's organic compendium, Org Syntheses uses both terms almost interchangeably, named reaction book), Encyclopedia Britannica had nothing. But Oxford English Dictionary supports OrganoMetallurgy.  
*Carboxylation: "The introduction of a carboxyl group into a molecule or compound to form a carboxylic acid or a carboxylate; an instance of this."
*Carbonation: "Impregnation or treatment with carbon dioxide; conversion into a carbonate."
cite book|title=Oxford English Dictionary|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2018|url=http://www.oed.com
--Smokefoot (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbonation vs carboxylation