Talk:Hydrogen/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Decomposing Natural Gas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hydrogen production 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CGH2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stand alone atoms of hydrogen 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any drawbacks? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  revert of 2005/10/24 

message: (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)
thread_title:  what is hydrogen fusion and what does it do 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Most abundant element 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Known universe, then 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I Have a Question about Hydrogen Atom 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revisions indicated 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Storage 

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Question; why doesn't the liquid hydrogen in the shuttle's booster lift the booster? 

message: 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? --Scott 10:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image in Appearance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On board H2 reformation?? Say WHAT? 

message: A better illustration photo hardly exists.Steve 22:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And why have we removed the Hindenburg from the section on H2 combustion? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hydrogen molecule 

message: 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)
replies: text: Obviously that should be H2+. I've fixed it. SBHarris 04:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifty different forms of hydrogen 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Hydrogen bonding and clarifications 

message: To my eyes the ordering of the sections doesn't have a natural flow. Might I suggest something like the following?
# Different meanings of "hydrogen"
# History
# Natural occurrence
# Isotopes
# Electron energy levels
# Elemental molecular forms
# Chemical and physical properties
## Forms
## Combustion
# Compounds
## Covalent and organic compounds
## Hydrides
## "Protons" and acids
# Production
## Laboratory routes to H2 
## Industrial routes to H2 
## Biological routes to H2 
# Applications
## 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Re-organization?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Referencing

message: 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.
:Yes you do need help. You need to learn to do your own homework. BTW, I suspect most of your answers are in the articles you linked to and a lot of the rest can easily be answered by understanding chemistry Nil Einne 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need help!!! 

message: 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).
=== Hydrogen Quantum ===
I made this image a while back, and someone suggested working it into this article... I don't know where it would fit, but it is relevant.
PoorLeno (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: I made this image a while back, and someone suggested working it into this article... I don't know where it would fit, but it is relevant.
PoorLeno (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen Quantum 

message: The specific heat is given for the H2, although 99% of Hydrogen is of the H1 variety. I find it confusing.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.47.218 (talk) 16:40, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
Hydrogen has one valence electron  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.204.230.6 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User's comment 

message: 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).
::The spin of the proton is the same as that of the electron.  Its magnetic moment is much smaller.
:Shambolic Entity 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The spin of a hydrogen atom 

message: 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 texas or is that helium i am not sure.
I think it is a fuel.Barry White 06:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hydrogen energy carrier or source of fuel or energy?

message: I'm proposing the merger because the liquid hydrogen article seems rather short and would probably be totally covered by the contents of this one. After all the liquid form is just a part of the desciption of the full molecule? - Dammit 09:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since consensus seems against the proposed merge, I've proposed an alternate merge to hydrogen economy, which seems to be where the applications of liquid hydrogen are. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Liquid hydrogen]]'' - ''Hydrogen'' merge 

message: I understand that it is important to emphasise whenever one is referring to diatomic hydrogen, but starting a sentence with a summation formula may seem somewhat unprofessional, and more importantly, it leads the line spacing to be upset in some browsers. Can we replace some of those "H2"s with real prose? Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "H2" in applications section 

message: It is mentioned that hydrogen forms compounds with elements which are more electronegative. If you look at an ordered electronegativity list you will realize that hydrogen bonds with many elements even more electropositive ones. Of course the electronegative elements such as the halogens react with hydrogen much more readily. A few examples of electroposative compounding: Lithium, Calcium, Copper, Silver, Sodium, Potassium, Rubidium, Cesium, Barium, Beryllium, magnesium, Uranium, Gadolinium. I keep going back and forth, searching element-hydrides. Every one I search for has a hydride. Maybe every element has a hydride (?)
Scot.parker 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that technically, HF, HCl, HI etc. are not hydrides but chlorides, iodides, etc. I'd also have to guess that some of the noble gases may not form stable compounds with hydrogen. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I know about HeH+ and HArF all thanks to Wikipedia (tell Jimbo Wales it's a great project), and I heard about UuoH2 from WebElements -- but can the other noble gases, Ne, Kr, Xe and Rn form compounds with H? --116.14.27.127 (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen Compounds 

message: Reading the wiki article on the Hindenburg disaster, I think it should be pointed out that the cause of the crash has not been 100% decided Mattmore17 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindenburg 

message: Is the amount of hydrogen gas being produced by us, or perhaps of some consequence of climate change at all significant in terms of changing the atmospheric concentration of hydrogen? What is the rate of flow of hydrogen gas from the atmosphere into space (and thus presumably the rate of production of the gas on land/sea)? Does hydrogen gas limit the decomposition of methane and carbon monoxide?
Also, is the absorption/emission spectrum of hydrogen such that it does function as a greenhouse gas? (I ask this regardless of whether the amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere is something that we have any control over.)
Diatomic gases such as Hydrogen gas cannot act as greenhouse gases. In order to absorb infrared radiation (which is a main characteristic of greenhouse gases), the molecule needs to perform asymmetric bending or rocking movements. This is not possible with diatomic compounds.
The other chemical implications of growing amounts of hydrogen gas that is being released into the atmophere have not been explored yet, such as decomposition of methane, carbon monoxide, VOCs, NOx or the ozone layer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.216.100 (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  atmospheric hydrogen 

message: "(Regardless of the cause of this fire, this was clearly primarily a hydrogen fire since skin of the Zeppelin alone would have taken many hours to burn)." I question this statement greatly.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.7.154 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of statement of the Hindenburg statement 

message: I read in the book Exempt from Disclosure: The Disturbing Case About the UFO Coverup, 2nd Edition, 2006 by Robert M. Collins, pages 159-161, that an alien energy device (ED) code named "Crystal Rectangle" recovered in June 1947 had been found to contain a sphere containing a hydrogen isotope of four neutrons. This device was reportedly loaned by the TI Advisory Group-6 to NASA and flown onboard and used during three U.S. Space Shuttle missions (STS-92, STS-97, and STS-106). The ED supplied voltage from 9 volts/0.5 amperes to 1100 volts/100 amperes.
(Page 163, in op. cit., DIA Scientific Intelligence Report, Top Secret, 19 APR 2001, Top Secret Control NR: 01-04-2231-TI) 
Our physicists have bombarded Tritium to make Hydrogen 5 which dissipated in  nanoseconds. Perhaps an indirect process may be successful. 
:[] 
:In 1939 Hans Bethe calculated the Sun's energy production, which results from the fusion of four hydrogen atoms (each of mass 1.008) into one helium atom (mass 4.0039). No direct fusion is possible, but Bethe showed that the probabilities of the four steps of the "carbon cycle" can account for the energy output. A carbon isotope of mass 12 reacts successively with three hydrogen nuclei (protons) to form the nitrogen isotope of mass 15; energy is produced through the fusion of a fourth hydrogen nucleus to release a helium nucleus (alpha particle) and the original carbon isotope.Larry R. Holmgren 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen 5 

message: The articles says this: Still, hydrogen is the third most abundant element on Earth.  This does not sound correct to me. Oxygen Silicon Iron would all exceed Hydrogen in quantity.  Can someone confirm this? GB 05:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I checked the reference myself and it actually says on the earth's surface - not just making up the earth or its crust, so I changed text to say surface. GB 05:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to pick a different reference that included the earths crust. See abundance of the chemical elements, as well as Abundances of the elements. 199.125.109.79 04:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have expected earth's crust, that's what caused me to question this in the first place.  If you count the number of atoms it gives hydrogen a big advantage. Graeme Bartlett 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen abundance 

message: 9-12-06  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.57.120 (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is missing the ionization energies of hydrogen. 

message: is hydrogen the lightest noble gas? if not which one is ..please someone help me. does anyone one know which gas is put in the declarations case so it dosent fall apart?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.105.255 (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hydrogen is not a noble gas, Helium is the lightest noble gas. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightest noble gas 

message: I have found that the Hydrogen's atomic radius shown in the atomic properties chart on the right side has a value of 25pm while in the article Atomic_radius#Empirically_measured_atomic_radius it is shown that hydrogen has 75pm of atomic radius (stated by the reference: J.C. Slater, J. Chem. Phys. 1964, 41, 3199).
It would be great if anyone could verify and edit the information (I am not allowed to edit such data). I do not know how to notify this and I thought to post it in the discussion page.
--18:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency on Hydrogen's atomic radius 

message: :You have got to look at how it is counted and where.  Hydrogen was counted as just the surface, and that gives the oceans a big influence.  If you count atoms hydrogen gets ahead because it is light. Oxygen is the most abundant element in the earth's crust. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen Article Says Its The Third Most Abundant And The Hydrogen Article Says Its The Third Most Abundant!!!!!!!! 

message: The small lock icon is not very obvious to a casual user, I had to study Template:Pp-semi-vandalism to figure out what is going on, but anyway; to the point: The "not" in the section "Chemistry" seems out of place. 
"The solubility and characteristics of hydrogen with various metals are not very important in metallurgy (as many metals can suffer hydrogen embrittlement) and in developing safe ways to store it for use as a fuel."
 
Doesn't the sentence go on to say why is IS important? Perhaps someone someone who can edit the page could consider changing it? 71.212.26.92 (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That bit of vandalism was never corrected. It's fixed now. Thanks. --Squids'and'Chips 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is protected? / solubility not important? 

message: I was unable to find a suitable source for this statement:
:Deuterium comprises 0.0027 – 0.0187% (by mole-fraction or atom-fraction) of hydrogen samples on Earth, with the lower number tending to be found in samples of hydrogen gas and the higher enrichments (0.015% or 150 ppm) typical of ocean water.
If you know of a proper reference, please let us know so we can add it back in. But for now it is unverified, so not suitable for an FA quality article.—RJH (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing deuterium reference 

message: I have two suggestions:  1) Could someone add the energies to the chemical equations section?  (As is done in the section about Combustion.)  2) There is no  need to repeat links to the articles about the reactants so close together. (The earliest reference to carbon monoxide or water or methane should be linked to the appropriate articles; there is no need to repeat a link only a few lines later.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.197.12 (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemcial reactions in Production section 

message: The following material has been tagged as missing reference tags but no sources have been provided. As this is an FA article. I am moving the material here until suitable references can be located.
: Treating the electron as a matter wave reproduces chemical results such as shape of the hydrogen atom more naturally than the particle-based Bohr model, although the energy and spectral results are the same. Modeling the system fully using the reduced mass of nucleus and electron (as one would do in the two-body problem in celestial mechanics) yields an even better formula for the hydrogen spectra, and also the correct spectral shifts for the isotopes deuterium and tritium. Very small adjustments in energy levels in the hydrogen atom, which correspond to actual spectral effects, may be determined by using a full quantum mechanical theory which corrects for the effects of special relativity (see Dirac equation), and by accounting for quantum effects arising from production of virtual particles in the vacuum and as a result of electric fields (see quantum electrodynamics).
:In hydrogen liquid, the electronic ground state energy level is split into hyperfine structure levels because of magnetic effects of the quantum mechanical spin of the electron and proton. The energy of the atom when the proton and electron spins are aligned is higher than when they are not aligned. The transition between these two states can occur through emission of a photon through a magnetic dipole transition. Radio telescopes can detect the radiation produced in this process, which is used to map the distribution of hydrogen in the galaxy.
Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in general, but in RJH's defense, he based his reason for the move in this being a featured article. Featured articles have stricter referencing standards than the average article, or else they risk becoming "unfeatured". Also, featured articles are supposed to be essentially "complete" (although they can still be improved). --Itub (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where does it say THAT? I can make as good an argument that a "featured" article is merely one that the community of people who happen to be working on it now, think is about as well as they personally can do with the personnel they have, with the time they have, and for now are sick of, anyway. The idea that it's somehow "complete" even approximately, is totally contrary to the idea of both science and the encyclopedia. It's the sort of reactionary idea I expect to see from writers and scientists who "died" a long time ago, but just haven't been buried yet. SBHarris 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just saying that based on what I've seen happen at Featured article review, which is where articles get de-featured. You can check the criteria at WP:FACR. What I called "completeness" (note the scare quotes) is based on the criteria about comprehensiveness and stability. --Itub (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That section was merged in by me from the former Nascent hydrogen article. That article cited no sources. The information was clearly more useful here than there, which is why I merged it. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced additions 

message: We've been working hard trying to find good sources for the information in this article so it can pass FARC. Additions to the article are welcome, but please cite your sources when doing so! Don't make our job any harder.
Stone, you have been making some good changes, but I commented out the section on "mono-atomic" hydrogen. There obviously had to have been a source for this information. Cite it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That section was merged in by me from the former Nascent hydrogen article. That article cited no sources. The information was clearly more useful here than there, which is why I merged it. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcement

message: From the article, "Although H atoms and H2 molecules are abundant in interstellar space, they are difficult to generate, concentrate, and purify on Earth".  It is my understanding that hydrogen can be generated by simply running an electric current through water.  This is not difficult.  --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "difficult" part may mean that the energy cost to extract hydrogen from water is relatively high. Or at least it was; that may be changing.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it will always require more energy to get hydrogen out of water than you get when burning it or using it in a fuel cell. That's not true of extraction of hydrgen from natural gas (as we do now), but that solves no carbon problems, which is the whole purpose of most of the proposed new hydrogen economy. SBHarris 20:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You misunderstood me once again, but I can't be bothered to argue.—RJH (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact that it requires more energy to extract hydrogen from water than you'd get back by using the hydrogen as fuel does not make hydrogen difficult to generate or concentrate or purify.  I'm going to remove the sentence, as it's simply not accurate.  --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Accuracy has nothing to do with it, as difficulty is relative and needs qualifiers and references. Is it "accurate" to say that Für Elise is hard to play on the piano, or easy to play? That's sort of the thing we have here. A kg of hydrogen is easier to prepare than a kg of fluorine, but not as easy as a kg of gasoline. SBHarris 07:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (I wonder how well electrolysis can be scaled up?)  How about something like "difficult to generate, concentrate, and purify efficiently and economically  on Earth" ?
Hydrogen is very easy to obtain. Any interested child with a battery an a couple of wires can make it at home. The main objection here seems to be about its expense and energy balance in the context of use as a fuel.  If you are talking about price, give prices. If you are talking about energy, mention energy. But "difficulty" is too vague and subjective. --Itub (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Since price can vary in a short amount of time, I favor something in the article that discusses the energy costs of obtaining hydrogen. 206.53.196.60 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen difficult to generate? 

message: In the article the electronegativity is 2.1, but on Electronegativity and my periodic table...it has it listed as 2.20.  Which one is right?  Mike6271 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is 2.20 according to all the references listed at Electronegativities of the elements (data page), so I'll change it in this article for consistency. --Itub (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pauling's Electronegativity 

message: This means something in certain kinds of acid-base chemistry, but needs its own article anyway, and surely does not need to disappear and be crammed into this broad article. There's a lot of uses for hydrogen in chemistry, and they can't all be merged here. In fact, hardly any can. This is a broad review article. SBHarris 07:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge - it makes the main article too big and at an unsuitable level for the people who would want to read it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen donor merger as per header? 

message: This entire section is dubious and should be deleted.  The term "nascent hydrogen" is used only by quacks.  The section contains several factual errors on temperature and energy to form atomic hydrogen.
:The above user, who has failed to sign, is ignorant. The term 'nascent hydrogen' has a respectable scientific history and is not 'only used by quacks'. In addition his labeling my reverts 'vandalism' in edit summaries is uncivil at least. He should be ignored. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:The way, the truth, and the light was recently blocked for sockpuppetry. In light of this information, I am going to return all disputed content to its original page. Hooray. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monoatomic hydrogen