Talk:Vapor pressure

message: This article could use some work to make it more accessible to people who are not already familiar with the principles of thermodynamics and kinetic theory. I'm sure that schoolchildren and even adults who haven't had basic science education would find the explication of fundamental concepts here to be quite helpful. I've already drafted similar improvements for Phase (matter) (see my 10 July 2005 edits there), which are illustrative of what I have in mind. -- Beland 13:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical accessibility 

message: Perhaps a mention should be made about how Vapor Pressure affects the Collection of a Gas over water? In High School Chemistry this is the main use we have for Vapor pressure. Interpretivechaos 02:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey you posted on my birthday. But yeah, I agree. I'll add it eventually. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection of Gas over water 

message: So, the vapor pressure is the ordinate value of the horizontal lines in a P-v diagram? (Double-checking) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  P-v diagram 

message: This article is meant to explain what vapor pressure is, its relation to temperature and to boiling point, its units and its usages. There is really no reason to have picked 14 substances at random and provide their vapor pressures at some single specific temperature.
This is an encyclopedia article ... not a data handbook. Hundreds of substances and their vapor pressures across a range of temperatures can be found in data handbooks such as the  Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook and Lange's  Handbook of Chemistry. Similar data is also readily available online at the NIST Chemistry WebBook website. So why does this article need a section on "Examples of vapor pressures"?? I propose that section should be deleted. mbeychok (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has responded or raised any objections, I am proceeding to remove the section on "Examples of vapor pressures". mbeychok (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The unit chapter is also rather useless, in my opinion. It is simply a duplicate of the table in in the Pressure article (where it belongs). What do you think? --WilfriedC (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, WilfriedC: Yes, the table is the same as the one in the Pressure article. That table is really the template  and that template was developed so that it could be used in multiple articles where it would be useful. It wasn't meant to be used in only one article. In my opinion, it serves a useful function in this article for those who won't take the time (or not know how) to go to the Pressure article. mbeychok (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  I had a look at the article before you deleted the "Examples of vapor pressure" table, and I am of the opinion that those examples contribute a lot to the quality of the article, because they help the reader to gain an idea of the order of magnitude the vapor pressure can be, and why some well-known substances behave in certain ways, in vacuum (for instance). Hence I raise my objection to that deletion. Blind cyclist (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since no one has responded or raised any objections, I am proceeding to restore the section on "Examples of vapor pressures". Note that I have waited much longer, after proposing this change, than the editor who so quickly deleted it. Blind cyclist (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Blind cyclist, that dig about "editor who so quickly deleted it" was unwarranted. That editor (me) explained that vapor pressure data (or examples, if you wish) are readily and abundantly available in handbooks and online in the NIST Chemistry Webbook. Your only reason seems to be that you thought some randomly chosen examples would be helpful. That is what eventually "dumbs down" most technical articles in WP. mbeychok (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article already states that all liquids boil when their vp reaches the pressure of the environment. I don't see any need to keep the helium entry. The only useful information in there is the boiling point of He, clearly out of context. I am going to remove the entry. Kbrose (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

text:  First of all, it wasn't a dig, and anyone can see it: you proposed a change and then moved to implement it after only 2 days. I would be surprised if you would argue with this. What I wouldn't be surprised and in fact expect you to argue about, is the usefulness of those examples. Throughout my studies of material science, I found such examples (of any physical characteristic) most enlighting, as they allowed me to realize the inner workings on atomic and molecular level, by comparing other properties of given example substances. I don't know whether the vapor pressure data are readily available or not, but it is conceivable that they will not be online at a certain point (just as many references already aren't). So that's another argument to keep the table where it is, instead of relying on the availability of outside sources. Furthermore, it's much nicer to have a number of substances with differing vapor pressures listed in the same place where the subject is discussed, rather than having to search for them somewhere else. Finally, I completely disagree that "this is what eventually dumbs down most technical articles". Besides, this isn't just a "technical article", it is supposed to have a degree of educative methodology, and I am of the opinion that examples are essential in that context. Blind cyclist (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Opposed. The table is very useful and educational and give the interested reader a sense of variability of pressure and a sense for the property as it relates to some common substances. I ordered the table according to increasing pressure to enhance the illustrative power. Kbrose (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

text: First of all, the statement that "every liquid has a vapor pressure of 1 atm at its boiling point" is not quite correct. A liquid at boiling point has a vapor pressure equaling that of the environment. Second, and more importantly, the example for Helium should stay to illustrate just this very point.Blind cyclist (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I have now added an explanation for the vapor pressure of Helium boiling point. But I am quite surprised that people feel happy to just come and delete things at will, without any consultation. Deleting should be hard and debated, not as easy as you do it. Don't wonder when outsiders are outraged at deletionism.Blind cyclist (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete section on "Examples of vapor Pressure" 

message: Some data on the most typical electrolyte solution (NaCl) could be illustrative to the specific of electrolytes vs nonelectrolytes.--82.137.15.167 (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Vapour pressure data examples of electrolyte solutions missing

message: I am deleting the section added by an anonymous visitor entitled "Technical Explanation fo Vapor Pressure" (the excessive capitalization was by the anonymous visitor ... not by me).
It is completely unnecessary and esoteric essay. Here are but a few quotes from that section:
:"sigmoidal behavior", "mathematical inevitability" and this prize bit of gobbledy-gook "Eliminating the unstable region of the equation of state curve using the equilibrium criteria that the chemical potentials of all phases present in a system must be equal, we see that there is one pressure a on a given isotherm at which the specific volume of the substance takes on two values."
99% of the people reading this article won't understand what in the heck that section was talking about. mbeychok (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article,  not some incomprehensible, esoteric technical essay by an anonymous visitor. 

message: There is a discrepency between this page and the one for volatility regarding the normal boiling point of propane. This page says its -42.1 deg C and the volatility page has it listed as -43.7 deg C. Which is correct?
69.63.82.50 (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The volatility page misquoted its number as deg C, when in fact it used the F value. I changed it to the correct value in C. Kbrose (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the normal boiling point of propane?? 

message: 'air at sea level, saturated with water vapor at 20 °C'.  The author commits a common solecism by imagining that 'saturation' refers to a state of the air, whereas in fact it refers to a state of the water vapour in the air. 'Saturated air', to be consistent with the definition given earlier in the section, should be understood to be gaseous air in equilibrium with liquid air.  '...air... saturated with water vapour' should be replaced by '..air containing saturated water vapour..'. This kind of muddled thinking undermines the authority of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.49.157 (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturated Air !!!!! ????? 

message: This (really nice!) article has three different categories within chemistry!
That seems excessive. Anyway, two of those, namely :Category:Chemical properties and :Category:Physical chemistry have a common subcategory, which seems even more to the point: :Category:Thermodynamic properties. I'm going to move it to that subcategory. 83.92.159.225 (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: In-line reference citations should be provided for each section, and preferably for each paragraph, to improve WikiProject Engineering quality classification.Thewellman (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: In the introduction there is written: "In plain terms, a liquid evaporates at all pressures below its vapor pressure, while remaining stable at pressure above the vapor pressure."
That's not true! If liquids were stable at pressures above its vapor pressure, then your wet cloths would not dry under normal conditions. There would also be no clouds and some other minor problems. 
Right: A liquid is evaporating at pressures above its vapor pressure, while at pressures below its vapor pressure it is boiling.
As my English is not that good, I don't want to change it directly in the article.
--LordOider (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in introduction 

message: … namely, Saturated fluid, Vapor pressure, Saturation vapor density and Vapor–liquid equilibrium, IMHO is too many articles. I propose to reduce the number of articles to no more than two (but not necessarily to merge all this into one article). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the idea of ending up with two article rather than four. However, I strongly disagree that the title of the Vapor pressure article should be changed. mbeychok (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

text: The Title of Vapor Pressure should be kept, because As a Perfumer, and not a Chemist, "Vapor Pressure" is something that needs to be learned, and that is the subject searched for by my profession seeking to learn how it relates to Perfumery. - Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkiler (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the article title is changed, a redirect will be maintained to the page, so Perfumers and Chemists and Anyone Else For That Matter can easily find it.  The more important concern is not what term is used by a specific group (e.g. perfumers, ant farm owners, sanitation workers, etc.) but rather what the most common term is overall.  However, I think "vapor pressure" is the more common term in general, so I would support keeping that title.  138.16.21.199 (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  With mergers "Saturated fluid" → "Vapor–liquid equilibrium" proceeded and "Vapor pressure" ↔ "Vapor–liquid equilibrium" rejected, the only remaining question is the fate of "Saturation vapor density". Merge it to "Vapor pressure", remain intact, or what? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  This user (Incnis Mrsi) has gone off the radar, and so an anonymous removal of their suggested merging shall occur.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.89.232 (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There seemed to be developing consensus. Why is there a need to rush the discussion?--Yannick (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four articles for one phenomenon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vapor pressure. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415075010/http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=vapor-pressure1 to http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=vapor-pressure1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)