Talk:Oxygen/Archive 1

message: what is the accepted value for the amu of 16O?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimenlupis (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amu 

message: Someone named George deleted the whole page. Will try to revert to older page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikkema (talk • contribs) 10:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism? 

message: The commercial manufacture of oxygen is completely missing from this article.
:You can now find a note on that in the article on oxygen evolution. - tameeria 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has since been fixed. --mav (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How is Oxygen Manufactured??

message: I'm questioning the veracity of this statement: "Free oxygen, as on Earth, is thermodynamically unstable, but exists through the action of photosynthetic plants." I'm no expert in the field, but from my reading I'm pretty sure the genesis of free oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is traceable to photosynthesizing anaerobic organisms long before the evolution of anything we would classify as a "plant". Much of the free oxygen given off as waste by these anaerobes combined with free iron and sank to the ocean floor, but when the supply of free iron was used up, most of the oxygen waste made its way to the atmosphere. Perhaps terrestrial plants jacked the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere up to its current level of 1/5, but most likely the majority of molecular oxygen even today came from the anaerobes... Anyway, any specialists out there who agree the use of "plants" in this sentence is off the mark? JDG 20:48, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please change to "photosynthetic organisms". --mav 01:33, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: This has since been fixed. --mav (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photosynthesis

message: It would be better to say, "O2 is the most stable form of oxygen. Oxygen is very reactive, forming many stable compounds with many elements."
Wes Hughes
how about "O2 is the most thermodynamically stable form of elemental oxygen" Gingekerr 09:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  O2 oxygen is the most stable form of oxygen. 

message: Who calls it octium and why? Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO 03:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's its systematic element name.  -- Ponder 05:15, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I think it is ok to consider this trivia rather than a widely used alternate name. I've moved it out the opening sentence to avoid this possible misperception. Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO 05:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Gee, would the systematic element name for Boron be Pentium? *grin* WCFrancis 18:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Octium

message: THIS IS WRONG!... and you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!
"Molecular oxygen (O2, often called free oxygen) on Earth is thermodynamically unstable." --- It is WRONG to say that O2 is thermodynamically unstable. O2 is the most thermodynamically STABLE form of oxygen. True, oxygen does spontaneously form many compounds with other elements, but it is still the most thermodynamically stable form of oxygen. ----- Wesley Hughes whughes@northstate.net
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oxygen"
:this is actually right.  Please note the context -- oxygen ON EARTH is thermodynamically unstable.  the statement did not say "molecular oxygen is a thermodynamically unstable FORM OF OXYGEN"  The point is, free oxygen cannot exist on earth unless it is constantly being replenished, precisely because it will spontaneously form many compounds with other elements.  This is, however, not the case, say, IN SPACE, where the great distance between individual molecules largely prevents chemical reactions.
The distance between molecules is a kinetic factor, not a thermodynamic factor, and therefore
does not affect the relative thermodynamic stability (in terms of standard change in Gibbs energy) of monatomic versus diatomic oxygen. Gingekerr 09:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  O2 is the most stable form of oxygen 

message: Or so I was told one day. I came to this article to try to ascertain this fact, but no mention of it is found here. Basically oxygen in an activated state is toxic to cells at atmospheric pressure, etc. and without vitamin C, etc. we would die from the very oxygen that sustains us, and also why a lot of cells die in oxygen presence who are adapted only to anaerobic living. -- Natalinasmpf 23:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: also singlet oxygen is pretty toxic in a way that triplet oxygen isn't.
Simfish 09:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen is naturally poisonous? 

message: The notion of who "discovered" oxygen is somewhat disputed...I don't think the article should necessarily come out and assign that honor to any one person.  I've briefly illustrated in Theories and sociology of the history of science, but I hadn't heard of Michał Sędziwój before, and there's an insufficient amount of material between here and his biography article to say how what he did was similar to or different from later investigators. If anyone would care to enlighten us, that would be greatly appreciated. -- Beland 23:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've commented out that sentence for now. --mav (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery 

message: Clicking on 
* Oxygen Therapy – The First 150 Years
gets response:
  Forbidden
  You do not have permission to access the requested file on this server.
::Sorry that I neglected to sign the previous. Just checked link and have same response. -- WCFrancis 17:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it. If access changes, it is still here for easy restoration. -- WCFrancis 17:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: How come a change from "nitrates (NO3−)are" to "nitrates (NO3−) are" isn't recognized in a diff? Laundrypowder 17:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaces after () 

message: I know a collector of antiquarian chemistry books, and he says that the book in which Priestly announced the discovery of oxygen was published in two volumes, with the discovery of oxygen announced in the second volume. Apparently this second volume was actually published after Lavoisier published the book announcing his discovery of oxygen, although the first volume was published before Lavoisier's announcement. This makes Lavoisier the first to publish (although why it actually matters beats me. Gingekerr 09:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that would be verifiable by looking up the books in question. I think Lavoisier gets no credit because it is now fairly well known he was basically trying to take credit for what Priestly had found. Of course that's all bound up in English vs continental rivalry, tension, etc. But this bit about Michał Sędziwój is what really troubles me. Is he really acepted as discovering oxygen? Usually when we speak of someone predicting or assuming an element, we say that, not call them the discoverer. What evidence is there for Sędziwój's claim? It is well accepted? - Taxman Talk 02:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
The 1st edition was published in 1774 . Was this all three volumes? I don't know, but in 1775 we apparently have all 3 volumes http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/priestley.html Jooler 06:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery of Oxygen 

message: I removed the following section from the article.  It is really awkward and contains mistakes, but may be worth including if/when fixes are made to it:  
:The easiest way to make oxygen is to use Hydrogen Peroxide and to speed up the reaction use a catalyst. The best catalyst is called Mnganese (IV) oxide. This makes oxygen easily. The Chemical equation  =  H²O² + Manganese (IV) Oxide −− H²O + Oxygen + Manganese (IV) Oxide. Another way to make oxygen is by using hoffmans voltmeter on water but this uses a lot a electricity so is very expensive
Edgar181 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started summarizing oxygen production mechanisms (mainly oxygenic photosynthesis) in oxygen evolution. Do you think it should get a section in this article as well, or would a link suffice? - tameeria 14:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making oxygen 

message: Information about Neil Bartlett can be found in Chemistry Third Edition by Raymond Chang (McGraw-Hill) pages 900-901. --Droll 09:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery of dioxygen hexafluoroplatinate 

message: History should probably give a clue when an atomic weight was first associated with oxygen. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  atomic weight / history 

message: isn't there a balance between breathable oxygen generation and consumption? whenever we breath and exhale we are trapping what was previously breathable O2, into useless CO2. this also happens whenever something is burned, whether a candle, gasoline or deisel in an automobile, propane in a barbeque, or plant life in a forest fire. These are all kept in check by land (trees, etc..) and sea (algae, etc..) plantlife that convert the CO2 back into useable O2, however combustion also produces H20 and CO. 
are there any natural processes that convert H2O or CO back into useable O2? 
with the advent of vehicles that run on hydrogen and emit only H20 as a 'pollutant' we will be trapping even more breathable oxygen molecules into H20.
also is the balance between consumption (breathing, burning, cars, etc...) and generation (plantlife) of O2 even known?
Sahuagin 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plants and Co. convert H2O into O2 all the time during the light-dependent reactions of photosynthesis. This works by light-driven photolysis of water to generate biochemical energy. Oxygen is released as a byproduct of that reaction. Plants and Co. fix carbon dioxide into sugars, but they do not convert CO2 into O2. O2 comes entirely from the water-splitting reaction. The two processes are coupled (since CO2 fixation requires the energy generated by splitting of protons and electrons from water), but they are two separate processes. CO2 goes into sugars and eventually organic matter, which is then converted back to CO2 during respiration or oxidation. - tameeria 14:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen consumption 

message: A friend of mine was relating how where he worked one day they were venting oxygen and had an explosion. I asked what exploded. He said it was the oxygen. I said that oxygen didn't burn; there had to be another gas/ substance present to cause an explosion. You can imagine the rest. Can you clarify in writing so I can show him?
:well if it was a pressurized oxygen tank it could be that the tank exploded. either way the pure oxygen would quickly lead to nearly spontaneous combustion of nearby flammable materials. 
:"OXYGEN If an Oxygen cylinder is found to be leaking, evacuate the work area immediately and contact Laboratory Services at x9039. Oxygen enriched atmospheres cause normally noncombustible materials to be extremely flammable. Many substances will burst into flame in the presence of pure oxygen. Be prepared to evacuate the building." source document 
:Sahuagin 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flamability 

message: While there are several references listed at the bottom of the article, there are is only one citation in the text at the moment (added by me for 02 presence in the earth's crust).  Some of the numbers in the text will contiue to be changed as authors find conflicting numbers in other sources (I expect the 46.6 figure that I replaced is published somewhere, but without a citation I have no idea where.) The lack of citations seems to be a pattern in many of the other articles on elements as well.  Reference lists are not a substitute for citations.Badocter 09:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For abundances, specifically, see also the newly-created abundances of the elements (data page). Femto 13:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: About 50 inline cites so far. More later. --mav (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The article says "Hydrochloric acid (HCl) does not contain oxygen." But this is not true, because hydrochloric acid is a solution of hydrogen chloride in water (H20). It would be more accurate to say that pure anhydrous HCl does not contain oxygen. --Seven of Nine 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the statement's entirely redundant, so I've removed it.  Not least because HCl is only one example anyway.  Furthermore, I think adding a remark about anhydrous HCl would just confuse things.  Cheers, --Plumbago 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, thanks for fixing it. --Seven of Nine 15:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrochloric acid 

message: Now that this is linked from the main page, is there someone who could corroborate Michał Sędziwój's discovery of oxygen? The Polish article on him doesn't even mention the word for oxygen, and the references in the other article link him mainly to Christian Rosenkreuz who wasn't exactly a reputable scientist. Moszczynski 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that his role is tenuous at best and no different than what many other people did around the same time. So for now, I commented out that sentence. --mav (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence is there for your statement? Moszczynski, you also make a strange comment in reference to his association with Rosenkreuz (if you are implying that alchemists dabbled in things today no longer considered 'scientific' then you're right). I claim that his role in the history surrounding the discovery of oxygen is more than tenuous. See the references under the article for Sendivogius - Michał Sędziwój. I think MS deserves more attention, and shouldn't be brushed of so sloppily. The history of oxygen in the age of alchemy is historically noteworthy. --%n  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.107.91.99 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read many accounts of the history of oxygen while expanding this article and never have come across a mention of MS. So he evolved oxygen from saltpeter - many others did as well. What else did he do that was noteworthy in this regard? A good cite is also needed. --mav (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery 

message: The article states: '... paramagnetic due to the negative exchange energy between neighbouring O2 molecules.' Is oxygen not paramagnetic because the triplet state is the ground-state, so it has two unpaired electrons, and hence it is paramagnetic.  And it does not matter whether it is in gas, liquid or solid state?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I wanted to add .. paramagnetism is not unusual, and compounds are not 'unusually paramagnetic', that makes no sense.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it sort of does. Many compounds are slightly drawn to a magnet, but for just a handful is the attraction so strong that you can use a magnet to pick them up. Oxygen is one of these. SBHarris 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is paramagnetism, but every single atom in an odd group in the periodic table is paramagnetic, but most of them you don't encounter as a gas.  Oxygen is a diatomic gas, which makes it indeed a notable one.  But if I am correct, some of the metal-containing enzymes are also paramagnetic.  And there are more naturally occuring compounds, which are paramagnetic (though for organic compounds it is seen less often, mainly in intermediates of reductions, but sometimes in stable compounds).  But it is merely semantics.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, which elements are "gasses" is matter of the prejudice you have from being at the temperature you live at. They're ALL gasses at SOME temp! And all solids at some temp, except for helium at low pressure (which manages to stay liquid). But even for elements concentrated in this fashion, except for a few ferromagnetics you couldn't tell using a good magnet, which were and weren't paramagnetic, without some very fancy scales. Oxygen is different. You have to play with LOX and a magnet, and some other melted elements with a magnet to get a sense of the qualitative difference. SBHarris 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  paramagnetism 

message: Is it possible for oxygen to form a ring structure by itself?  If not, why not? --Oranjemens
None has been seen, so far as I know. See . The other chalcogens readily form rings, and one day we may see a ring form of ozone. But the larger ring forms are unstable due to QM reaons I don't understand on an intuitive basis. It may be simply that, as in many other compounds, if you're an element that lacks d orbitals, you lack the "space" to make certain large extended structures. Compare the ease that Si has in doing this with O, with carbon's many problems. It's all in the size. SBHarris 21:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen Ring 

message: I suggest that oxygen allotrope O2 needs its own article, just like ozone and tetraoxygen for example. Some information in this article can be placed in the main article. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vincent de Ruijter (talk • contribs) .
:You could do it, but the oxygen article when talking about the free element still needs to spend most of its time on the most common allotrope, so there will be a lot of duplication. A separate main article for the most common allotrope is not done with other elements, with the possible exception of the carbon allotropes. I think best to have interesting but relatively uncommon allotropes (ozone, etc), like interesting but less common isotopes, as separate main articles with summary subsections in the element article, which covers everything, including the most common form in detail. See tritium and deuterium articles, which are still summarized under hydrogen. In this case, there is a main protium article, which sort of parallels what you suggest here. But I think protium and hydrogen could have been merged. SBHarris 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What SBHarris said. Femto 12:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Opposed: Splitting the Oxygen article just for the diatomic version would logically conclude with doing it also for hydrogen, nitrogen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine. Ozone is a special case which deserves special treatment.  Greg L 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with SBHarris, and I'd like to note that the protium article is a disambiguation page, and the relevant page linking to it is Hydrogen atom, which mostly treats quantum mechanical aspects of the atom.  I think that's important enough to merit having two different articles, but O2 isn't interesting enough to warrant a split.  Confiteordeo 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Greg L hit the nail on the head, i oppose Qaanaaq 10:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I also oppose for the reasons given above. --mav (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split O2 to its own article 

message: Oxygen is being presented as the second most abundant element on earth.
In Iron page, iron is also presented as being the second most abundant element, alumunium being the first one, which is contradadictory.
This must be corrected, thanks.
:Well-spotted.  From the page on Earth composition it looks like iron is the most abundant element (by mass) with oxygen second, and aluminium some way down the list (though still very much top 10).  The source for this is OK, but I'd prefer a better one before I change things.  If you can find one, please edit away ahead of me.  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See abundances of the elements (data page) for some raw data cites. Femto 10:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Silica also claims to be the seonc most abundant. Qaanaaq 10:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It depends on what you mean by "earth". If you count the whole planet, iron is probably the most abundant. But most abundance lists deal with the earth's crust only, in which, if I remember correctly, oxygen is the most abundant element, followed by silicon and aluminum. Itub 16:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The article now clearly states what part of the earth it is talking about. --mav (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abundance

message: To say that sky colour and O2 are unrelated is false. O2 is by far the largest "Rayleigh scatterer" in the atmosphere(by volume).
:It certainly isn't. Nitrogen is. If there were no oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference visually. You may find this statement confusing, but perhaps the problem is that you just don't believe it. Different problem. If you want to see a blue sky on a planet without oxygen, merely look at the sky of Mars, on most days. The ground rovers show you that all the time. It's deep, dark blue. SBHarris 05:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ahhhm the sky of Mars is almost never blue due to suspended dust particles. Its pink/brown. but anyway the color of the sky on earth is well understood to be due to Rayleigh scattering. --Deglr6328 12:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's blue often enough. If the winds don't blow, all it takes is once. SBHarris 18:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which pictures you've been looking at but really, its almost never blue. like, at all. The only time you could see blue in the sky is during some sunsets in a very small area around the sun (because all the red light is scattered out by the dust) and very rarely due to some cirrus-like ice clouds due to thier small particle size. Astronomy on Mars I don't think any pictures have ever been taken of a blue sky on Mars due to Rayleigh scattering. --Deglr6328 07:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, much as it pains me to admit it, it appears you are right. Here's an article which claims the Martian sky WOULD be blue IF all the dust and crap were removed. But probably never is.. There's been a lot of arguing over the point over the years. In any case, I think it's pretty well accepted that an oxygen free, dust free atmosphere would still be blue. Though I'm now at a loss for a real-world example. SBHarris 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the right altitude (low enough to not be black, but high enough that you still see plenty of sunlight), Jupiter (among other planets with atmospheres) has a blue sky, I believe.  (I don't have a web cite handy, though.) Krinsky 02:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This reference seems to indicate that you're right about blue sky being found at Jupiter's poles in the aerosol-free regions. But it doesn't give ITS references. . SBHarris 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify that it wasn't me who wrote the first comment. I don't know a lot about "Rayleigh" anything, so when I saw that my revision had been reverted, I accepted it, as User:Sbharris is a physician with keen interest in physics. Dravick 18:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Sky 

message: I think if someone can understand what a quantum electron configuration means, he won't be confused by whether there is a [He] or a 1s2. However, by putting [He], the approach is more systematic (i.e. we do the same thing for all atoms). Dravick 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That last argument goes both ways.  I think 1s2 is clearer, because otherwise we first have to explain, that with [He] we mean 'the electron configuration of He', which is not clear from the context, and one may have to browse to electron configuration first to find an explanation (I assume the explanation is there).  --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, It's true that the argument goes both way :) Dravick 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electron configuration 

message: This article absolutely lacks these two important sections. Let's take a look at hydrogen for preference. It's up to the hilt with necessary data. Causesobad --> Talk) 13:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where're the properties and syntheses sections? 

message: The article states that "Oxygen is slightly soluble in water, but naturally occurring dissolved amounts support all ocean animal life."  Is that quite accurate?  It would seem that marine mammals and reptiles, at a minimum, depend on the oxygen in air rather than the oxygen dissolved in water.  I propose that  the sentence be changed to read "...dissolved amounts are enough to support animal life in the oceans" or some such.  -- Krinsky 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention anaerobic marine organisms... Itub 10:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those count as "animal", I wouldn't think, but I went ahead and reworded.  -- Krinsky 02:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ocean life 

message: After looking at the oxygen toxity article a question popped into my head:
Can it be fatal to just breathe in high concentrations of oxygen? I mean, like if someone was walking in everyday like and just happend to have a tank of pure oxygen with them and breathed it in daily. That kind of situation. May this was mentioned in the article but it 11:45 pm where I am, so I may have missed it.   "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. — RJH (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Why is oxygen so abundant, (abundance rank 3; atomic number 8) for curiosity?? (This question was brought to my attention in response to a one-hour-old edit to Helium. Georgia guy 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main reason is that the oxygen-16 nucleus is especially stable; see Magic number (physics). --Itub 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. All the really common elements in the universe are just collections of alpha particles (a really stable unit), until you get to the point that the p to n ratio for alphas doesn't serve the large nucleus well. SBHarris 00:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen abundance 

message: There is a chart superimposed on part of the text of the article, making that text unreadable.
This appears when viewing any element.
How does one remove the chart so the text can be read?
69.255.232.144 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing this in the latest FF or IE browsers. The text wraps perfectly around objects in the article. What browser are you using? Squids'and'Chips 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covered text 

message: What this article doesn't appear to tell me, at least so that a lay person like me can understand it, is why Oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form O2, rather than just solitary oxygen atoms. Can an explanation for this be included? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that might get into too much chemical bonding and valence bond theory. Squids'and'Chips 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Free (solitary) oxygen atoms are extremely reactive, due to having unfilled electron shells, and tend to react with anything, including each other. I suppose that much could be added to the article. Do you think it would be worth doing? SBHarris 03:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopaedia Britannica has an article on the topic of molecular Oxygen. A wikipedia search on "molecular oxygen" redirects to this article. I think some type of coverage is needed, even if it's in a separate article. — RJH (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then be WP:BOLD and start writing. It can be the main article for the molecular oxygen section of the element article, when you get done (but please leave the element article alone till you're through and happy with it, then we can decide how much of it needs to be edited down to the main element article). But if we do it here, we really need to do it also for molecular nitrogen, since N2's properties are so different than those of most nitrogen compounds. But where do you stop with this kind of thing? Consider carbon and the alkali metals. Most free reactive elements are really quite different from the way they appear in their chemistry. It's just that for a few elements, we get to see the element in nature, as well. As in diamond vs. all those organic compounds. SBHarris 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is because O2 is a diatomic molecule.Blindman shady 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why O<sub>2</sub>? 

message: A new user with a total of 3 edits to their address, user:220.253.43.10 has opined that the section of oxygen uses is written like an advertizement, and to the applications section has top-added the tag: 
{Advert}
Now, on rereading this section, I can't immediately see why such a tag is deserved. Applications described include a number of commercial uses, naturally, but I see no grossly particularly un-encylopedic or inappropriate language describing these. What am I missing?  user:220.253.43.10, I challenge you to defend your opinion in this matter! Make a few changes in one paragraph illustrating how you THINK it should instead by written, please. Otherwise, this is not going to be easy to see your POV, or to AGF. SBHarris 23:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the template. Unexplained templates in non-obvious places can be summarily removed IMHO. --Itub 06:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Written like advertising??

message: I've added sections on Biological Role and Production, in accordance with the article guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. I was wondering if the article should also have a separate section on atmospheric oxygen and its possible origins. Right now, the information how its increase and fluctuations are connected to the evolution of life on earth is covered under Biological Role. However, the discovery of oxygen atmospheres on some of Jupiter's moons (e.g. Europa and Ganymede) and even around Saturn's rings adds another facet to this. - tameeria 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxygen atmospheres in Europa and Ganymede? Where did you read that? --Itub 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I should have searched before. It sounded so incredible! Now I see the "trick": it's an atmosphere with an oxygen pressure of 10^-11 atm (that would be called "high vacuum" here on Earth)... Anyway, I would keep the atmospheres of Jupier's moons and Saturn's rings in a section of their own, as it is a completely different situation than the oxygen on Earth. --Itub 16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already added some info about O2 in the Marian atmosphere and will add info about other worlds as well. Thanks for the links. :) --mav (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections added - what about oxygen atmospheres? 

message: Lock this, and delete Colbert's page. TheEXIT 04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But oxygen really IS a poison. It oxidizes human tissue over time and causes aging AStudent 03:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Colbert really IS pwnd by the Wikipedia community. I believe Toxicity section of the article covers the topic adequately. TheEXIT 04:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pure O2 is poisonous.Blindman shady 06:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Peter, while I'm not sure whether you're joking, you actually do, in all seriousness, raise a good point about uses of phrases like "toxic" and "poisonous" in this article; at the very least we should elaborate on the issue of which living creatures suffer from exposure to oxygen in its various forms.  JDoorjam     JDiscourse 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oxygen toxicity seems to be fine. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colbert

message: Working an add/clarification for scilica/Silicon-Dioxide, I found Silicon's article stating it's percentage by mass in the Earth's crust to be a useful 'emphasizer'... Alas, the similar datum estimate for Oxygen is missing which is a shame, as they are presumably one and two by mass occurence... thus I opine, T'would be good to have in the introduction  if anyone can run it down from local references. Cheers! // FrankB 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing datum 

message: Given the amount of detail on the role of oxygen in cellular respiration, it would seem only appropriate to have additional detail on photosynthesis in that first paragraph. For example I was surprised not to see the terms "photosystem2" "p680" "chrolophyll" "thallakoid" "choloplast", when "mitochondria", "Adenosine Triphosphate ATP", and "oxidative phosphorylation" are used. Ryancormack 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and add it. I suppose it's missing because we're carnocentric as well as anthropocentric (i.e., industrial uses). And in plants, oxygen's often (not always) a waste product, no? Plants don't need elemental O2, but get it by splitting water photosynthetically. If you know which plants can get along without it entirely, or can put in a few sentences of general info on the topic, that would be really helpful in the bio section. SBHarris 21:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Biological role' isn't a good fit for a photosynthesis subsect because free oxygen is a waste product. A small subsect at 'Production' already exists and I plan to expand it. --mav (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subsect expanded. --mav (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under "Biological Role"-- More detail on photosynthesis 

message: There are no details to say that there has been damage done to this page. 
219.89.103.84 07:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a guess; might have something to do with preventing anons with potty mouths from editing it... --mav 02:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this page protected? 

message: The first diagram on the left of the page shows a structure of oxygen as O=O. This is incorrect, as it implies that the regular form of oxygen is a singlet. While it is true that that might be the way the structure of O2 is drawn in high-school courses, we have to be clear to explain on Wikipedia that the real structure of oxygen is more properly (although still incompletely) described as .O-O.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.54.122 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the bond order is 2, and the strength of the bond is about 116 for a mole of oxygen bonds, whereas it's only 80 in C-C and 78 in C-O- bonds. So that speaks to me of at least more than a single bond in O2. . It's a triple bond like nitrogen (227 kJ/mole), with the addition of two extra electons in antibonding orbitals, weakening it by half a bond each. 2/3 of 227 would be 151 kcal/mole for the total bond, or 76 kcal per bond-- very close to the C-C and C-O values, but still a lot less than the total bond in O2 (though perhaps the total is a bit more than 116).  From strengh alone it looks like about 1.5 bonds. So it's a minor problem. But not one to be solved by viewing it as a single bond. SBHarris 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect picture 

message: The article looks reasonably good from a completeness perspective, but has several issues with its writing and style, as well as the lack of key reference citations, that it does not meet the Good Article criteria at the present time. I would suggest a good, thorough copyedit to clean up the grammar and writing, bringing it up to a more professional and easier to understand format. Watch out for sentence like, "A billion degrees are required for two oxygen nuclei to undergo nuclear fusion to form heavier the nuclei of silicon, phosphorus and sulfur." "To form heavier the nuclei?" Huh? That just doesn't sound right.
There are two citation needed tags that must be addressed prior to GA status. The last section on 'combustion hazard' has zero citations.
:Only 1. Hope somebody will fix it.Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Pyrotec (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Done.Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: not sure isotopes fit within the chemical properties topicNergaal (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Done.Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, but I am not sure weather less clarification is better so I still left the comments as hidden text.Nergaal (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Chopped out less relevant links too.Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Somebody should go through all the linked references and add the 'accessdate' before FAC. Nergaal (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Could somebody make them smaller? They are too large and take up space. Some of the LATeX symbols I don't recognize. SBHarris 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd - that looked fine on my tablet PC but was huge on my desktop. Fixed. --mav (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photosynthesis equations

message: I have disambiged quite a few links (to be checked). However, shell still needs a disambig. Randomblue (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shell done.Pyrotec (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've checked your disambigs - they are all fine, a good job done.Pyrotec (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sweet - thanks! I don't like doing that. :) --mav (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig 

message: Two separate issues are tangled together in this section - (1) organic compounds contining oxygen, and (2) reactions with oxygen of organics NOT containing oxygen. Can we please keep these separate?
Secondly, in the reaction below:
(C6H5-CH(CH3)2) in the below reaction is commonly derived from petroleum.
:C6H5-CH(CH3)2 + O2 ->  C6H5-COOH(CH3)2 -> (CH3)2CO + C6H5OH
Could we please have the names of the compounds?
Plantsurfer (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the compounds are supposed to be, but C6H5-CH(CH3)2 looks like cumene (isopropylbenzene) and C6H5OH appears to be phenol. The intermediate appears to be an acetate and (CH3)2CO is acetone. - tameeria (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears the reaction refers to the Cumene process? Still guessing, but it looks right... - tameeria (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not checked which author added it to the article: it is the cumene process but renamed as below reaction and Cumene hydroperoxide was renamed to its chemical formula. I've removed the renames.Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organics and Oxygen 

message: Are these just sprinkled around randomly? Yes I know that they are for, but I question why they appear where they do; and not in other places in this article where I would also expect to see them.Pyrotec (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I go through sections of the article and place tags where it looks like it would need it. I am not going through the entire article, so that's why they might appear on other places where they should. The point of the tags is not because they are disputed, but because this article seems to be going for a FAC and it is easier to reference stuff if tags are placed at the most ardent statements. If you think the tags are inappropiate go ahead and delete them. Nergaal (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact flags 

message: While we're at it, bits of the process of producing oxygen occur at two or three locations in the article. It would make a lot of sense to clean this up and make a single, crisp and authoritative statement.Plantsurfer (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthropogenic and photosynthetic production were in the same section until the photosynthetic part was moved to the ==Biological role== section. I'm still not sure if that is a good fit, since the purpose of ==Biological role== is to explain how an element is used in living things but O2 is really just a waste product of photosynthesis. And I wouldn't really consider nucleosynthesis to be 'production' since production is most often used in the context of freeing an element from other elements. Creating the element in the first place is really a separate issue that I think it best kept in the isotopes section given that different isotopes are created through different methods. --mav (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rethought this and now agree that having photosynthesis in ==Biological role== is a good fit because it is tightly bound to abundance of O2 in the atmosphere and cellular respiration. Having all that in the same section (soon to be its own article with a summary left here), makes a lot of sense to me. --mav (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Production

message: The section on compounds contains some good points, but reads like a bunch of random facts. 
It needs a theme, and a logical thread and purpose. Is there anybody out there who can bring it to life??Plantsurfer (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That first subsection (now a set of stub sections) is a bit of a mess. It is largely what was there before I started to expand that section. Now that it has some structure (thanks Pyrotec!), I think we should concentrate on finishing the expansion, cleaning it up, summarizing it per WP:SS and then moving the detailed version of the section to Oxygen compounds for further expansion. But we can't summarize until we have the content and structure set. I'll help by adding some info on water and hydrogen bonding (hopefully by this weekend ; but don't wait for me). --mav (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has since been cleaned up. We just need to tie things together by putting the text in the context of how they form (reactions, esp redox). --mav (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compounds section

message: I'm now mostly happy with the article's coverage and have started to move excess detail to its daughter articles per Wikipedia:Summary style and FAC guidelines (this article is already a bit over the recommended top prose size of 50KB). I'm already done with the Precautions, Allotropes and Isotopes sections and will work on other sections later. Please make any final expansion/edits you think are needed to the Compounds or Structure sections before I do the same with them. All further expansion of those subtopics should occur at the daughter articles once the detail is moved and summaries left in their place. --mav (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Final clean-up

message: The "Cellular oxidations" section reads a bit like a random collection of various biological effects. It has a "see also" link to aerobic respiration which redirects to cellular respiration, but the section is actually mainly a combination of respiration (physiology)/gas exchange and reactive oxygen species/respiratory burst with only two sentences containing information on cellular respiration thrown in. ("Molecular oxygen, O2, is essential for cellular respiration in all aerobic organisms." and "Oxygen is also used as an electron acceptor in mitochondria to generate chemical energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) during oxidative phosphorylation.") Oxidative phosphorylation (high school topic) should probably get more weight in this section than reactive oxygen species. - tameeria (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point. Please expand that part if you have time, if not, then I’ll dust off my biology text to give it a go. I think the best course of action is to expand that subsect and then summarize the ==Biological role== section and move the detail to Biological role of oxygen (or something like that) where it can be further expanded. This article needs to be a top level gateway to articles that expand on points introduced here. I could easily see the geologic bit shorted to one good-sized paragraph. Same with photosynthesis.  --mav (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: so what is going to happen to this sub-section? expand or merge it with the previous one?Nergaal (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cellular oxidations

message: I had to fix some of this. A previous author was under the impression that CO2 is carried around in heme at the O2 binding site (wrong), and an explanation of where CO2 is really carried, is complicated. I've fixed it, but there might NOW be more info on CO2 than is good for an O2 article. See what you think. I've also gone though and killed a few other bits of off topic discussion, but ironically here, in the process of correcting bad info, I might have ended up adding some off topic info of my own on CO2 transport! SBHarris 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We needn't go into any detail about CO2 transport in the blood. So I put some of your explanation in the ref note. That should take care of the issue. --mav (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blood heme transport cycle

message: says something about  without referencing it. anybody thinks we should take a closer look to that? Nergaal (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After searching through the web, I created the page Solid oxygen. If you are interested take a look at it and maybe make some edits.Nergaal (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: the german article

message: The first paragraph is a sort of LEAD summary. Fine. The second is now the history of the word, and could go second, or at the end of the LEAD. The 3rd is abundance in the universe, then earth, then in life, with major compounds mentioned along the way. Last is the paragraph about free oxygen, which is rare except in the atmosphere, and of course very important in and of itself. Also the info given on it in the lead was about a paragraph's worth, but distributed all over, so I've collected it HERE. See what you think. I think it segues more naturally now, although I still don't know quite what to do about the naming info. Does it even belong in the LEAD? The discovery issues are too complex to be sumarized here in the LEAD, which I presume is why they have been put off, downward... SBHarris 20:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I made a further refactor; history now at the end and a bit expanded. I also think that I was able to present the discovery part well in the limited space. --mav (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting out the LEAD 

message: OK folks - I now believe that this article is ready for FAC. So unless there is an objection, I will nominate this article for FAC on or a bit after 12 AM UTC on Tuesday. --mav (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive job, all. A breath of fresh air ;). No article is ever finished, but this one by now is as good as you'll find in any encyclopedia, and if you include the hyperlinks, far better. I wonder if it's possible to do this well with most of the other elements? Probably not, inasmuch as (with possible exceptions like carbon and hydrogen) there just isn't as much important to talk about. SBHarris 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL and thanks for the help! I think we can get all element articles featured, but you are correct, few others will be as difficult or need to be as long. The most difficult will be the ones that are both vital to life and are marked as WP:VITAL to the encyclopedia. --mav (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready for FAC 

message: I've unlinked a number of terms in the Lead section.  Please see my comments in the FAC review. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Cluster needs disambig Randomblue (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig 

message: I wonder how long the first sentence has contained the phrase with an an atomic number of.  I've only just spotted it, & deleted both ans as well as the of. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not long ago: . --Itub (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Elementary, my dear Watson! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double "an" in first sentence