Talk:Phlogiston theory

message: Footnote #5 goes to pg 4 of a lecture with unrelated content. Delete the footnote?Electricmic (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The last two paragraphs of this article appear to be plagarized from the Columbia Encyclopedia. They are attributed to this source in several other on-line encyclopedias.
InfoPlease
Encyclopedia.Com
How is this handled in WikiPedia?
: When in doubt (of copyright violation), take it out! As I will do, or edit it. - DavidWBrooks 19:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article doesn't seem consistent. First Phlogiston is described as being weightless, and then metals should lose weight when the phlogiston has been burned up.
:There were many variations on the phlogiston theory, as people tried to correct some of the problems. For example, see http://books.google.com/books?q=phlogiston+intitle%3Ashort+intitle%3Ahistory+intitle%3Achemistry , particularly around page 88 (you may need a google account). Ideally, this article should be expanded to mention the variations and attribute them to their respective proponents. Itub 15:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall learning about Phologiston in a college history of science class, and I think some folks seriously claimed that it has negative weight, which would clear up the inconsistency. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I'd certainly encourage you to create such an article, or to nominate it for creation within the History of Science project.  I'd read it!  Jouster 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I would like to suggest the title of this page be renamed "Phlogiston Hypothesis". Phlogiston never had the emperical weight to be called a theory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.156.161 (talk • contribs) 
:At the time of this theory/hypothesis's prominence, was there really enough refinement in the scientific method to assert a difference? Jouster  (whisper) 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether they would call it a theory or not is irrelevant. We wouldn't, and calling it such is contributing to the societal misunderstanding of what a theory is. ---  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.115.150 (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd class it as a model like electron shells and chemistry itself are models of physics.Sleigh (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming

message: The article contains the line "Mikhail Lomonosov attempted to repeat Robert Boyle's celebrated experiment in 1753"—what experiment does this refer to? Robert Boyle's article does not mention phlogiston. —pfahlstrom 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There ought to be a mention of Boyle's experiment, hopefully someone has some documentation of this.--RLent 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see here. Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Boyle's experiment 

message: Why no mention of Stahl???
Rosa Lichtenstein 13:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you haven't added it yet (with proper sources, of course). ;-)  --Icarus (Hi!) 10:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stahl

message: There has been a onslaught of vandalism to this page recently.  I've tried to correct what I can.  Keep your eyes open.
This is not very good information Devnish.S.mishra (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: "Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals, such as magnesium, gained weight when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston."
Magnesium was not first purified until the early 1800s. There's no way that it could have been used at the time to disprove the phlogiston theory. Other reactive metals (below carbon in the electrochamical series)such as iron and zinc were used to provide the example that burning metal would cause it to gain mass. If a flame is intense enough, even copper oxidizes such that the weight gain is significant.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkingfan (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnesium? 

message: I'm thinking that the nearest modern analogue to phlogiston are actually valence electrons, not entropy. Entropy can be increased, say, by boiling water, which I highly doubt any chemist in Stahl's era would have confused with a chemical process, while metabolism, rust formation, and combustion are all redox reactions which involve the transfer of electrons.--Scigatt (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: lol the nearest modern analogue to phlogiston is called dark matter. It's a great way to get research funding.--feline1 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearest modern analogue to Phlogiston 

message: I will attempt to prove that the discussions i have held can be shown valid, given what was known in the 18th century.
it is well accepted that:
 phlogiston containing wood + dephlogisticated air --> calx(phlogiston depleted wood) + phlogisticated air.
 phlogisticated air --> dephlogisticated air + phlogiston (which must be contained within a material, otherwise it is still in the air)
thus it 'should' be possible to:
 calx(phlogiston depleted wood) + phlogisticated air ----> phlogiston containing wood + dephlogisticated air
we also know this is contradictory to the definitions of calx and phlogistication! HOWEVER, it can also be understood that it is NOT possible, by considering Iron and Iron Calx to show that:
 Iron + dephlogisticated air --> Iron Calx + phlogisticated air
 Iron Calx + phlogiston containing wood + dephlogisticated air --> Iron + Wood Calx + phlogisticated air
this can be understood as a resistance to reversibility in irons case, and irreversibility with wood (unless phlogistication of wood calx were discovered), and would be in  agreement with the  modern understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, without requiring modern understanding.
Hence: either the article is claiming that the scientists did not know what they were doing, or many misinterpretations have been made, ON LINGUISTIC AND ETYMOLOGICAL GROUNDS!!!  Daenumen (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phlogiston 20th Century interpreting 18th century wrongly!!!! 

message: In the section "Enduring aspects", reference is made to "the metabolism of living orgasms"... possibly the author had something else on his/her mind at the time...  ;-)
Elio1 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed... 

message: Both Deferent and epicycle and Phlogiston theory were theories that fit the data but were abandoned due to other reasons. 96.26.97.207 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered why D&E was listed under "See Also"! I think if you want to include it, you need to explain why it's listed there; otherwise, it really isn't linked enough to Phlogiston to be included on this page. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories that fit the data yet become abandoned due to other reasons 

message: The first paragraph under Challenge and demise and the quote that follows seem to contradict each other. The article reads, "Mikhail Lomonosov repeated this experiment in 1753 and concluded that the phlogiston theory was false." By disproving Boyle, did not Lomonosov support also disprove the theory given "magnesium, gained mass when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston"? Apologies if my understanding is wrong. wneo (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Though this contradiction was immediately resolved by removing the entire paragraph, I would like to note that my comment had a typo. wneo (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent Contradiction 

message: I am working on the History of Science Wikipedia Education project and am currently working on this page. I will have multiple edits coming to mainly the History section of the article, but also to fix some errors that are in different places. I have already made a few changes to the Theory section. 
NerdGirlLouie (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Many edits on the way

message: I have found one source that said Rouelle brought the theory into France, but as I can't back that up and can't really find anything else on it I don't want to expand too much upon it. Any help would be appreciated
NerdGirlLouie (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I unfortunately don't know and cannot answer to your question, but I wanted to thank you for working on this article, it was a nice read.  76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory making its way into France 

message: In his book Medicalization of Everyday Life, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz compares the idea of phlogiston to the idea of mental illness. I think it's in the second chapter, if anyone feels this relevant to note in this article, or on Thomas Szasz. 
Also, does anyone know if any notable people have compared phlogiston theory to ideas related to dark matter and dark energy? Did you know that I hate life? Also, the theory of me is out today, it is half off. ;)
Thanks. Cheers. Michael Ten (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know, but it would be a strange comparison, between something now known to be erroneous and an active theory explaining evidence of gravity and heat.  By a quick search, I can find forum threads with such questions, with answers as to why this is a bad comparison.  Also an article on a creationist web site comparing the two, but all other three articles of that site I have looked at were misleading as well, claiming that much of science (biology, climatology, paleontology, geology) is wrong and in decrepitude :) .  Considering WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV even if a popular religious figure made statements about it, it probably doesn't really deserve mention in this science-related article...  76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phlogiston and dark matter/energy and mental illness 

message: references: 
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Medicalization_of_Everyday_Life/u9qWtgitwcIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Antiphlogistians%22 
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Medicalization_of_Everyday_Life/u9qWtgitwcIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=phlogiston
Michael Ten (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  more info and reference 

message: Phlogiston theory is one of the things that Jeff Grubb used as inspiration when designing a Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting called Spelljammer.
This has brought the word to people who have never looked at phlogiston theory and it might be worth having a section about culture and how people writing about Spelljammer's phlogiston, rather than phlogiston theory, might be influencing what people know about the word and the theory behind it. (In Spelljammer the phlogiston is actually a flammable rainbow ocean that surrounds crystal spheres that each contain planetary systems.)
I don't know of anything other than Spelljammer that uses phlogiston, but if there are other cultural references to phlogiston, it would probably be worth noting them and any differences between how those things present phlogiston and how phlogiston was theorised to work.
Obviously a new section would need to focus on the actual subject, so if other people think this is worth doing, I'd be looking to find sources that talk about Jeff Grubb referring to phlogiston theory for inspiration. (There is a section for "The Phlogiston" on the Spelljammer article, for people who want details of how that fictional version of phlogiston works.) Big Mac (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in culture - specifically Spelljammer