Talk:Henry's law

message: I've only just started looking, but it seems to me that Henry's Law presents a problem for the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming. Should we investigate and see if anyone in the scientific community's are asking this same question?  Leighblackall (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate on this?   I think this is exactly what is concerning about CO2 causing/influencing global warming.  As the earth warms and causes more CO2 to be released from the oceans it will cause faster/more warming.  --Chemboss (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: In relation to climate change

message: I don't want to be a spoil sport but are Like-A-Fish in the "See also" section and New 'no air tanks' diving system, based on Henry's law in the "External links" section really relevant to this article?  To me, they seem to be advertising for the same company.  I really see no connection between that diving air invention and Henry's Law. Am I being too harsh? - mbeychok 06:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the Like-A-Fish link since it compounded the feeling of advertising for me too, and it pointed to a non-existent page anyway.  But the news article does actually mention Henry's law and explains the device's function based on lower pressures releasing dissolved gas, so there is some relevance and it might get a non-scientist more interested after seeing an application with such potential.  ObfuscatePenguin 09:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Like-A-Fish]] really relevant to this article? 

message: The table which user:NickFr added to this article is very helpful and enhances the article. I modified it somewhat to make the definitions of the parameters more explanatory or precise. I also modified the sections above the table so that they were consistent with the table. - mbeychok 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for modifying the table 

message: The edit by 66.27.139.36 had some interesting material about carbonic acid but most of it had absolutely nothing to do with Henry's Law. It really belongs in a more appropriate article or in an article of its own. I left in the one sentence "A common example of a gas that reacts with the solvent is carbon dioxide, which reacts rapidly with water to form hydrated carbon dioxide and then forms carbonic acid (H2CO3)." because that sentence is appropriate here ... but all the rest of the edit was deleted. - mbeychok 21:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for deleting most of Sept. 17, 2006 edit by 66.27.139.36

message: 129.2.198.192: 
If you will read the entire article, especially the section on Other Forms of Henry's Law, it discusses the fact that the equation you used is simply the invert of the original equation. The examples given in units of L•atm/mol are correct for the original equation and incorrect for your inverted version. See the table in the section on "Other Forms of Henry's Law".
Please do not change the equation again. Regards, - mbeychok 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for reverting changes by 129.2.198.192 

message: 69.200.224.11:
This has come up before ... see the comment just above. It applies to your changes as well. Read the entire article and read it thoroughly.  Please do not change the equation again. Regards, - mbeychok 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you have changed it back, so please disregard my above remark. But please be careful when experimenting like that. - mbeychok 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for reverting changes by 69.200.224.11

message: 55.198.109.41: 
If you will read the entire article, especially the section on Other Forms of Henry's Law, it discusses the fact that the equation you used is simply the invert of the original equation. The examples given in units of L•atm/mol are correct for the original equation and incorrect for your inverted version. See the table in the section on "Other Forms of Henry's Law".
This has happened a number of times before because people do not read the entire article thoroughly before making a change. Please do not change the equation again. Regards, - mbeychok 17:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for reverting change of equation by 155.198.109.41 

message: I've reworked this section after noticing that one particular sentence basically stated
The difference is that [...] kH is a value that differs from p*.
To be fair, the following sentence gave a reason but, while trying to merge the two sentences in an easy-to-read way, I thought of additions which required some rearrangement of the pre-existing content.  It's pretty much all still there though, just in a slightly different form.
The final sentence about Gibbs-Duhem eqn. possibly still needs better wording, since it might be read as only applying to ideal-dilute solutions.  Perhaps it does - the previous version made the same implication - but I've always preferred organic to physical chemistry so I don't know. - ObfuscatePenguin 10:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworked Henry's law vs Raoult's law 

message: An A class article is this : 
Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.
Emphasis mine. I don't think its of potential Featured Article quality yet. Here's the things that needs to be improved to be considered an A-Class IMO:
* An engaging lead, with perhaps a few historical details such as time of discovery, typical users of Henry's Law (which fields uses it, and examples of that use)
* Fix appearance problems.
:* Some sections are in written in bold while they should not.
:* Use scientific or engineering notation rather than E notation (see Scientific and Engineering notation)
:* Properly seperate numbers (e.g., write 2,123.002 024 045 rather than 2123.002024045)
:* A picture would really add something to this article. Especially to the Temperature dependence of the Henry constant section.
:* Consider centering tables within the page.
* Don't use "editorial" comments such as Note that, As discussed, ...
* The "flow" could be improved. Many sections feels like simple stubs, and collection of stubs does not make an A-class articles.
* Consider adding a atm <-> Pa conversion somewhere in there to tell the reader what exactly is an atmosphere.
* Some sections are unreferenced. Namely:
:* Lead
:* Tables (perhaps the other sources give the values, in that case add inline citations next to the table titles)
:* Henry's law in geophysics
:* Henry's law versus Raoult's law
* See also could perhaps be expanded, but I'm really not qualified to judge that one.
These needs to be addressed before it's considered A-Class IMO.  22:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for B class 

message: I would like to have the historical background of Henry's Law,  the Story of Henry's Law.  What systems was it noticed in, that the early natural scientists, including Dalton and Henry, noticed some pattern?  And how did they do the experiments to verify it?  What boats got rocked by the promulgation of Henry's Law?  Before any good theory gets traction, there was always some previous theory that was all nicely peer reviewed and solid as a rock.  This becomes really interesting when it comes to, say, Henry's Law, because it isn't stated as a theory, it's the LAW.  Richard8081 (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard8081, I moved your comment about the History of Henry's law down here to keep the comments in chronological order. Yes, it might be interesting to include a section on the history of Henry's Law. If you could point me to a source of such information, I would write it up and add it to this article. Or you could do it yourself. - mbeychok (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Henry's Law

message: "Because the pressure of carbon dioxide above the liquid is now lower, some of the dissolved carbon dioxide comes out of solution as bubbles" The bubbles in the middle of the liquid cant know the carbon dioxide pressure = partial CO2 pressure. It can't see if it is a CO2 or just liquid all the way up.> Because the pressure above the liquid is now lower, some of the dissolved carbon dioxide comes out of solution as bubbles. don't take bubbles telepathy in account.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.4.108 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem "Because the pressure of CO2...CO2 comes out of solution as bubbles" 

message: In the temperature dependence section, kH,pc is the equilibrium constant for the degassing process (vapor is the product). For this process, ΔdegasH = -ΔsolvH . Without the minus sign, it appears from the values given in the table that the solvation process is endothermic. This cannot be the case for gas molecules (almost no interaction) going into a liquid (strong interactions). Chrom69 (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign of Δ<sub>solv</sub>''H''  

message: This is a fine example of a scientific Wikipedia article.
The everyday example of carbonated drinks explains the concept in one paragraph for the non-scientist.  Many other scientific articles could be greatly improved by adding similar examples before jumping into the science.  Hooray for whoever added and worked on that paragraph! Earthlyreason (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooray for us! 

message: While researching possible improvements for Decompression sickness, I attempted to figure out the volume of gas contained in a human body at sea level. which led me to the question of the volume of gas contained in a liter of water at room temperature. In other words, if I extracted all of the dissolved gas in a liter of water and or a human body, how many liters of gas would that be?) Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume of dissolved gas in a liter of water? 

message: FYI: This is my web page. It does indeed still exist. However, my internet provider seems to have problems and the page is occasionally down. I may have to switch the provider but the name www.henrys-law.org will stay the same.--RolfSander (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.henrys-law.org 

message: I'm an animal physiologist, not a physicist, so I'm posing this to the regular contributors rather than making any changes myself.  The fourth paragraph begins "An equivalent way of stating the law is that the *solubility* of a gas in a liquid is directly proportional to the pressure of the gas."  (Emphasis mine.)  Shouldn't that be *concentration*?  The way I use the term solubility, it would be in units of mol/L·.atm.  (Physiologists tend to use the form c = sp, where s is solubility, rather than p = kp.)  Since s is constant if temperature and solvent don't change, it seems like the current statement is incorrect. AJC (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If written as you propose:the solubility of a gas in a liquid is directly proportional to the concentration in the liquid, would that not be essentially equivalent to saying that the solubility of a gas in a liquid is directly proportional to its solubility ? Surely, that is not what you meant. mbeychok (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect use of "solubility"? 

message: Substituted at 17:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The wikipedia page contains many template messages requesting additional
citations for verification. There is now a recent IUPAC publication
 that covers these topics
(disclaimer: I am the first author of this article). I suggest to add
the citation and remove the template messages. In addition, I think it
would be good to use the recommended IUPAC symbols consistently.--RolfSander (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding missing citations

message: value of Henry law 115.244.41.214 (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of Henry constant law