Talk:Properties of water/Archive 1

message: Mkay I am not that good at chemistry but isnt the density of water 998 g/cm^3, then how could it be 1000 kg/m^3? Should it not be 998 kg/m^3? Or am I missing something? 87.96.132.194 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the density of water is dependent upon its temperature, but I'm not very familiar with this subject either. Hopefully someone else will come and explain better. Jecowa 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Density is indeed temperature-dependent, and the article even has a table listing density of (liquid) water at various temperatures. DMacks 22:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Density 

message: I moved the part on Celsius to be below the part about Farenheit. It was kind of illogical to have Celsius first because the order was by year and Celsius part happend(according to the text) after Farenheit. 87.96.132.194 17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section change 

message: The article doesn't acknowledge the fact that compressibility might depend on temperature, or that change in volume might not be a linear function of pressure. In fact, the quantity provided requires specification of the temperature and pressure at which it's meassured. The reference given does not help either. I don't have time to fix this now, I'll try to do it later, but if anybody beats me to it, I'd apreciate it.--Tariuk 21:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compressibility coefficient 

message: I need a formula to calculate the freezing point of water at arbitrary heights in the Earth's atmosphere, so far all I've found is this Freezing Point Calculator, but i need the equation itself, which granted i could get from the JavaScript there but that appears to be for seawater. --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   02:53, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
Are you by any chance talking about the point at which atmospheric moisture freezes? if so the A.S.H.R.A.E  dew-point calculator is wahat you need. the freezing of water is quite straight forward e.g. 
for each  1 pound of water  
                            A/ temperature difference from freezing x BTU degrees F.
                            B/ plus latent heat of fusion
                        (minus # of degrees F. x 1 b.t.u.)+ latent heat of fusion 
           This gives the total amount of heat required to A/reduce to freezing temperature 
                                                           B/effect the change of state
If I remember my trade-school science the latent heat of fusion is 451 btu per pound, these calculations are for 1 atmosphere of pressure and for practical purposes disregard the H in your formula!  So the H in the formula is 500  or 1000 (metres or feet)
: A little googling turned up this page from Ask A Scientist, which gives this:
:: \frac{\Delta{P}}{\Delta{T}} = \frac{\Delta{H}}{T\Delta{V}}
:::Do you say, by any chance have on that does not assume knowledge of physics? Like an example of how to calculate this for 500 and 1000 metres? --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   13:05, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
: If you're worried about salinity, you might also be interested in Raoult's law. --David Iberri | Talk 05:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
*I couldn't find a straight-forward formula for this, but the Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center  explains how to calculate the temperature using a Skew T, Log P Diagram (DOD WPC 9-16).  You can probably order the DOD WPC 9-16 online.  If you know how to code, there is code (from 1978!) located here that generates the DOD WPC 9-16.  SWAdair | Talk  05:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A formula to calculate the freezing point of water 

message: I cleaned up some things in the section "Amphoteric nature of water", but there are two things I'm not entirely sure about.
*The section starts out saying that water can act as an acid or base, then later says it can acta as an acid or alkali. I think it should be "base" everywhere. (See Alkali#Confusion between base and alkali).
*It says "equilibrium" but the arrow points only to the right. My guess is that it should say "reaction", but perhaps it was meant as an equilibrium and the arrow should go both ways? If so, how about the reaction with NH3 below?
Fpahl 22:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The symbols  ↔ and  → don't show up in Opera 7.23. Why not <==> instead? Vsmith 15:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... they do on my XP at home, also using Opera 7.23. Using Win98 on school computer where I noted the problem. ??? Vsmith 00:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amphoteric nature of water 

message: << Begin copy from Talk:Water since the Water (molecule) page split from the Water page >>
There have been several conflicting edits on fine-tuning and anthropic principle.  I believe that all edits have a bit of truth, and that keeping only one explanation to the unusual property of life is NPOV.  Shouldn't we have one short paragraph briefly explaining the various answers as explained in fine-tuned universe, with a link to fine-tuned universe for more details ?  And move any further discussion to this article ?
: It's not gonna be easy :) -- I personally see no reason for inclusion of anthropic principle or fine tuning for life as both imply a designer and are nonscientific and unfalsifiable. Evolution is about the fine tuning of life forms to their environment.--Vsmith 22:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is an encyclopedy, not a scientific compendium.  It contains many philosophical or religious articles.  I do not see why such issues would have to be removed from a "water" article. Pcarbonn 06:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved fine tuning & anthropo references to new Philosophy and Religion section after History. Vsmith 15:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Hear, hear!  ---Rednblu 21:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Sounds right--as a possibility!  ---Rednblu 21:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Re. #1 above. I've added a bit on freezing seawater to (hopefully) clarify this point. So ocean bottom water is maybe -2 deg C (depends on pressure - should look up data on deep ocean temps). However, water temperature around black smokers is a lot hotter and at least one abiogenesis theory says that's where the action was :-) -Vsmith 04:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anthropic principle]]?  Eh? Come again. 

message: Can someone write about Penta, a patented bottled water brand which uses ultrasound to reorganise the water molecules into pentacomplices, whose form is claimed to be more readily absorbed in the body than regular water? lysdexia 08:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of it (but, there is much I haven't heard of:) - sounds like an advertising/marketing ploy to me. Removed attention banner - not what it is for. -Vsmith 15:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - did some googling, got 99% marketing hype. Here's a link that gives some perspective from Randi the Debunker -Vsmith 15:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put together a provisional Penta Water page.  Let me know what you think.  Let's see what their lawyers think!  Christianjb 05:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but this is pure pseudoscience. Ed Sanville 01:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water as a liquid crystal 

message: I restructured the article to avoid duplication of headings and combine material - hopefully for a better read. Much of the old Properties of water was duplicated in part under Physics and chemistry. Also deleted a bit that is covered better in the water article. Could probably do some more rewriting of combined topic materials, but there's always more. -Vsmith 04:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure 

message: I fully appreciate the edits to correct my atroicous spelling :) and formatting to a recent edit I made but I do think one part should remain the same. The section in question was changed to:
"It is known that the theoretical maximum electrical resistivity for water is approximately 182 kilohm-meters at 25 degrees Celsius. This figure agrees well with what is typically seen on reverse osmosis, ultrafiltered and deionized ultrapure water systems used for instance, in semiconductor manufacturing plants. A salt or acid contaminant level exceeding that of even 100 parts per trillion (ppt) in ultrapure water will begin to noticably raise its conductivity level by up to several hundred kilosiemens per meter."
Now, I know wikipedia must conform to standards, a policy which I am an ardent advocate of, and the meter is the SI unit of length as is the kilohm. However, ultrapure water is never, ever referred to using these units. It is <B>always</B> referred to as being 18.2 megohm-cm and has in fact been so often used with these terms that it has bcome synonymous with them and is often simply called "megohm water" in the literature. So I'd like to change this back in the article......--Deglr6328 17:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added 18.2 megohm-cm after the kohm amount for clarity. Vsmith 17:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I did a fairly detailed reply to Deglr6328's last comment in editing, and must have previewed and closed browser without saving it.  The gist of it was that you are now on the right track, but more fine-tuning needs to be done.  Don't have time to reconstruct it all right now, but will try to get back here later.  Gene Nygaard 04:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrical properties/Ultrapure 

message: Why does this page(or any other chemical page) have no thermodynamic data in the information bar on the right hand side?  There should be heats of formation, heats of combustion, specific heats, heat of fusion, and heat of vaporization listed at STP.  I don't understand why this information would not be included but the viscosity is.  Viscosity is not a common use in calculations unless you are a chemical engineer but various thermodynamic properties are very usefull.
Click on the "thermodynamic data" link and you will see what you need.  This is true for all of the infoboxes- assuming these data have been uploaded. I have answered the question in a more detailed way here.Walkerma 17:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  thermodynamic data 

message: I reverted an unexplained, unsourced, deletion of this section by an anon editor - precisely because no reason was given. I have no opinion on the accuracy or otherwise of the deleted data. How can I tell the accuracy of your source when you do not state this? Ian Cairns 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic property 

message: IUPAC has a proposed recommendation to name water as Oxidane. It's just a recommendation. The quoted website has jumped the gun and pronounced this as a fact. Wikipedia should not fall into this trap. Wait for the formal naming, if it is confirmed. Ian Cairns 00:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUPAC name 

message: My textbook has a marvelous concise picture illustrating why the density of ice is lower than the density of liquid water - the current articles seem to get very technical concerning this and whatnot, but doesn't seem to be obvious for the lay reader. Where would be a good place to put a picture illustrating the difference? I mean, the entire thing is after all, that the molecules of a water crystal lattice happen to because (thanks to the polar nature of water) that large volumes of empty space form between water molecules, but the articles concerning the density of water doesn't seem to refer to this obvious fact concerning the lower density. What's the best comparison to explain it verbally - I was thinking the analogy of "bonds" in the sense of strength, that if we compared water molecules to synchronised swimmers, that if they wanted to "stick together" to form bonds so they could move as one they would hold each other's limbs - and in the process of it, ending up having greater volume because well - arms and legs must be taut in order to maintain an organised bond in that situation. This is compared to a school of fish, where if they want to form bonds for safety they end up shrinking in volume. But maybe that is too colourful a description, and maybe becomes a tad inaccurate to the real bond formation, but it gives the concept to the reader that more bonds between molecules doesn't always mean a smaller volume because they are more attracted to each other and hence there is less empty space, although that's the most common effect. There somehow has to be an eloquent explanation telling the reader that molecules such as water that become have stronger attractions in colder temperatures can increase in volume because of their structure. -- Natalinasmpf 03:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a good idea, and a picture would be nice if put in the density section.  However, this is the article on the molecular aspects of water, and so i don't think that creating an overly elaborate metaphor is all that useful.  A picture of a hydrogen bonding scheme in water, versus a hydrogen bonding scheme in ice; or pictures labelled with bond lengths and crystal structures would be very nice, and would accurately contribute to the article.  If you can think of a one sentence metaphor, give it a try.  But it's  a bit tricky, because these are hydrogen bonds, and so schooling fish is a bit misleading.  Here's some pictures that I think might add to the article .  Also, these are nice articles , [], .  So, for example, the liquid phase of water is amorphous and thought of as a continuum that permits many different bonding schemes, while ice generally forms into (at least locally) crystal groups with impurities; even when they are amorphous and vitreous (Amorphous ice).  So, a good question is, is the density of all ice forms less than liquid water?  Well, the answer is no; high density ice is more dense than liquid water.  So, if you want to make a statement about the density of water, you need to set the context that you are refering to first.  I will try to reword some things to make them clearer.  Cypa 20:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  density portrayal 

message: Can someone check the units for the heat capacity in the data table?  Anthony Chivetta 07:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat Capacity 

message: Someone added dihydrogen monoxide as "another name" for water. I don't think we should include it, because that name is never used in a scientific context. The only place it's been used is for the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax. The systematic name, if we really want one, is just hydrogen oxide. Itub 18:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dihydrogen monoxide as a name for water 

message: The line "it is the best; some other names commonly found, such as "hydrogen hydroxide", are needlessly complicated." does not seem to represent NPOV.
- PK9 02:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That line is essentially correct, although the phrasing could be improved. A general principle of systematic nomenclature systems such as IUPAC's is that the simplest possible name should be used. For example, you say propanone and not 2-propanone because the "2" is redundant. Similarly, you say sodium oxide and not disodium monoxide, or hydrogen oxide and not dihydrogen monoxide. A name such as hydrogen hydroxide (which, by the way, I'd not say is "commonly" found, although it is certainly used ocassionally for educational purposes to emphasize that water can be obtained as a neutralization product) is needlessly complicated, because it's splitting a simple binary compound in an arbitrary asymmetric way. Itub 15:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic naming/NPOV 

message: Where is there information about water's index of diffraction, etc?
:Try googling index of refraction, the correct name for what I think you mean -User: Nightvid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.184.111.168 (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light diffraction properties 

message: My teacher in physical chemistry told me that the blue color of water is because of vibrational transitions from level 1 to 7, that filter out the red light. Is that true?
Keep in mind that im answering this question as if you are talking about quantum vibrational states, etc. since you say you're in a physical chemistry class.  I was taught in Pchem that vibrational transitions are quite rare, thus a transition from 1 to 7 would be exceedingly rare to witness, muchless in something as common as water.  If memory serves correctly, most molecules at room temperature are in the vibrational ground state.  He may have been referring to electron transitions, however, I could not say if that would filter out red light.
:Uhm... well, maybe this is just my stupidity, but... isn't water just blue because of the reflection from the sky? After all, if you look at water in a glass or anywhere but outdoors, you can see that it's clear. Maianess 21:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why water is blue - a better quantum explanation ? 

message: The volumes for the different reservoirs of the water cycle differ from those at water cycle. Could do with some checking. Daniel Collins 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reservoir volumes 

message: I am one of those people.I'd drink water if  it has sugar.One of my family members said it was okay to add sugar.Do you like water?
Gemini531 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like water, but tap water in some cities is gross. Some bottled water doesn't taste good either. I like the bottled water from Ozarka, Aquafina, and Dasani. Jecowa 21:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many People Don't like the taste of H2o 

message: ;Talk:Water (molecule)/Comments
:* Note: the above page has been redirected to this page and section.
:This article could be improved by expanding the "water in biology" section, e.g. including the role of water in cell metabolism (hydrolysis reactions) and oxygen-formation by water-splitting in plants. - tameeria 05:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived from