This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I cleaned up some things in the section "Amphoteric nature of water", but there are two things I'm not entirely sure about.
Fpahl 22:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Anyway - replaced alkali w/ base in this section and changed ammonia reaction to reversible also. Vsmith 00:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I looked for something in the style manual on chemical formulas, but there doesn't seem to be anything. I looked at other pages with chemistry, and they almost invariably use these arrows. Chemical equilibrium has a nice TeXed formula, but it's not that much nicer, and it would be a lot of effort to change everything to that and keep it that way, apart from the fact that things then look different from the formulas within the text. I have no idea how many Opera users with Windows 98 there are -- do you think it's acceptable to leave it as it is? Win98 will soon be dying out anyway, I guess... "<-->" (not "<==>") would be OK, I guess, but I'd be reluctant to change to something "less advanced" because of a relatively limited problem that will go away over time. Fpahl 10:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
<< 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 ?
<<End copy from the Talk:Water page >>
From the current Water (molecule) page:
This sentence about "finely-tuned" and "anthropic principle" does not make logical sense. Even if God in all her great generosity made the bottom of freshwater lakes 4 degrees warmer than the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, this would not be an example of an anthropic principle but rather a difference between fresh water and salt water. Furthermore, this difference between the bottom of salt water and the bottom of fresh water does not clearly benefit man because man as God made him does not live on the bottom of either fresh water or salt water. So I suggest this sentence should be either 1) deleted or 2) those interested in keeping this sentence in the water page should provide a reference that explains the connection between 1) the temperature at the bottom of a body of water and 2) the anthropic principle. --- Rednblu 10:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
I don't disagree with your "possibility" arguments. Many things are "possible."
---
---
Good idea; in the right direction; good clarification of the "argument." However, in my opinion, merely moving the unsupported, undocumented, and uncited nonsense sentence to "Philosophy and Religion" does not get rid of the deception in the sentence. That is, in my opinion, the anthropic principle does not manifest either legitimate philosophy or legitimate religion, but rather pseudoscience. Accordingly, I would suggest that the title of this section should be something like " Scientific method versus pseudoscience"; with that title the reader is properly alerted to the texture of the "argument." --- Rednblu 17:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
Could some one explain why "bottom of fresh water at 4 °C" is a pre-requisite for life as we know it ? The mainstream thinking on the origin of life is that it started at the bottom of the seas, where the argument does not hold. So life could have started without this special property of water. The expansion of life from the sea to the ground does not seem to critically depend on that property of water either (although it sure helps) Pcarbonn 20:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On the other hand, the fact that fatty substances create cells in water is critical for life and the process of evolution as we know it. However, any other solvent than water probably has the same property: insoluble substances will tend to create cells in them too, am I right ? So, life could theoretically evolve in any other solvent, I would think (although it has never been observed of course). Pcarbonn 20:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We have three separate questions here.
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)
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)
That should make it much easier to follow than it was previously. Good work. WaterGuy
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 always 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)
Shouldn't the conductance change be several hundred nanosiemens per meter, if the resistivity is lowered by several kiloohm-meters from 182 kiloohm-meter? R6144 14:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Another Fox 15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Can we have a consistancy between Mohm-cm and nanosiemens because at the moment its not particularly clear what the value is. ie with 100 ppt salt (de-ionised) the value becomes 1 Mohm-cm rather than some nanosiemens. Does anybody know the conducivity of tap water in Mohm-cm.
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)
The correct pKa and pKb for water at room conditions (1 atm and 25oC) are 15.74, NOT 7.00! Here's why:
It is commonly known that Kw is 1.0 * 10-14. Now, remember that the expression for Kw is [H3O+][OH-]. In pure water, there are roughly 101.74 moles of water per liter, so [H2O] = 101.74. The expression for Ka of an acid is [H3O+][A-]/[HA]. When the "acid" is water, HA is H2O and A- is OH-. So the Ka for water is [H3O+][OH-]/[H2O], which simplifies to Kw/[H2O], or Kw/101.74. Thus, Ka = Kw/101.74, and pKa = 14.00 + 1.74 = 15.74.
A similar explanation applies for the pKb, and it turns out that in pure water, it must be exactly equal to pKa, or 15.74.
But isn't the concentrations in an equilibrium expression actually their activities, and for a pure liquid such as H2O(l), the activity is 1? 211.75.40.58 06:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Gaga
Scott 18:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-User: Nightvid
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)
Probably better to remove unsourced material as it makes it difficult to verify if it is correct or not. WaterGuy 17:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
what volume of water is housing within all living organisms? and what percentage is it? also, what is the volume of a single drop, and is it proportional to surface tension? mastodon 20:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ian, I usually hold your edits in high regard but I stumbled across this revert recently, and I was a little puzzled by it. I realise that the person posting has had his/her disagreements with the chemistry people (including myself) but this IUPAC name does seem genuine. I think this is noteworthy, and a legitimate reference was given (the ACS labs website is the standard reference site for IUPAC naming rules), so the name oxidane should be in this section. Before I put it back in, though, I wanted to check on your reasons for reverting. Thanks, Walkerma 04:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The name oxidane was also in the previous version of the Red Book. It is, of course, never used. Physchim62 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Should wikipedia redirect hydrogen dioxide to water? hydrogen dioxide would be more along the lines of hydrogen peroxide, right?
Can someone check the units for the heat capacity in the data table? Anthony Chivetta 07:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
I realize this is incredibly rare, but when you have trly pure water, it will dissolve things. Like you and me and metal. Isn't that a hazard? Cameron Nedland 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Where is there information about water's index of diffraction, etc?
I added a part to the beggining describing water as an H+ OH- ion, as it is commonly reffered to when dealign with acids and bases
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.
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)
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)Gemini531
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I cleaned up some things in the section "Amphoteric nature of water", but there are two things I'm not entirely sure about.
Fpahl 22:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Anyway - replaced alkali w/ base in this section and changed ammonia reaction to reversible also. Vsmith 00:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I looked for something in the style manual on chemical formulas, but there doesn't seem to be anything. I looked at other pages with chemistry, and they almost invariably use these arrows. Chemical equilibrium has a nice TeXed formula, but it's not that much nicer, and it would be a lot of effort to change everything to that and keep it that way, apart from the fact that things then look different from the formulas within the text. I have no idea how many Opera users with Windows 98 there are -- do you think it's acceptable to leave it as it is? Win98 will soon be dying out anyway, I guess... "<-->" (not "<==>") would be OK, I guess, but I'd be reluctant to change to something "less advanced" because of a relatively limited problem that will go away over time. Fpahl 10:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
<< 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 ?
<<End copy from the Talk:Water page >>
From the current Water (molecule) page:
This sentence about "finely-tuned" and "anthropic principle" does not make logical sense. Even if God in all her great generosity made the bottom of freshwater lakes 4 degrees warmer than the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, this would not be an example of an anthropic principle but rather a difference between fresh water and salt water. Furthermore, this difference between the bottom of salt water and the bottom of fresh water does not clearly benefit man because man as God made him does not live on the bottom of either fresh water or salt water. So I suggest this sentence should be either 1) deleted or 2) those interested in keeping this sentence in the water page should provide a reference that explains the connection between 1) the temperature at the bottom of a body of water and 2) the anthropic principle. --- Rednblu 10:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
I don't disagree with your "possibility" arguments. Many things are "possible."
---
---
Good idea; in the right direction; good clarification of the "argument." However, in my opinion, merely moving the unsupported, undocumented, and uncited nonsense sentence to "Philosophy and Religion" does not get rid of the deception in the sentence. That is, in my opinion, the anthropic principle does not manifest either legitimate philosophy or legitimate religion, but rather pseudoscience. Accordingly, I would suggest that the title of this section should be something like " Scientific method versus pseudoscience"; with that title the reader is properly alerted to the texture of the "argument." --- Rednblu 17:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
Could some one explain why "bottom of fresh water at 4 °C" is a pre-requisite for life as we know it ? The mainstream thinking on the origin of life is that it started at the bottom of the seas, where the argument does not hold. So life could have started without this special property of water. The expansion of life from the sea to the ground does not seem to critically depend on that property of water either (although it sure helps) Pcarbonn 20:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On the other hand, the fact that fatty substances create cells in water is critical for life and the process of evolution as we know it. However, any other solvent than water probably has the same property: insoluble substances will tend to create cells in them too, am I right ? So, life could theoretically evolve in any other solvent, I would think (although it has never been observed of course). Pcarbonn 20:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We have three separate questions here.
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)
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)
That should make it much easier to follow than it was previously. Good work. WaterGuy
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 always 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)
Shouldn't the conductance change be several hundred nanosiemens per meter, if the resistivity is lowered by several kiloohm-meters from 182 kiloohm-meter? R6144 14:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Another Fox 15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Can we have a consistancy between Mohm-cm and nanosiemens because at the moment its not particularly clear what the value is. ie with 100 ppt salt (de-ionised) the value becomes 1 Mohm-cm rather than some nanosiemens. Does anybody know the conducivity of tap water in Mohm-cm.
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)
The correct pKa and pKb for water at room conditions (1 atm and 25oC) are 15.74, NOT 7.00! Here's why:
It is commonly known that Kw is 1.0 * 10-14. Now, remember that the expression for Kw is [H3O+][OH-]. In pure water, there are roughly 101.74 moles of water per liter, so [H2O] = 101.74. The expression for Ka of an acid is [H3O+][A-]/[HA]. When the "acid" is water, HA is H2O and A- is OH-. So the Ka for water is [H3O+][OH-]/[H2O], which simplifies to Kw/[H2O], or Kw/101.74. Thus, Ka = Kw/101.74, and pKa = 14.00 + 1.74 = 15.74.
A similar explanation applies for the pKb, and it turns out that in pure water, it must be exactly equal to pKa, or 15.74.
But isn't the concentrations in an equilibrium expression actually their activities, and for a pure liquid such as H2O(l), the activity is 1? 211.75.40.58 06:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Gaga
Scott 18:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-User: Nightvid
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)
Probably better to remove unsourced material as it makes it difficult to verify if it is correct or not. WaterGuy 17:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
what volume of water is housing within all living organisms? and what percentage is it? also, what is the volume of a single drop, and is it proportional to surface tension? mastodon 20:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ian, I usually hold your edits in high regard but I stumbled across this revert recently, and I was a little puzzled by it. I realise that the person posting has had his/her disagreements with the chemistry people (including myself) but this IUPAC name does seem genuine. I think this is noteworthy, and a legitimate reference was given (the ACS labs website is the standard reference site for IUPAC naming rules), so the name oxidane should be in this section. Before I put it back in, though, I wanted to check on your reasons for reverting. Thanks, Walkerma 04:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The name oxidane was also in the previous version of the Red Book. It is, of course, never used. Physchim62 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Should wikipedia redirect hydrogen dioxide to water? hydrogen dioxide would be more along the lines of hydrogen peroxide, right?
Can someone check the units for the heat capacity in the data table? Anthony Chivetta 07:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
I realize this is incredibly rare, but when you have trly pure water, it will dissolve things. Like you and me and metal. Isn't that a hazard? Cameron Nedland 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Where is there information about water's index of diffraction, etc?
I added a part to the beggining describing water as an H+ OH- ion, as it is commonly reffered to when dealign with acids and bases
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.
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)
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)Gemini531