My name is Jonathan Scott and this is my sandbox. I am a ceramics engineering major and I am very interested in Silicon Carbide and the polytypism it exhibits.

Being bold is important.

i am very excited to start this Wikipedia project; it is a refreshing change of pace from the traditional class setting.

Pneumatic chemistry

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything that I noticed in the article appeared to be relevant, but the article did appear to gloss over some of the historical timeline and accomplishments of people such as Robert Boyle and Hooke's contribution of the air pump, as well as some more modern explanations of the chemistry that was going on. James Watt is also credited with establishing "pneumatic therapy," but is not mentioned later as someone who played a role in the development of pneumatic chemistry.

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a paticular position?

The article appeared neutral, all of the people addressed in the article appeared to be given fair and adequate explanations (with the exception of James Watts) and there are no clear Biases that appear to have been implemented in the article.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

James Watts was mentioned in one line for implementing "pneumatic therapy" but is not discussed later in the article. The main players in Pneumatic Chemistry are also not discussed much and could be fleshed out more.

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Only two of the links were from online journal articles, but those links worked and appeared to support the article.

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Most of the references were published books from university presses, so they appear to be credible. I believe they are unbiased, but there is no noting of bias anywhere.

• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

No information is "out of date" per se, but there is missing information about important players that needs to be fleshed out, and James Watts's contribution to Pneu. Chem.

• Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are no conversations in the Talk page; there is only someone mentioning they are a student editor for the page.

• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is rated a Start Class, Mid importance, and is a part of the WikiChemistry and History of Science Wiki Project.

• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

It mentions a few there characters, but they are not discussed in depth with their contributions.

Partner: Savannah Swaringam (wiki-user: sesxb7)

Article Choice: Pneumatic Chemistry

Why did we choose this article? What is missing? What do we want to add?

• The article is lacking good structure with more relevant information already present as compared to other article we were considering ( Avicennism). This article needs better grouping of information and expansion upon relevant topics and key figures within the article. Our main goal is reformatting and expanding the major figures of Pneumatic Chemistry and adding people that were not mentioned (James Watt, Alessandro Volta). ~~~~

References

1. James Watt by Andrew Carnegie, The Floating Press 2009, ISBN:9781775416340. 9781776510351
2. James Watt, by Andrew Carnegie 1736-1819, Doubleday 1905. ISBN: unsure
3. McEvoy JG. 2015 Gases, God and the balance of nature: a commentary on Priestley (1772) ‘Observations on different kinds of air’.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: 20140229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0229
4. Stewart L. "His Majesty's subjects: from laboratory to human experiment in pneumatic chemistry," Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 63, No. 3, Thomas Beddoes, 1760-1808 (20 September 2009), pp. 231-245.
5. Tomory L. "The origins of gaslight technology in eighteeth-century pneumatic chemistry," Annals of Science, Vol. 66, No. 4, October 2009, pp. 473-496.
6. Various books in the library that I need to check out.

Need to revise references for consistency of formatting. ~~~~

The pneumatic trough was integral thereon in work with gases (or, as contemporary chemists called them, airs). Work done by Joseph Black, Joseph Priestley, Herman Boerhaave, and Henry Cavendish revolved largely around the use of the instrument, allowing them to collect airs given off by different chemical reactions and combustion analyses. Their work led to the discovery of many types of airs, such as dephlogisticated air (discovered by Joseph Priestley).

Moreover, the chemistry of airs was not limited to combustion analyses. During the eighteenth century, many chymists used the discovery of airs as a new path for exploring old problems, with one example being the field of medicinal chemistry. One particular Englishman, James Watt, began to take the idea of airs and use them in what was referred to as pneumatic therapy, or the use of airs to make laboratories more workable with fresh airs and also aid patients with different illnesses, with varying degrees of success. Most human experimentation done was performed on the chymists themselves, as they believed that self-experimentation was a necessary part or progressing the field.

Joseph Priestley, in Observations on different kinds of air, was one of the first people to describe air as being composed of different states of matter, and not as one element ^[1]. Priestley elaborated on the notions of fixed air (CO₂), mephitic air and inflammable air to include "inflammable nitrous air," "vitriolic acid air," "alkaline air" and " dephlogisticated air" ^[1]. Priestley also described the process of respiration in terms of phlogiston theory ^[1]. Priestley also established a process for treating scurvy and other ailments using fixed air in his Directions for impregnating water with fixed air. Priestley's work on pneumatic chemistry had an influence on his natural world views. His belief in an "aerial economy" stemmed from his belief in "dephlogisticated air" being the purest type of air and that phlogiston and combustion were at the heart of nature ^[2].

This is a user sandbox of Jaszqd. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. Get Help

https://www.physiology.org/doi/10.1152/ajplung.00020.2014

https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.mst.edu/docview/1020570288?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=14594

Joseph Black was a chemist that took interest in the pneumatic field after studying under William Cullen. While his primary research was in magnesia alba and heat, his research led him to make inferences about fixed air, as given off by reactions involving the salt. Despite him never using the pneumatic trough or other instrumentation invented to collect and analyze the airs, his inferences led to more research into fixed air instead of common air, with the trough actually being used. (original)

Joseph Black was a chemist that took interest in the pneumatic field after studying under William Cullen. He was first interested in the topic of magnesia alba, or magnesium carbonate, and limestone, or calcium carbonate, and wrote a dissertation called "De Humore acido a cibis orto, et magnesia alba" on the properties of both. His experiments on magnesium carbonate led him to discover that fixed air, or carbon dioxide, was being given off during reactions with various chemicals, including breathing. After moving on to Glasgow to teach, Black turned his interests to the topic of heat. Through his experiments with ice and water, he made several discoveries about the latent heat of fusion and the latent heat of freezing water, as well as working extensively with specific heats of a number of liquids. (updated) Sesxb7 ( talk) 15:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In the eighteenth century, with the rise of combustion analysis in chemistry, Stephen Hales invented the pneumatic trough in order to collect gases from the samples of matter he used; while uninterested in the properties of the gases he collected, he wanted to explore how much gas was given off from the materials he burned or let ferment. Hales was successful in preventing the air from losing its "elasticity," i.e. preventing it from experiencing a loss in volume, by bubbling the gas through water, and therefore dissolving the soluble gases.

After the invention of the pneumatic trough, Stephen Hales continued his research into the different airs, and performed many Newtonian analyses of the various properties of them. He published his book Vegetable Staticks in 1727, which had a profound impact on the field of pneumatic chemistry, as many researchers cited this in their academic papers. In Vegetable Staticks, Hales not only introduced his trough, but also the results he obtained from collected the air, such as the elasticity and composition of airs along with their ability to mix with others. Sesxb7 ( talk) 16:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Henry Cavendish, despite not being the first to replace water in the trough with mercury, he was among the first to observe that fixed air was insoluble over mercury and therefore could be collected more efficiently using the adapted instrument. He also characterized fixed air (CO₂) and inflammable air (H₂). He successfully isolated flammable air using the pneumatic trough. However, he did not exploit his own idea to its limit, and therefore did not use the mercury pneumatic trough to its full extent. Cavendish is credited with nearly correctly analyzing the content of gases in the atmosphere ^[3]. Cavendish also showed that inflammable air and atmospheric air could be combined and heated to produce water in 1784 ^[3].

James Watt's research in pneumatic chemistry involved the use of inflammable (H₂) and dephlogisticated (O₂) airs to create water. In 1783, James Watt showed that water was composed of inflammable and dephlogisticated airs, and that the masses of gases before combustion were exactly equal to the mass of water after combustion ^[4]. Until this point, water was viewed as a fundamental element rather than a compound. James Watt also sought to explore the use of different airs in medical treatments as "pneumatic therapy" by collaborating with Dr. Thomas Beddoes to treat his daughter Jessie Watt using fixed air ^[5].

I like the changes you've done to the Joseph Black section. It gives a much more in depth analysis into what he was studying. The addition of the Stephen Hales section instead of just grouping his research into the 18th century section as it flows better with how the article is formatted. I know this sentence comes from the original article, but it might be helpful to rephrase the following sentence: "He published his book Vegetable Staticks in 1727, and this influenced the entire field of pneumatic chemistry, as no chemist interested in the science of air started their work without reading this book and citing it in their own papers." because it feels as though it's trying to convince the reader just how important Stephen Hales was. Lmwvh8 ( talk) 16:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Good point, we will revise to remove bias. Jaszqd ( talk) 15:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The additions to be made regarding Joseph Priestley are good. The addition of a Stephen Hale heading is great, but it might be of interest to you to instead make a heading for influential people and use the names as sub-headings to make the article flow well. Also a good person that could be added is Antoine Lavoisier because it could add some dynamics to the people who studied pneumatic chemistry, as he opposed the phlogiston theory. The expansion for the Joseph Black portion is another good addition to be made. If possible, the addition of another instrument would be great in this article as well. All in all a great draft! Wgpd4f ( talk) 03:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. We hadn't considered adding Antoine Lavoisier; however, that would be a good choice! If we can fit it in the timeframe, we will try to add him in! Currently we are planning on focusing on the contributors in this sandbox for the sake of time. Jaszqd ( talk) 15:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The addition of another instrument would be a great idea, but as we are mainly focusing on contributors and the eighteenth century section if we have time, we will not be able to add another instrument. Sesxb7 ( talk) 15:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me start with, the adjustments and additions look really good so far.

This page, I am sure is a challenge, since it is pretty broad.

Some points I wanted to bring to your attention are as follows:

1. Priestley elaborated on the notions of fixed air (CO2), mephitic air and inflammable air to include inflammable nitrous air, vitriolic acid air, alkaline air And dephlogisticated air. Is the a in and suppose to be capitalized?

Fixed the typo, thanks!

2. If possible, I suggest linking some of the words to other pages. I find this very helpful when reading through wiki, it gives a quick way to define words or names that you may not know. I am not sure but if dephlogisticated air has one, if aerial economy has one, along with some of the people mentioned like William Cullen or James Watt. Just a thought, I know if you add too many links it may be distracting. It also alleviates some of the need for the article to explain what they are.

Added some links

3. The Joseph Black edits look really good

4. In the Eighteenth century original text section, are you able to name some of the diseases or illnesses mentioned in the last paragraph? If not, it looks good but it would be neat to see more illnesses.

will try and add some, but primary focus is on the main contributors. If we have enough time, then we will add those in! Jaszqd ( talk) 15:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

5. In some of the titles, not all of the words are capitalized. I suggest capitalizing them, like ″Pneumatic chemistry″ possibly or ″Eighteenth century″.

6. My final suggestion is to expand on the Gasometer section, if possible.

Because I am working on the sections with Joseph Black, Stephen Hales, and Herman Boerhaave, as well as the eighteenth century section, I will focus on those review comments. I took into account the formatting issues with the Stephen Hales section and will try to rephrase some sentences and shorten the paragraph to keep it more even with the other contributors sections. I also noticed that you mentioned putting all the existing contributors in their own section and adding Antoine Lavoisier. I did reformat the sections to put them under a separate heading, but as we are already adding six people, we will not be adding Lavoisier as well to save time. I will be going through and linking some of the key names and terms throughout the article to other existing articles so that people can find them, as well as looking into adding some to the eighteenth century section if I have time to. If not, I might not be able to complete the eighteenth century section, so it will remain as it was originally, minus the Stephen Hales section. Sesxb7 ( talk) 15:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)