Talk:Oxygen

I started this article because it was high on the list of most wanted articles, not because I feel especially proficient in this subject. I would like to ask for support on the biological and medical uses of oxygen, and also in making the article more attractive visually. Thanks. --Paul Wormer 04:24, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Chemical infobox

See: Template:Chem_Infobox for a simple chemical infobox. Let me know if there's anything I should add to the template. --Robert W King 10:37, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm not quite sure that this template clarifies a lot in the case of oxygen. Or maybe I do something wrong?--Paul Wormer 09:12, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

No, it doesn't clarify a lot--it's just an infobox, nothing more. I can always add more fields to it but so far no one's ever provided any feedback on what exactly it should describe. --Robert W King 16:27, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Robert and I are discussing putting nuclear info, like radio-active isotopes, nuclear spin, etc in the chem info box. I was thinkng that an alternative idea would be to make an isotope_infobox, where for each isotope we list atomic mass, nuclear spin, gyromagnetic ratio or relative sensitivity (vs. ¹H) or nuclear ground state. Paul, do have any thoughts on this?

David E. Volk 13:43, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

the general idea however should be: info is good, too much info distracts and I wonder if it provides real info to somebody 'passing-by' on the page. Sure it seems more complete that way. I will upload an example from collected info using CRC's handbook.

Robert Tito |  Talk  14:00, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

The stuff in the left boxes appear to be molecular properties of the O2 gas, so we are looking at the right box only? I would suggest that things like atomic radii and electronegativy won't change much by isotope (i would need to check that supposition), but nuclear spin and radioactivity change alot for isotopes, with spin states of +/-1/2 up to +/-7/2 generally, and either radioactive or not. This fact is frequently exploited with nuclear labelling in medicine (radiology, NMR, MRI) and might be of some curiosity to the person being injected with labeled isotopes before procedures.

The one thing the CRC does list in its atomic boxes are the common oxidation states, only -2 for oxygen, but +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, -1, -2, -3 for nitrogen. That could be put in the box but it would be a little messy. David E. Volk 14:19, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

I think that should make more impact when talking about isotopes than putting it into some figure that gets overcrowded with info. Robert Tito |  Talk  14:29, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Then should we remove the present list of isotopes? It only lists four of the nine oxygen isotopes ( Oxygen-13 to Oxygen-20) that are known (CRC, 1989)and is therefore somewhat misleading. Should we make a page entitled "Isotopes of (Element Name)" that would include mass, spin, decay route, half-life, magnetic momentum, decay energies? Should we ignore the complicated for now and stick with writing pages for all of the elements first? David E. Volk 14:42, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

I see my CRC is quite outdated, there are 17 isotopes now if WP is correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_oxygen) David E. Volk 14:47, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

how about a short summary on the main page with a link to a subpage? Try imagine all isotopes for U or Pt you could write a volume on these. Robert Tito |  Talk  14:49, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

This started with my thinking that radioactive isotopes, if naturally occuring, should be shown somewhat prominently in the chem infobox. Perhaps we should still do that, if even with only a "natural isotopes='yes'" indication in the chem infobox that doesn't necessary list them individually. Since the amound of data can be staggering, separate "isotopes of X" pages seems to be the way to go, with brief mention of only of the naturally occuring dangerous isotopes and some mention of the often used ones for medical/research purposes. So, for Robert's chem infobox, let's put in a slot under hazards called radioactive isotopes, to which the answers could be yes, no, or a short list. Everyone agree with that? David E. Volk 15:03, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

ok by my standards - just the standard isotopes and on a special isotope page all of these guys - it would make things more systematical and more identical to implement it's easy for natural U, 235/238 or O 12,13,14,16 being the normal natural isotopes but any exotics created in some lab, particle accelerator or other way would take volume after volume of info. I wonder who is interested knowing that isotope X of element Y with a half time life of less than 1 femto second exists. It for sure wouldn't top my list of wow info Robert Tito |  Talk  15:29, 18 October 2007 (CDT)