Chemical Forums
Chemistry Forums for Students => Physical Chemistry Forum => Topic started by: fritnat on May 08, 2006, 09:21:56 AM
-
We have had quite a discussion about the above statement on another forum and we would now like the opinion from som chemists!
We know the facts but we disagree about the terminology. One view is that oxygen gas means dioxygen and only dioxygen while the opposing view is that it means any of the allotropes of oxygen in a gaseous phase.
I am interested to know the perception of the term among chemists.
Thank you
-
I'd opt for the former.
-
oxygen gas is commonly known to be dioxygen; i dont see why they should be meant as allotropes of oxygen when it isnt a scientific name to begin with.
-
oxygen gas is commonly known to be dioxygen; i dont see why they should be meant as allotropes of oxygen when it isnt a scientific name to begin with.
I suppose those with that opinion consider oxygen gas as a perfectly valid scientific term which is misused when meaning dioxygen only!
-
Oxygen gas = O2
It may include isotopes I suppose but not allotropes.
I have never heard it used differently, can you give an example of where oxygen gas may refer to ozone O3?
-
Oxygen is an element. In common practise (between chemists) its name means also the most widespread form of this element, ie. natural dioxygen. But as usually, one word can possess many meanings depending on context, eg: music is your oxygen.
-
Oxygen gas = O2
It may include isotopes I suppose but not allotropes.
I have never heard it used differently, can you give an example of where oxygen gas may refer to ozone O3?
Sure http://ehs.ucdavis.edu/sftynet/sn-63.cfm: Ozone is a very reactive form of oxygen gas.
-
As an engineer, I will refer O2 as oxygen gas and O3 as ozone.
-
i think for a very broad and literal interpretation, oxygen gas can refer to any gas that composes entirely of oxygen atoms.
but we chemists prefer to keep things simple. we dont use a term to refer to everything, when it is already ingrained in the common public.
did u know that the reason why it is taught in schools(at least mine) that positive charges flowed from positive ends to negative ends, even though we all know that it is actually electrons that flow vice versa? (the schools add a footnote about this too though) because of convention. yes, because it was already a commonly-accepted notion.
in this case the situation is less severe, because u want to expand the current definition for a "whole" concept. but u have my 2 cents :)
-
Oxygen is an element. In common practise (between chemists) its name means also the most widespread form of this element, ie. natural dioxygen. But as usually, one word can possess many meanings depending on context, eg: music is your oxygen.
I have no problem going along with what is commonly meant between chemists. However the terminology of scientific statements meant for the broad public is another matter! For example what is common occurence for chemists is obviously not the same as what I understand it to mean! Therefore I would quibble about dioxygen being the most common form of the element oxygen. Occurence for me is mostly understood to mean on the earth's surface and then I would say the element oxygen most commonly occurs as ionically bonded to other elements for example as water. In the universe I'm not so sure but I would be surprised if it was as dioxygen.
I think we can agree that "music is your oxygen" is not a scientific statement!
-
To consider ozone an allotrope of oxygen is a stretch of the term allotrope to begin with.
When I order oxygen it better not have any ozone in it!
It is :o :o :o
I thought it was a classic example used in school textbooks. Things must really have changed since I had chemistry lessons!
Well according to Wikedepedia it is anyway! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere:ozone is an allotrope of oxygen.
When I order timber it had better not be balsam! But strictly speaking I would still regard balsam as timber - though for constructing model planes not buildings.
-
To consider ozone an allotrope of oxygen is a stretch of the term allotrope to begin with.
Why? It seems to perfectly fit the definition. It is pure element in different molecular/structural form.
-
Yeah, I'm probably wrong. I just don't like it. :P
-
Sure http://ehs.ucdavis.edu/sftynet/sn-63.cfm: Ozone is a very reactive form of oxygen gas.
OK, but this is not written specifically for chemists, and you were after a chemist's opinion. Is this the article that you are discussing? If so then the description is probably good enough for a general audience.
I think ozone is an allotrope of oxygen.
If I asked a chemist for oxygen cylinder I would no doubt get O2.
If I wanted ozone I would need to specifiy, ozone.
Oxygen gas means dioxygen.
-
Sure http://ehs.ucdavis.edu/sftynet/sn-63.cfm: Ozone is a very reactive form of oxygen gas.
OK, but this is not written specifically for chemists, and you were after a chemist's opinion. Is this the article that you are discussing? If so then the description is probably good enough for a general audience.
I think ozone is an allotrope of oxygen.
If I asked a chemist for oxygen cylinder I would no doubt get O2.
If I wanted ozone I would need to specifiy, ozone.
Oxygen gas means dioxygen.
True enough. I was however expecting a rigorous scientific logic in terminology not chemist's day to day jargon! Naturally oxygen means dioxygen, not only for a chemist asking for an oxygen cylinder but a welder, diver, nurse or anybody else for that matter. Logically however if ozone and dioxygen are both allotropes of oxygen then an oxygen molecule can be either. Whether the molecule is solid, liquid or gaseous is of course irrelevant.
No this is not an article we were discussing. Somebody just made the statement as an example of a scientific truth that's all!
How about the following postulate: All crystalline sulphur molecules are composed of 8 atoms, resulting in a protest because there exists a sulphur allotrope with 7 atoms also in crystaline form. Could one then say that crystalline sulphur is understood to mean the 8 atomic allotrope being the most common and this is what you get if you order sulphur?
I suppose judging by this I'd better accept that things are not always logical even in science ::)
No wonder school kids get confused...
Thanks anyway for answering me!
-
There is no confusion. Oxygen is O2 and Ozone is O3. Any percieved confusion comes from you. You can't call O3 oxygen, you have to call it ozone.
-
There is no confusion. Oxygen is O2 and Ozone is O3. Any percieved confusion comes from you. You can't call O3 oxygen, you have to call it ozone.
You don't see any confusion! You say you can't call O3 oxygen but is O3 an oxygen molecule? Well according to this from The National Academies Press:
... The hydroxy radical can be formed in the troposphere by a number of reactions. ~ ~~ ~ A common process begins wltn dissociation of NCk by absorption of sunlight, which forms a highly reactive oxygen atom that combines quickly with a diatomic oxygen molecule to form the triatomic oxygen molecule, ozone (O3)
source (http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309033896/html/38.html)
O3 is indeed an oxygen molecule. Now ozone is most commonly thought of as a gas but apparently despite it being an oxygen molecule it can never be an oxygen gas molecule!
I beg to differ. I think you yourself shows signs of confusion!
-
Its like whining about, "is ditilled water water or is deionized water really water?" If a Chemist wants a specific "form" of water they'll specify, there is no confusion.
-
fritnat: read your own quote! Your quote says "..triatomic oxygen molecule..." NOT "..oxygen molecule...".
I think you are very confused and it seems like you are just trying to confuse people yourself. If you did follow your logic by providing this quote (from a source I am not even sure of) then it would STILL not be called oxygen gas but triatomic oxygen gas. AND if this were the case the term "ozone" is still easier to say than "triatomic oxygen gas".
So, your quote/reference proves nothing (or at the very least confirms what you are being told on this forum). You asked the question, ans we told you that you are incorrect, if you are trying to find someone to validate your side of an argument then this is the wrong place.
Just to avoid any further confusion:
oxygen gas = O2
ozone = O3
It is completely logical and you are the only one that seems to be confused by the issue. Otherwise I am quite happy for you to continue using your own terminology, as long as you realise that you will be forever defending your opinion to chemists and scientists because it is not right.
-
It all depends how technically anal a chemist want to be, with his words.
-
technically anal
:P
retentive?
*lol* :)
-
fritnat: read your own quote! Your quote says "..triatomic oxygen molecule..." NOT "..oxygen molecule...".
...
OK, I understand: a triatomic oxygen molecule is not an oxygen molecule.
I've just tried it out on some non chemists and all thought it was an illogical and contradictory statement. Now permit me to believe that only a chemist would not find that a confusing statement!
-
that wasnt what mike meant.
oxygen molecules refer to oxygen and ozone and probably other oxygen allotropes, yes we all agree on that.
but when u specify the kind of oxygen molecule "triatomic" in this case, u cannot make it mean another thing, it only can be ozone.
-
..oxygen molecules refer to oxygen and ozone and probably other oxygen allotropes, yes we all agree on that. ..
We do? It doesn't sound like it to me but if you are right then presumably the sticking point is the gas part. So we can all agree that the statement that all oxygen molecules are composed of two atoms is wrong? Whereas adding the gas specification apparently makes it correct: all oxygen gas molecules are composed of two atoms.
To get back to your second reply where you state:
i think for a very broad and literal interpretation, oxygen gas can refer to any gas that composes entirely of oxygen atoms.
but we chemists prefer to keep things simple. we dont use a term to refer to everything, when it is already ingrained in the common public.
Would this mean the statement in question would be regarded as incorrect if made very generally to a broad public?
In reply to your second point, don't chemists use the term salt to refer to every ionic compound composed of an equal negative and positive charged ions, and isn't salt ingrained in the common public to mean only sodium chloride? Is this the exception of chemists complicating things? I think just the opposite applies. That in science ordinary words which are used, are defined much more rigourously and statements of fact are always taken very literally!
Anyway thanks a lot for your input. Now lets see if others agree with you!
-
As far as the general public are concerned oxygen refers to O2.
General public also uses the term epsom salt or bath salt not refering to NaCl (just an interesting fact).
Maybe if you were more specific with the way you want to use the term we could be of more help.
IMHO I think you are just taking the mick, as we have told you the answer and you just don't want to accept it.
-
In reply to your second point, don't chemists use the term salt to refer to every ionic compound composed of an equal negative and positive charged ions, and isn't salt ingrained in the common public to mean only sodium chloride?
I wasn't trying to generalise. there are some exceptions like u mention.
So we can all agree that the statement that all oxygen molecules are composed of two atoms is wrong? Whereas adding the gas specification apparently makes it correct: all oxygen gas molecules are composed of two atoms.
I all agree that the first statement is wrong. Adding the gas specification does not make it correct. Its the specific terminology "oxygen gas" that implies O2. Strictly speaking in scientific terms, oxygen gas can refer to ozone too. That i agree. However, i am more concerned about to communicate with people (general public), so i use "oxygen gas" to refer to O2.
Okay, u have had a chemist's opinion ten times over already.
-
... Strictly speaking in scientific terms, oxygen gas can refer to ozone too. That i agree. ...
Okay, u have had a chemist's opinion ten times over already.
This was really what I was putting to the test and it would appear that we are in a small minority on this (I didn't vote so its 2 chemists out of 9).
Yes, the opinion of chemists! But I couldn't resist probing a bit, now I'll let it lie...
Thanks again everyone.
-
Apparently we are not the first to have this debate.
Naquet, A. De l'allotropie et de l'isomerism; Paris, 1860.
Also, if we wish to continue this discussion this recent article in JCHED should be read http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/2006/Jun/abs838.html