Talk:Hydrogen/Archive 3

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan has approved “Inhalation of hydrogen gas in patients with post‐cardiac arrest syndrome(PCAS)” as advanced medical care in November 2016.

Sano M, et al. Promising novel therapy with hydrogen gas for emergency and critical care medicine.Acute Med Surg. 2018 Apr; 5(2): 113–118.
Published online 2017 Oct 24. doi: 10.1002/ams2.320 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5891106/

KX Toh (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in the this trial When you translate it to English under'Summary of clinical trials', the first sentence. Looking for more verification. KX Toh (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd remove the "Potential therapeutic claims" section completely. It currently reads: "Molecular hydrogen dissolved in water has been marketed as a therapeutic product for a wide variety of illnesses." but this doesn't even seem worth mentioning to me. If we do retain it I think we need to say that there is no proven medical value - but I'd prefer us not to have it at all. -- Begoon 08:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Got some verification needed:

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan has approved “Inhalation of hydrogen gas in patients with post‐cardiac arrest syndrome(PCAS)” as advanced medical care for a clinical trial in November 2016.

Sano M, et al. Promising novel therapy with hydrogen gas for emergency and critical care medicine.Acute Med Surg. 2018 Apr; 5(2): 113–118. with reference number 1117-2   Tamura T, Hayashida K, Sano M, Onuki S, Suzuki M.Efficacy of inhaled HYdrogen on neurological outcome following BRain Ischemia During post-cardiac arrest care (HYBRID II trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017 Oct 23;18(1):488. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2246-3.

KX Toh (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC) should be more accurate now. thoughts?

What, exactly is that intended as "verification" of? We're not going to have content in our article on Hydrogen saying that something is being trialled somewhere - that doesn't even vaguely approach the needed level of significance to be mentioned in an article on the chemical element Hydrogen. -- Begoon 08:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It is the verification that it has therapeutic potential and therefore has been approved as a treatment, first for a clinical trial then perhaps if actually approved for as a regulated use outside the trial, this section can be updated as well, if the not approved, it can be worth mentioning as well. You can title it "Medical Uses of Hydrogen gas". Well, I agree that this is actually about the hydrogen molecule(H2) gas rather than the chemical element Hydrogen (H), if there is another page just for H2 gas as a molecule, it is very reasonable to move the discussion there. But it seems there isn't one at the moment. I mean, H2 gas is also mentioned in the combustion and biological reactions. I think any progress (or the lack of), in the discovery of H2 gas' potential medical use is worth mentioning in the article, no? If it seems more logical, would it be better if some statements can be picked from some of the reviews, eg: 'Beneficial biological effects and the underlying mechanisms of molecular hydrogen - comprehensive review of 321 original articles' or The evolution of molecular hydrogen: a noteworthy potential therapy with clinical significance- KX Toh (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No. It's not significant enough for inclusion. Additionally, be aware that you won't be permitted to bombard this talk page in the way that Talk:Hydrogen water has been. -- Begoon 09:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

More precisely, the guideline is WP:MEDRS, in particular WP:MEDASSESS. My understanding is that we should not be reporting speculative medical science tests until at least successful phase II trials. (Newspapers do this as clickbait but really should not.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Successful Phase II trials are a good benchmark. But it seems reviews are also accepted, so how about adding this statement "Similar to gasotransmitters nitric oxide (NO), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen sulphide(H2S), H2 is now considered a gaseous-signaling molecule with physiological and therapeutic benefits although hydrogen gas (H2) is not considered a gasotransmitter." paraphrased from "H2 is now considered a gaseous-signaling molecule with physiological and therapeutic benefits similar to that of nitric oxide (NO), carbon monoxide (CO), and H2S" TLeBaron,2OrcID, B Kura , B Kalocayova , N Tribulova and Jan Slezak. A New Approach for the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disorders. Molecular Hydrogen Significantly Reduces the Effects of Oxidative StressMolecules 2019, 24(11), 2076; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24112076 It has an impact factor of 3.06 KX Toh (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• The article you cite is a review article, not a systematic review (which is what WP:MEDASSESS calls for). The former is a qualitative description of the state of the art in a domain, the latter is a statistical analysis of the outcome of all published clinical trials on a certain topic. Also, MDPI is not a reputable publisher (impact factors are irrelevant, that editor has a history of pushing shaky to non-existent peer-review policies). Finally, even if certain medical assertions can be sourced pre-phase II, my understanding is that "therapeutic benefits" or anything of the sort should definitely have phase II backing. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it is not a systemic review, but I still think any findings so far can be worth mentioning in a neutral manner. I see that H2S even has phase 1 clinical trials mentioned in Wiki even though it didn't even complete. So if the issue would be titling it as "Therapeutic properties' In that case retitling it as 'H2 as a gaseous signaling molecule' would be more appropriate then that can be changed. There are other reviews as well that describes the properties achieve as listed above. KX Toh (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

KX Toh, I noticed that you have not yet answered Guy's question on your talk page about personal connection/conflict of interest on this topic. Would you be able to clarify that now? Thanks. -- Begoon 10:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Question is answered: he has a COI. This is fringe in the context of hydrogen, there are small studies that tentatively suggest some benefit but it's far from settled and there's insufficient evidence to make any confident statements, so it's WP:UNDUE here. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• What you think is "worth mentioning" or what other articles say is not relevant to the question at hand, which is whether the inclusion you propose is acceptable per Wikipedia's policies. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

If you see the definition of gaseous signaling molecules in the Wiki, you can see the H2 gas would qualify (and is even mentioned) because it was observed to have these effects: 1) Specific scavenging activities of hydroxyl radical and peroxynitrite 2) modulates these signaling molecules :Lyn, Ras, MEK, ERK,p38, JNK, ASK1, Akt, GTP-Rac1, iNOS, Nox1, NF-κB p65 or NF-κB], IκB], STAT3, NFATc1, c-Fos , GSK-3β, ROCK (Activities and expressions of these molecules are modified by hydrogen gas. Master regulator(s) that drive these modifications to remain to be elucidated.) 3) activates the Nrf2-Keap1 system ^[1]

About 150mL-12L of H2 is produced by anaerobic fermentation by intestinal bacteria daily, which can be affected by antibiotic intake.^[2]

Absorption: Ingestion of hydrogen water produced breath hydrogen at AUC levels of 2 to 9 ppm for an hour, whereas milk increased breath hydrogen to AUC levels of 164 ppm hour for 540 min after drinking. ^[3]

H2 is long thought to be inert until a paper published in Nature Medicine spurred some interest in hydrogen research in 2007.^[4] Over 1000 papers on hydrogen have been published ever since. ^[5]

Administration: H2 gas can be administered as a gas, orally through water dissolved with H2, intravenous injection, or as a topical application.^[6]

Claims of beneficial effects of hydrogen-rich product are the subject of prejudiced scrutiny because it became commercially available before it was scientifically explained and systematically analyzed. ^[7]

There are many trials are multiple indication but no multiple trials on one indication.^[8] Hence, there is no scientific consensus on whether products with H2 has therapeutic benefits in humans there is still insufficient evidence, there is no systemic reviews or meta-analysis and in terms of progress, the furthermost is an ongoing phase II clinical trial. ^[9][10]

It is still not considered a ‘medical gas’, not yet approved as a medicine, and at present cannot be described as “effective” or “beneficial” under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law in Japan. ^[11]

Many reviews have expressed interests in future application of this molecule if more evidence is provided.^{[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]}

User:Tigraan : There isn’t enough large RCT to have systematic reviews, therefore narrative review will be the next best choice according to WikiPoliciesWP:MEDRS. Systematic reviews are superior but not the only accepted review, if I read it right. Is its notability still questionable even though reviews from reliable sources are mentioned below? please give suggestions. User:Begoon: I do have general COI. Therefore, will refrain from editing the actual article and try to provide the most neutral perspective possible and you guys can check and comment. User:JzG: Can you define what is considered fringe in this context because I can’t see it when I measure it according to the Wiki policies for fringe? What another objective measurement has this topic missed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KX Toh (talk • contribs) 08:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC) KX Toh (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

In Australia hydrogen is about to be developed as a transport and electricity generating fuel, made from renewables. Please upgrade if you can, there is a three day hydrogen conference in Adelaide, South Australia. In Port Lincoln is a pilot project, including export preparation. Toyota in Melbourne is also involved. Things are moving for transport also in Queensland and peak generation power. 2001:8003:A02F:F400:A96E:1939:BB49:66C2 (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This should be of interest:

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/EF/Areas/Low-emissions-technologies/Hydrogen-membrane 2001:8003:A02F:F400:A96E:1939:BB49:66C2 (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this is of interest to Hydrogen economy or Hydrogen fuel but for this article it is too speculative and detailed. You would have to report the fake cardboard hydrogen bowser to show how advanced this is in Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Guess what it is already there. Some of this may not make economic sense. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a unstable state of particle. Dharamvir kumar (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So are you proposing any changes? Atomic hydrogen is to be found on the surface of stars, and in gas clouds in space. Atomic hydrogen stored in a solid noble gas makes for a high power fuel, but as you say it is unstable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hydrogen gas (H2) is one of the gaseous signalling molecules that has biological and physiological effects along with other known gasses such as nitric oxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen sulfide. ^{[1] [2] [3]} KX Toh (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Hydrogen has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the sentence “Molecular hydrogen dissolved in water has been marketed as an energy drink and as a therapeutic product for inflammatory illnesses, but there is no scientific consensus that hydrogen water has any health benefits in humans.” in “Potential therapeutic claims”

And please add the the senteces “The antioxidant effect of hydrogen is to eliminate hydroxyl radicals having the highest oxidizing activity among active oxygens. Although hydroxyl radicals are also a cause of cancer., in 1975, Malcolm Dole et al. reported that high-pressure hydrogen (97.5%, 8.25 atm, 2 weeks) caused skin tumor to regress [1]. In 2005, California State University and MiZ company limited (Japan) reported the antioxidant effects of hydrogen water on an oxidant-induced model of rats.[2] Since hydrogen suppresses ischemia-reperfusion injury at the time of organ transplantation, recently the use of hydrogen in organ transplantation has also attracted attention [3]. Since hydrogen is explosive, it is necessary to use concentrations of hydrogen below the explosion limit for treatment [4].”

Link [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1166304 [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1271/bbb.69.1985 [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31780065 [4] http://www.medgasres.com/article.asp?issn=2045-9912;year=2019;volume=9;issue=3;spage=160;epage=162;aulast=Kurokawa Ph.D. in Hydrogen Medicine (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Ph.D in Hydrogen Medicine

 Not done WP:FRINGE.Polyamorph (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Hydrogen has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the sentence “Molecular hydrogen dissolved in water has been marketed as an energy drink and as a therapeutic product for inflammatory illnesses, but there is no scientific consensus that hydrogen water has any health benefits in humans.” in “Potential therapeutic claims”

And please add the the senteces “The antioxidant effect of hydrogen is to eliminate hydroxyl radicals having the highest oxidizing activity among active oxygens. Although hydroxyl radicals are also a cause of cancer., in 1975, Malcolm Dole et al. reported that high-pressure hydrogen (97.5%, 8.25 atm, 2 weeks) caused skin tumor to regress [1]. In 2005, California State University and MiZ company limited (Japan) reported the antioxidant effects of hydrogen water on an oxidant-induced model of rats.[2] Since hydrogen suppresses ischemia-reperfusion injury at the time of organ transplantation, recently the use of hydrogen in organ transplantation has also attracted attention [3]. Since hydrogen is explosive, it is necessary to use concentrations of hydrogen below the explosion limit for treatment [4].”

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1166304 [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1271/bbb.69.1985 [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31780065 [4]http://www.medgasres.com/article.asp?issn=2045-9912;year=2019;volume=9;issue=3;spage=160;epage=162;aulast=Kurokawa Hydrogen master (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hydrogen master:  Not done for the same reasons as before; you should consult WP:WikiProject Medicine to vet these if you think these represent the overall consensus of scientists.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Very confusing even for a chemist (God help the general reader!) that the article alternates between atomic H and molecular H2. Probably we should/could indicate in the lede that this article is about H2, and then migrate atomic stuff to atomic hydrogen. I mean in the iron article, we do not discuss iron atoms (which behave v differently than bulk).--Smokefoot (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The place of hydrogen atom is top andcenter in periodic table. Aditya S Patil (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add a section about the origin of hydrogen. Most of it originated on the big bang, and some is created as a product of disintegration of heavier elements.

Denis Briere (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC) My submission yesterday was not accepted, but Robert McClenon recommended that I call my work 'Geologic Hydrogen', and then merge it under the existing article at Hydrogen. This is a very good recommendation, and it is what I wanted to do in the first place. I see a section 3.2 under Hydrogen: Cosmic Prevalence and Distribution called Geologic Hydrogen. But I don't know how to do that. How do I get assistance for this merge? And what are the steps to resubmit for approval? My text is about high grade naturally occurring hydrogen gas that was discovered in the African country of Mali. There are interested parties in Europe who want to help develop this paradigm shifting green energy discovery, but do not read any WIKIPEDIA articles that show this actually exists. Up to now, there has always been doubt concerning commercial accumulations of natural hydrogen in geologic formations. But this has been proven to be true since 2012, and the hydrogen gas is being burned as fuel in a hydrogen gas engine for electrifying a whole village. This hydrogen gas is expected to be exploited for the good of the people of Mali. The reasons that hydrogen exists is threefold: Deep, Medium , and Shallow sources that contribute to episodic events which keep the hydrogen gas flowing. The Hydrogen System Logic is very different to the Petroleum System Logic that is familiar to everyone. To give credence to the sources of naturally occurring hydrogen gas, I have attached 73 references that report on the subject. It is not a new subject for the scientific community, but it is new to the petroleum industry, who should get on board and finally explore for natural hydrogen.

User:Denis Briere - What are Petroleum System Logic and Hydrogen System Logic? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the hydrogen thought to be produced by a biological process, or by a geochemical process? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions.

In the global petroleum industry, when an oil company wishes to have their oil reserves verified and validated for the purposes of raising funds or for submitting yearly reports to the regulatory agencies, then they use a third party reservoir engineering company to independently calculate the volume of oil and gas that the company owns, and also to make estimates of the net present value of the quantity of petroleum that will be produced over the lifetime of their properties.

To do these reserves reports, the third party company uses Petroleum System Logic to calculate how much petroleum exists and what it is worth as of a particular time called the effective date.

The Petroleum System Logic (PSL) typically has three features:

First, the Geological features must be described where a hydrocarbon source is identified, and a reservoir rock is shown to exist such that a trap and seal confine the petroleum which has migrating there over geologic time.

Second, the Economic factors must be described that show the viability of profit, a market access, some production and transportation infrastructure, known regulatory and social license, corporate and external approvals, and that the project has a reasonable timetable for development.

Third, there must be probability logic to represent commerciality as a function of the chance for success and probable development with terms like unfavorable, questionable, encouraging, and favorable.

These PSL formulas have been written and upgraded yearly. But the PSL does not represent Hydrogen System Logic (HSL) because geologic hydrogen has never been produced before the discovery well in Mali.

Yes it is a geochemical process that causes accumulations of hydrogen gas. At the moment, it is believed that three geological effects are at play.

First, hydrogen gas escapes from the deep mantle in episodic events over geologic time. Second, hydrogen gas escapes from rock fragments when they are being crushed in the walls of faults during seismic events annually. Third, hydrogen gas is the byproduct of geochemical reactions in rocks such as the process of serpentinization daily. But really, it is not known for sure why hydrogen accumulates. There are forces at work which need to be studied. And this is a modern day scientific adventure.

As for the economic and commercial factors for HSL, they are a complete guess work today. Only when the hydrogen gas field in Mali is produced, then the economics will be established.

Denis Briere (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Hydrogen has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

103.224.152.26 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The name "inflammable air" is usually attributed to Henry Cavendish. However it was already known by that name before 1750, see last paragraph in the Transactions original , where the gas given off by the reaction of iron with sulfuric acid is described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrystomath2 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This piece of information is not there so can you add it: Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the human body in terms of numbers of atoms of the element but, it is the 3rd most abundant element by mass, because hydrogen is so light Space chinedu (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Hydrogen has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Further Sources

• H2-international - the e-journal on hydrogen and fuel cells, ISSN 2367-3931. Hydrogeit (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done, not sufficiently relevant to readers, see also WP:COI. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Draft:Geological Hydrogen and see if there's anything useful there that coukd be merged? DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

since the page is semi-locked, I'm calling this out here:

"is be oxidized by the protons of water to form" is nonsense.

"can be oxidized in the presence of water to form" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.172.48 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for calling this out; I fixed this and a few other things in that section. ComplexRational (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Hydrogen has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change hindenburg disaster to 9/11 Daskere (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done That makes no sense whatsoever. SmartSE (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Many websites refer to "hydrogen constitutes 74% of elemental mass of this Universe"<ref]https://www.chegg.com/learn/chemistry/introduction-to-chemistry/abundance-of-elements </ref] 2601:589:4801:5660:D883:AAE:34B9:88D (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

MODERATOR, this article should state that 74% of hydrogen is orthohydrogen. 2601:589:4801:5660:B1C7:7A45:9E90:1C31 (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The section Hydrogen#Spin_isomers states that "At room temperature or warmer, equilibrium hydrogen gas contains about 25% of the para form and 75% of the ortho form." I replaced the reference on this statement (previous one regarded the ratio in water, rather than in H₂). The new reference states that it's 25.1644% para at 273 K, 25.0851% at 298 K and 25.0215% at 350 K, which supports the article as is. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a picture of this element that is not in its plasma state? I found Hydrogen ampoule.jpg Keresluna (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Hydrogen should be pictured in its most commonly found form. TrueQuantum (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@TrueQuantum: So, where should I add the picture? Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 21:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@MadeOfAtoms: I am asking you for an opinion, due to your recent edits. Do you think we should have a picture of hydrogen not in its plasma form? Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 21:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Keresluna: I think some readers would appreciate seeing hydrogen in this concrete way, even though this would be practically indistinguishable from an evacuated ampoule. In my opinion, the image you suggest is elegant, but as an illustration of a colorless gas, the strong shadow and brown background is likely to cause confusion; a visibly light background and diffuse lighting would be better. Maybe the camera's automatic exposure darkened the appearance of the white background and could be overridden in a retake? In any case, if there's a consensus to use this image, I'd be glad to help place it. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

MadeOfAtoms: Is the image better now? Also I would like to place a consensus to use this image. Also, a lot of compounds look the same, such as table salt(sodium chloride) looks the same as cadmium cyanide(a very toxic poison). Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 20:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Keresluna, the image looks very good to me now. I'll listen for further comments from others and then place it if no one else has already. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

MadeOfAtoms, Thank you. Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 18:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done It's placed in the lead. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Image addition was reverted by Kylesenior: "breaks page formatting". I'll leave it to others to add this image if and where appropriate. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

MadeOfAtoms, What does he mean by "breaks page formatting"? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@MadeOfAtoms:, how about we place the image in the infobox as the plasma image is in later of the article? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 00:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

One can start a formal proposal here (in a new section). IMO: I find current image more catchy, the flacon is rather dull. The top image does not have to be a factual detail. Are there guidelines to apply? -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep:, well it would be nice to have a image of the real gas. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 04:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ajohnson439.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The section under Production, by Methane Pyrolysis, is vague and incomplete, and even possibly misleading. It fails to mention what the molten metal is, what temperature is required to achieve the molten state, and how much energy is required to achieve the molten temperature. This omission renders the section non-scientific and vague. The references are not readable without a paid subscription, thus the article is incomplete and cannot be verified. This section needs additional infoormation to make it a legitmate Wiki article at Wiki standards. 2600:1700:7890:5A40:201A:7001:A7B0:A58C (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The temperature is already mentioned in th article. The references with viewable abstract identifies it as a nickel alloy with a low-melting metal; the references specifically name bismuth and indium as possible solutes.^[1][2] The other details are not relevant, and references are not required to be open-access. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I propose merging hydrogen water into hydrogen. Hydrogen water covers the purported health effects of molecular hydrogen (it is not limited to hydrogen dissolved in water; unsurprisingly, it is said to cure everything). Hydrogen covers the actual health effects of molecular hydrogen ("non-toxic"). If there are notable theories concerning further health effects, they need to go into this article. If there aren't, let's just redirect hydrogen water to hydrogen and leave it at that.

I suspect the only reason the hydrogen water article survived in its present form is that it is not linked to directly from this article. IpseCustos (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The contet would not belong in this article, though it currently uses too many pro-fringe sources. WP:FTN will be notified. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@IpseCustos: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrogen water. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hydrogen is today mainly used for production of feritilizers, via ammonia. 192.157.9.204 (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Lightness doesn't make sense in this context when it's really talking about density. 202.169.96.206 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It is both, because hydrogen also has the lowest mass number. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Science magazine has a new review article on this topic: https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel -- which is very interesting! I'd seen reports on this sort of thing before, but considered them to be just geological curiosities. Now it seems that commercially-significant deposits of natural hydrogen may exist. Which would be a game-changer. Time will tell. I'll try to work up a brief summary of this in the next few days, unless someone beats me to it. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Hydrogen has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section entitled "Serpentization" please change:

3 Fe2SiO4 + 2 H2O → 2 Fe3O4 + 3 SiO2 + 3 H2

To

3 Fe2SiO4 + 2 H2O → 2 Fe3O4 + 3 SiO2 + 2 H2

(To properly balance the chemical equation, the H2 on the far right should be changed from 3 to 2). Thanks. RxPalace (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi everybody, the top of the hydrogen infobox shows the atomic number of H to be "00" which is very strange. I'd appreciate it if someone took a look at this. Thanks. Plantman (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed at Template:infobox hydrogen. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Atompic3.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Under Properties : Isotopes : 2H : currently reads... "All deuterium in the universe is thought to have been produced at the time of the Big Bang, and has endured since that time." (as of 1418 EST on 12July2023)

I believe it should read: "Nearly all naturally occurring deuterium in the universe..." When people talk about the emissions from nuclear power plants they sometimes mention the isotopes of hydrogen that we generate and release to the public, which can include deuterium.

I generated a talk section instead of editing because I don't know the appropriate formatting. Here's hoping a more senior user can fix it!

Thanks! 216.99.180.228 (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your suggestion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What does tritium glow like in a tube like those shown for hydrogen and deuterium? Is it similar to deuterium? 2603:6000:8740:54B1:98C0:1879:4C99:365D (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Tritium doesn't glow. What you see in applications such as gun sights, is a phosphor coating on the inside of the glass that is being excited by beta particle emissions from the tritium and releasing photons. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

In this paragraph, it says explosive reactions occur between hydrogen and both air and chlorine but it goes on to say that the combustion can be triggered by a spark, heat or sunlight. This is misleading and wrong to leave it worded like this. Sunlight can only trigger combustion between hydrogen and chlorine. It cannot ignite hydrogen in air. Even a stoichiometric mixture of H2 and O2 (2 to 1) will not ignite from sunlight alone. 99.6.61.222 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed. "The explosive reactions may be triggered by spark, heat, or sunlight.", which was unsourced. Thanks for pointing this out! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! And you're very welcome! 99.6.61.222 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Hydrogen has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Greetings, I am a high-school amateur physicist with an interest in physical chemistry. My overall credentials include AP Physics 1, AP Physics 2, AP Chemistry, and amateur work in radiology. Thanks! Moriarty49 (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Moriarty49. Welcome! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Welcome. If you're granted access, please consider taking care of the issue I mentioned days ago right above your post. Sunlight does not ignite a hydrogen and oxygen (or air) mixture. The current editors don't seem to be interested in fixing this. 99.6.61.222 (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for being slow on this. Addressing it now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I am reviewing this very old FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. Last reviewed in 2008, there is considerable uncited text, the "Phases" section is only a list, Niche and evolving uses is a list, there is some overquoting, the See also section needs attention, and there may be more. Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this Sandy. This strikes me as a very difficult topic to bring to FA standards. I can't think of any article that spans as much of the Dewey Decimal System and as many university textbooks as this one does. It's an important topic in basic science of course, and also an important part of the conversation around climate change mitigation, which is in the realm of technology and economics. In addition to the points you raised, there is also some repetition, excessive detail/trivia, and breaking news.

Part of the reason for repetition is that the climate change story is not well-integrated and solving that would require some pretty deep structural reworking. I could probably improve some things from a climate change perspective but to make the necessary progress we'd also need to have at least one experienced chemistry editor give it some dedicated work. Any volunteers? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I had sought a matter concerning about the change of factual content in this article, exactly he made two edits in total, include the removal of the subject 'it' (more detail in the page history), and rechange to the word 'with', which the editor named Turnbull has pointed it out. Are you seeing that consistent? And whom of you are keen to edit or fix some wording? I'd love to hear from you as soon as before I turn offline. Thanks, you are welcome to response my idea. 2001:EE0:4BC7:CC30:B58E:E5C:90B0:54BE (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In my perspective, I'm not in favor of that change. If anyone makes up an opinion, feel free to let me know. 2001:EE0:4BC7:CC30:B58E:E5C:90B0:54BE (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I like ... chemical element; it has symbol better than ... chemical element with symbol. I looked at like twenty other element articles and they all start with the format of the first sentence ("it has"). Not a big deal, but prefer the previous verion. Folly Mox (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#"a" chemical_element or "the" chemical element - ... chemical element; it has symbol was the outcome of the discussion. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 17:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

There was a considerable discussion and eventual consensus to use the "; it has" version. Changes should follow WP:BRD. Bazza (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Should there be any way to make a notification that we are currently reading the article about a chemical element? Thanks and I'm seeking for response. 2001:EE0:4BC4:5DC0:74A5:B633:51B2:265D (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is already done in the very first five words of the article – what do you want changed? Tollens (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't you know the hatnote? 2001:EE0:4BC4:8D40:65D1:E41F:7E97:C466 (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah – from your original request it appeared you wanted the information to be placed in the prose of the article.  Done Tollens (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I have come up with the suggestion to change some detail like: It is the lightest element, and at normal temperature, is a gas with the formula H₂. Best moving to: It is the lightest element on Earth. At normal temperture, this element is a gas with the formula H₂. Any thoughts? 2001:EE0:4BC4:9510:65D1:E41F:7E97:C466 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

A Carton Is In Geometry Dash. It's Orange, Its Not A Partition 108.4.251.29 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly as the title says, the citation for that claim doesn't even mention Lavoisier, and after searching around I found a source which claims Lavoisier's writings didn't refer to "inflammable air" as hydrogen for all of 1784 (https://gwern.net/doc/history/1851-wilson-thelifeofthehonhenrycavendish.pdf pages 151-152) and another source which pegs the earliest usage of hydrogen as 1787 in Méthode de nomenclature chimie (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-022-09448-5) by Morveau et al. This source also claims to have not found an instance of the term "hydrogen" in Lavoisier's work before 1787.

Given the language of the original source using "we", I also think it's very possible that Lavoisier shouldn't receive full credit and it may be shared with Morveau, although it's hard to confirm as I do not speak French. 2600:1011:A105:25D:4957:979:9E7:4BA8 (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the 1783 date was added to the article back in 2006 by the late editor Sbharris. gobonobo ^{+ c} 10:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I raised the question at the Reference Desk and am just going to copy the response here:

The French Wikipedia has an article on the treatise Méthode de nomenclature chimique by Morveau and others, published in 1787. The etymology section for hydrogène of the TLFi only mentions the 1787 treatise. While this may have been the first publication using the term hydrogène, Lavoisier praises Morveau in the introduction of this treatise for his major role in designing the new nomenclature. Morveau himself uses the spelling Hidrogène. Since he explicitly credits Lavoisier for the name oxygène, it is unlikely the name hydrogène is due to specifically Lavoisier. Morveau acknowledges the role of unnamed members of the Académie, as does Lavoisier in the introduction. Morveau published a treatise on the nomenclature in 1782; it would be interesting to see which name he proposed there for "the base of inflammable air".  --Lambiam 19:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If the first instance of hydrogène in print was the Méthode de nomenclature chimique, we should change the 1783 date. Note that Méthode had four authors: Morveau, Lavoisier, Claude Louis Berthollet, and Antoine François Fourcroy. Based on the sources above, I suggest we change the article to indicate that the naming occurred by 1787 and attribute the coinage to the document rather than to Lavoisier. gobonobo ^{+ c} 16:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been researching this obsessively for about a month and I managed to find a source by Morveau in 1786 (without any authorship by Lavoisier, or even Berthollet and Fourcroy) that refers to inflammable air as hydrogen: https://books.google.com/books?id=489jAAAAcAAJ

On page 640 is the first instance discussing renaming inflammable air to hydrogen. This isn't definitive enough for my curiosity but it does definitively push the coining of the term back a year. 2600:1011:A18F:A3A:41FF:CF19:B15B:891 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit: after reading further it seems a detail that isn't mentioned anywhere (including the French wikipedia article for the Encyclopédie Méthodique), is that the latter half of the encyclopedia wasn't published until after 1786 (it appears 1789), and the portion I pointed out before in the 2nd Forward is actually taken directly from the 1787 treatise, it's possible that the section on AIR which does contain references to hydrogen was included in the original 1786 version but this seems unlikely given the structure of the text, so disregard the previous comment. 2600:1011:A18F:A3A:41FF:CF19:B15B:891 (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The current main image is hydrogen in its plasma state, but it would make more sense to move that to Hydrogen#Phases. Then replace it with a new better image. Bennett27 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I would welcome your thoughts at Talk:Hydrogen infrastructure#Merge sub-topics into here Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hydrogen economy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hydrogen's explosivity is listed here as 4% to 74% in air. It's more accurate to say its limit of detonability is 18% to 59%. See, for example, https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety "inerting and purging

This should be amended in the first paragraphs of the "properties" section. Saying it is explosive at 4% gives a false impression about its risks, and feeds into a common misconception that flammability limit = detonation limit. Indeed, citation [21] refers to flammability range, and does not appear to mention explosive mixtures.51.194.9.191 (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Mention the routes of the word hydrogen (Hydro) from Ancient Greek: ὕδωρ, romanized: hýdōr, lit. 'water' (water) as well what caused the discoverer came up with the respective name reference (Gen) from Ancient Greek: γένος, 'birth' (meaning formation) Clearly showing the processes and reasoning of the making of the word (Water being composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen) Athan Kokkinos (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You probably mean "roots", not "routes". The English term for word origins is "etymology". Hydrogen can be thought of as meaning "water generator" or "water origin" which is accurate in the context of burning elemental hydrogen and oxygen (2H₂ + O₂) produces water.71.31.145.237 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I figured certainly either this article would have the H-H bond distance in H2, or it would link to molecular hydrogen article. The fact that it does neither is quite disappointing.

Also I see an illustration of a spherical H atom and a cutout depicting the proton. This is really unfortunate. It should be removed. Reasons:#1 The Bohr Model is OBSOLETE, it does our readers a disservice to mention it here.#2 The sphere shows a definite surface which is misleading. The reason why the electron cloud is called a 'cloud' is because it HAS no distinct surface. #3 The surface is some UNSPECIFIED cumulative electron (charge) probability and is mostly arbitrary. Is it any more useful if it's the 80% surface? the 90%? 95%? 99%?, 99.9%? There's nothing special about the arbitrary 1.1 Angstrom diameter. #4 Atoms radii, not diameter, appears far more frequently in the chemical literature. #5 Juxtapositioning the spherical "atom" diameter in the same illustration as the much, much, much, much, much smaller proton (it can't even be shown at the same scale and that should be a good hint!) is not useful. Why not just use numbers? H radius 550 pm, proton radius 0.00085 pm (along with a note that atomic scale (and smaller) sizes strongly depend on the method, the probe, used to measure them.) 71.31.145.237 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I am wondering whether or not mention of the development of hydrogen in the early universe is lacking. Currently, there is a mention of it in the lede, where it describes at what point in time hydrogen first existed, then at what point in time electrons joined hydrogens. This is not elaborated anywhere else in the article, which I feel could be very useful, where one could include other relevant pieces of information, such as at what point molecular hydrogen first formed. Also, the mention of the formation of hydrogens' protons do not appear in its subsequent source, and is disputed to be slightly longer than that (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis, although perhaps the article could be referring to the creation of protons, and not nucleosynthesis? It is not clear). MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 02:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

H, C and O, if referring to hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen; should be pluralized as H's, C's, and O's (with apostrophes); as opposed to Hs, Cs, and Os (no apostrophes); to avoid confusion with Hs = hassium, Cs = cesium, and Os = osmium. The fact that hassium is an unstable, artificial element which has never been procured in macroscopic amounts, doesn't mean that clarity isn't compromised by the absence of said apostrophe. I remember, a chemistry book which was available online for free as a PDF, did said plurals without an apostrophe; which annoyed me. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I found no such usage in this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: I think what you've just replaced is outdated as there are now various projects looking to utilise hydrogen found in geological features: which wasn't the case 30 years ago. That's not the best of sources to use here, but we should include the info somewhere. I see a brief mention in Hydrogen#Terrestrial but that's not the best source either. SmartSE (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

We have natural hydrogen which is linked, but only in the lead (as dihydrogen) and the see also. SmartSE (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: So H2 is not a fuel, it is a carrier. Also, from energy carrier, we read "carriers include springs, electrical batteries, capacitors, pressurized air, dammed water, hydrogen, petroleum, coal, wood, and natural gas." That seems to about wrap it up for combustable stuff (surprise: they are definitely not fuels!).

What we are trying to convey in this article is not whether H2 is a fuel or a carrier, but that a large effort is dedicated to what one might call "H2 carriers" (carriers of carriers?). Engineers like H2 as a not-fuel-fuel because it burns cleanly and it can be made from abundant resources (water). But engineers dislike H2 as a not-fuel-fuel because it is not readily condensed or stored. So engineers have dedicated much effort to systems that are carriers for H2, which are H-rich materials that are reversibly release H2 on demand. So, we have a predicament that editors might help with: on one hand we have the nomenclaturists who insist that H2 is a carrier, and on the other hand we have engineers who are trying to solve problems, not with nomenclature, but with energy, and they are focused on carriers for H2.

Hope that makes sense. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I hear you and Smartse. I've got some ideas for making everyone happy... but I also just got handed a new task at work so I won't be able to flesh things out yet. I'll self-revert for now and will come back to this in a few days. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The IPCC likes to use the term "energy carrier" to distinguish H2 from primary energy sources but you've made a good point that ISO 13600 defines the term more broadly. As SmartSE pointed out above, there is also potential for underground H2 repositories to be a non-trivial primary energy source. Given that the term "energy carrier" has varying definitions and is confusing to many readers, I'll replace it with "fuel" where appropriate. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm planning to expand the "Safety" section based on recent secondary sources. It used to cover more issues but the sources have always been old. Here are some sources I found using a search for "hydrogen safety" on Google Scholar:

• Li, Hao; Cao, Xuewen; Liu, Yang; Shao, Yanbo; Nan, Zilong; Teng, Lin; Peng, Wenshan; Bian, Jiang (2022-11-01). "Safety of hydrogen storage and transportation: An overview on mechanisms, techniques, and challenges". Energy Reports. 8: 6258–6269. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2022.04.067. ISSN 2352-4847. (CC-BY licensing)

• Abohamzeh, Elham; Salehi, Fatemeh; Sheikholeslami, Mohsen; Abbassi, Rouzbeh; Khan, Faisal (2021-09-01). "Review of hydrogen safety during storage, transmission, and applications processes". Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 72: 104569. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104569. ISSN 0950-4230.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)

• Yang, Fuyuan; Wang, Tianze; Deng, Xintao; Dang, Jian; Huang, Zhaoyuan; Hu, Song; Li, Yangyang; Ouyang, Minggao (2021-09-03). "Review on hydrogen safety issues: Incident statistics, hydrogen diffusion, and detonation process". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 46 (61): 31467–31488. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.07.005. ISSN 0360-3199.

Please let me know if there are other sources we should use. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. I agree with Smokefoot's comment in the FAR that cryogenic burns are not worth mentioning. Detonation and fire are by far the biggest two issues in the literature that I have seen. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The section on water electrolysis claims "efficiency of energy conversion is inherently low". That source quotes an International Energy Agency spokeperson:

• “All energy carriers, including fossil fuels, encounter efficiency losses each time they are produced, converted or used. In the case of hydrogen, these losses can accumulate across different steps in the value chain. After converting electricity to hydrogen, shipping it and storing it, then converting it back to electricity in a fuel cell, the delivered energy can be below 30% of what was in the initial electricity input.

A different source

• Van Renssen, S. (2020). The hydrogen solution?. Nature Climate Change, 10(9), 799-801.

gives a different story: if the initial electrical energy was created say in the Sahara where solar is efficient it may be transported to the Netherlands in hydrogen and beat locally produced solar power.

So the current content is not neutral but more important the cited source does not verify "inherently low" for hydrogen produced by electrolysis. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"Inherently low" is inherently kind of vague, so a more precise figure like "can be below 30%" might be better. IEA content is CC-BY so we can copy it with attribution.

The Van Renssen source does not contradict the IEA in any way. It actually has pretty good agreement: "A solar panel in the Sahara generates 2–3 times as much power as one in the Netherlands. If you convert that power to hydrogen, transport it here and turn it back into power via a fuel cell, you are left with more energy than if you install that solar panel on a Dutch roof." Both sources are saying that if you want 30kWh of electricity in the Netherlands you can either A) collect 30kWh through a solar panel locally, or B) install the same solar panel in the Sahara to get 90kWh of electricity and then lose 60kWh in transport and conversion en route to the Netherlands. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The Van Renssen source contradicts our content. There is nothing "inherently low" in hydrogen energy conversion.

The Van Renssen source in the just below the passage you quote makes the point that efficiency only has meaning in the specific context they are used. Efficiency loses are always relative, numbers like "30%" are context dependent. The losses in the Sahara and transport may be huge and it could still make sense. As an extreme example, what is the efficiency of producing hydrogen from methane if you have to create the methane by burying logs for 500 million years? That methane was originally created by solar power, but that bit was ignored in the context of the "inherent" efficiency.

In one sentence we should not be saying anything about efficiency in my opinion. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Should we just remove "efficiency of energy conversion is inherently low"? It's not really adding valuable information in this context. The efficiency of producing hydrogen from fossil fuels is also low, and as you point out there is additional inefficiency of producing fossil fuels from sunlight. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, IMO "production" should be about economically feasible processes, not about theoretical concepts. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Removed. I think what the IEA was trying to get at is that direct electrification of end-uses is more efficient than using hydrogen. E.g. it is more efficient to plug in a battery electric cars than to take electricity, make hydrogen from it, and put hydrogen into a hydrogen car. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Comparing two paths with the same starting point and environment the way you do would be fine and perhaps useful to readers of Hydrogen. The counterpoint in the other article is that it could make sense to make hydrogen remotely and transport it rather than try to transport electricity. However, this seems very hypothetical to me and I think we should focus on actual production/transport. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It is probably necessary to add a small portion talking about Hydrogen Peroxide as to include the danger of turning it into Piranha Solution Baryapupy (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not necessary in the article about the element hydrogen. Remsense ‥ 论 22:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The Infobar pushes the images for the first sections way down the page, making them incoherent with the text.

We could

• Place those images on the left, or
• break the infobar into logical sections associated with corresponding content, or
• ?

Johnjbarton (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I learned elsewhere that the issue is that the infobar and images are both floats that compete for space on the right side. Left placement seems to be the best fix for smallish thumbnail like images. I applied that fix.  Done Johnjbarton (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@WikiCorrector5241 In the article we learn that Boyle discovered a reaction:

• In 1671, Irish scientist Robert Boyle discovered and described the reaction...

and but that

• In 1766, Henry Cavendish was the first to recognize hydrogen gas as a discrete substance... and

He is usually given credit for the discovery of hydrogen as an element. and

• In 1783, Antoine Lavoisier identified the element that came to be known as hydrogen...

This is inconsistent with the infobar content.

During this era of history the nature of elements and especially of gases was unclear. You can see that in the sources. The concept of "discovery" of the element makes little sense. I think if the infobar must have a "discoverer", then all three should be listed. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I checked the references cited in the template:infobox hydrogen and they all agree that Cavendish discovered hydrogen. I changed the infobox accordingly. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Hydrogen has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change all the American spellings to British spellings because this article is written in British English (see top of talk page). 2600:1700:14BE:E00:B56A:1711:D3E7:DCB6 (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa there is already a consensus to use British English. @ 2600:1700:14BE:E00:B56A:1711:D3E7:DCB6 , could you please specify what American spellings you see? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

“Heat of vaporization” to “Heat of vaporisation”, “Vapor pressure” to “Vapour pressure”, “Ionization energies” to “Ionisation energies” 2600:6C5A:557F:D058:FC51:A35B:329D:9634 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

"Nearly all deuterium nuclei in the universe are thought to have been produced at the time of the Big Bang, and has endured since then." should be nuclei --- "have" 24.1.238.48 (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out. Citing (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The section "Thermal and physical properties" is long and tedious. Per WP:SPLIT, the section makes 1) Hydrogen too long 2) the content is far too detailed for the article. I propose to move the table to "Thermal and physical properties of Hydrogen" and replace the section with text content.

I'll differ {{split section}} while the Today's Feature Article is active. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)