Jump to content

Talk:Carbon dioxide: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Carbon dioxide/Archive 4) (bot
Line 85: Line 85:


Under <u>Commercial Uses/Foods</u> the second paragraph mentions Pop Rocks and lists the psi at 580 among other pressure measurements. The Wikipedia page for Pop Rocks says 730 psi. The source article for the information used for CO2 is a magazine article (116) and does not mention the psi measurement. The source for Pop Rocks itself (<u>Manufacturing</u>) is the actual patent document (9) describing the process. Respectfully Request to use the Pop Rocks pages psi measurement and more credible source. [[User:Omnius777|Omnius]] ([[User talk:Omnius777|talk]]) 00:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Under <u>Commercial Uses/Foods</u> the second paragraph mentions Pop Rocks and lists the psi at 580 among other pressure measurements. The Wikipedia page for Pop Rocks says 730 psi. The source article for the information used for CO2 is a magazine article (116) and does not mention the psi measurement. The source for Pop Rocks itself (<u>Manufacturing</u>) is the actual patent document (9) describing the process. Respectfully Request to use the Pop Rocks pages psi measurement and more credible source. [[User:Omnius777|Omnius]] ([[User talk:Omnius777|talk]]) 00:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

== general concentration table ==

I came to this page trying to figure out an answer to the question "hey, my sensor is saying i have 1500ppm in the office, is that good or bad? what's the impact?" I eventually found the "below 1%" section buried in the article, and even there it's one long paragraph with lots of data.

I figured I would build a shorter summary of the data in a table. I picked some new sources for the data which might not be the best, but it's all sourced. One source might be a little dubious because it's from a sensor manufacturer which may have incentives to describe co2 levels are more alarming than the research actually says they are, but I figured this was still worthwhile, especially considering Canada (and other countries!) restrictions above 1000 ppm.

HTH! [[User:TheAnarcat|TheAnarcat]] ([[User talk:TheAnarcat|talk]]) 15:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:45, 10 August 2023

Template:Vital article

Former good articleCarbon dioxide was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 10, 2005Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 24, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of July 11, 2007.
Current status: Delisted good article


Conversion of v/v to m/m

I have corrected the conversion of ppm by volume to ppm by mass. The original note claims that this conversion could be performed by multiplying by the ratio of the molecular masses of CO2 and Air. The correct equation multiplies by the ratio of the densities of CO2 and Air. The difference between the density of moist air and the density of dry air is a non-trivial factor, and so volume can not be disregarded. A quick dimensional analysis will confirm that this is the correct method:

(m/m)=(v/v)(m/v)(v/m)

Or to be more explicit: mCO2/mAir = (vCO2/vAir) (vAir/mAir) (mCO2/vCO2)

Taking this approach usually gets you a ppm-m that is about 1.9 times greater than the ppm-v.

https://www.lenntech.com/calculators/ppm/converter-parts-per-million.htm

Some of the See also links are far too tenuous for the article and need culling. 101.98.39.246 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I've removed some but I think there are still too many. Please go ahead and remove more. EMsmile (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't bother logging in any more (too many bad editors) and the article is protected. 43.249.196.226 (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023

The article states in the Photosynthesis section that photosynthesis is used to produce glucose from carbon dioxide. Not quite true. Photosynthesis does not involve carbon dioxide. Light energy capture by chlorophyll is used the create ATP and produces oxygen.

ATP is then used in a separate reaction to fix carbon dioxide.

It's often a school pupil misconception of over simplifying photosynthesis, that has to be unlearnt at later stages of education! 101.53.219.101 (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Lightoil (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

75 % CO2 only kills insects and small animals?

"At the Bossoleto hot spring near Rapolano Terme in Tuscany, Italy, situated in a bowl-shaped depression about 100 m (330 ft) in diameter, concentrations of CO2 rise to above 75% overnight, sufficient to kill insects and small animals." Is there a decimal point missing or something? Given the other values in the article, like: 7 to 10 % CO2 causing suffocation in humans, I'd expect 75% to have more impact. Samorost1 (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Rocks Section, PSI mismatch.

Under Commercial Uses/Foods the second paragraph mentions Pop Rocks and lists the psi at 580 among other pressure measurements. The Wikipedia page for Pop Rocks says 730 psi. The source article for the information used for CO2 is a magazine article (116) and does not mention the psi measurement. The source for Pop Rocks itself (Manufacturing) is the actual patent document (9) describing the process. Respectfully Request to use the Pop Rocks pages psi measurement and more credible source. Omnius (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

general concentration table

I came to this page trying to figure out an answer to the question "hey, my sensor is saying i have 1500ppm in the office, is that good or bad? what's the impact?" I eventually found the "below 1%" section buried in the article, and even there it's one long paragraph with lots of data.

I figured I would build a shorter summary of the data in a table. I picked some new sources for the data which might not be the best, but it's all sourced. One source might be a little dubious because it's from a sensor manufacturer which may have incentives to describe co2 levels are more alarming than the research actually says they are, but I figured this was still worthwhile, especially considering Canada (and other countries!) restrictions above 1000 ppm.

HTH! TheAnarcat (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]