Talk:Carbon dioxide: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Carbon dioxide/Archive 4) (bot |
TheAnarcat (talk | contribs) →general concentration table: new section |
||
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
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carbon dioxide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Carbon 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
To-do list for Carbon dioxide:
From ACID nomination:
The Fire Extinguisher Entry is outdated and wrong. CO2 IS toxic at concentrations higher than 5%. Design Concentrations for Room Flooding systems with CO2 are 40%+ so CO2 is not suitable for occupied spaces. CO2 Flooding Systems are not supported for use in occupiable spaces though many countries such as USA and other third world countries still misuse CO2 in Fire Suppression Systems because it is cheap. The NFPA supports the use of CO2 on electrical hazards though it is not supported globally because CO2 can cause over pressurization, thermal shock, electrical component damage and has human health/toxicity issues. The NFPA organisation is not the definitive word/authority on Fire Suppression it is just one of many organisations involved in making standards for Fire Protection. The NFPA is really relevent only to the USA. USA codes and standards are typically only relevent to the USA so should not be referenced as the main global Fire standard on a site like wiki which serves a global audience (unless wiki is only for Americans). Though CO2 was used many years ago to protect enclosed spaces on Ships, this is extremely outdated. CO2 has caused fatalities on ships in Navies and merchant fleets that it is now superceded in this application by using extinguishants that support human life at design concentrations such as HFC-227 or Novec-1230. Unlike other countries, America and other third world countries still allow the use of CO2 in some applications where humans can be present because CO2 is cheap and installations are not monitored/controlled. (~GRANT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.155.66 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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
Too many links under See also
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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.
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class chemicals articles
- Top-importance chemicals articles
- C-Class WPChem worklist articles
- C-Class Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- C-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles
- Low-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles
- WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles
- C-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- Mid-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- All WikiProject Volcanoes pages
- C-Class Climate change articles
- High-importance Climate change articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists