Talk:Hydrogen/Archive 3

Origin
Most hydrogen in the universe was created on the first seconds of the Big Bang, by a process named Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Hydrogen atoms also are created in nature by disintegration of heavier elements, or by an electron capture by a proton from a pair production process.
 * It does not make sense to say that protium was created by BBN when protons were already around, no? Double sharp (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested update to broken link
The link in Reference 126 is no longer valid, new link should be https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970033338.pdf to reach the document. Thanks. -Kyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksinger4 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Parcly   Taxel  14:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2017
In the third sentence of the first paragraph of section 5.3 Energy Carrier, please change "Elemental hydrogen from solar, biological, or electrical sources require more energy to make it than is obtained by burning it" to "Elemental hydrogen from solar, biological, or electrical sources require(s) more energy to make than is obtained by burning it", adding an "s" to "require" because its noun is "Elemental hydrogen" and removing "it" after "make" because it is not needed. Thanks! Mahde darmo (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Parcly   Taxel  03:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hydrogen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213144956/http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/hydrogen.pdf to http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/hydrogen.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Expansion on hydrogen fusion
recently added the following material to the article. I don't think I object to the addition in principle (although i haven't reviewed the material in full), but it's very poorly formatted at the moment, and brings the quality of this Featured Article down. I've included the material below, so it can be edited / tightened, and debated:

Origin of hydrogen
This article, and any article about an elemental atom and particles needs a section about how the element was created.

I propose this text:

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hydrogen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213174645/http://usm.maine.edu/~newton/Chy251_253/Lectures/LewisStructures/Dihydrogen.html to http://www.usm.maine.edu/~newton/Chy251_253/Lectures/LewisStructures/Dihydrogen.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224162206/http://hydpark.ca.sandia.gov/DBFrame.html to http://hydpark.ca.sandia.gov/DBFrame.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090810180658/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marveyor.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marveyor.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010509065844/http://www.noble.org/ag/Soils/NitrogenPrices/Index.htm to http://www.noble.org/Ag/Soils/NitrogenPrices/Index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216050327/http://bellona.org/filearchive/fil_Hydrogen_6-2002.pdf to http://bellona.org/filearchive/fil_Hydrogen_6-2002.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302193129/http://energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter13.html to http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter13.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233910/http://www.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/resources/mdss/Praxair-LH2.pdf to http://www.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/resources/mdss/Praxair-LH2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

HYDROGEN
Is the light gas in the air it is made up of 78pacent.the only thing i what to know is that what are the chemical and physical properties of hydrogem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.59.35.203 (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of these properties are listed in the infobox, right in top. Meaninful or special properties are also described in the article text. Is there a property you are missing? - DePiep (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of air is made of nitrogen. Only a small amount of hydrogen is found in the atmosphere, mostly in the form of water vapour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Charged ion
In the section "Natural occurrence", one can find this sentence: "A molecular form called protonated molecular hydrogen (H3+) is found in the interstellar medium, where it is generated by ionization of molecular hydrogen from cosmic rays. This charged ion has also been observed in the upper atmosphere of the planet Jupiter". Now, why charged ion? To my knowledge, any ion must have a charge.Ekisbares (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct; the word charged is redundant here, as ions by definition have a nonzero charge. You can be bold and fix it! ComplexRational (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I corrected it just now. Thank you for the attention.Ekisbares (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

74% of this Universe's and the Sun's mass is Hydrogen
It's important to be accurate in science. This article refers to "roughly 75% of this Universe's mass is hydrogen". It's 74% and there are many good websites that confirm this - do a google search. Also, the Sun's mass is 74% hydrogen. 73.46.49.164 (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding accuracy -- the Sun is constantly turning Hydrogen into Helium...so that 74 percent figure won't be true forever. It is an accident of being at the right time -- 5 billion years -- after the Sun's formation. So...on that basis...I think "roughly 75 percent" sounds right. Chesspride 172.164.0.124 (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The amount of hydrogen decreases with an increase in global warming. So there will be a minimal amount left of hydrogen. Karaya Melissa (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Monatomic?
I'm not seeing backing for the claim that monatomic hydrogen is nearly as common as suggested in the article. Is that correct? Pinging, who removed the fv tag, and , who reverted the removal of the claim. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted that edit because the editor was blocked at that time, and the statement did not have sourcing. Did not see the fv notice. If people think this is too strong a verdict, reentry can be OK. -DePiep (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I made that change. I included my logic in the edit summary. I can't cite it because nothing in google mentions anything about monatomic Hydrogen being the most abundant. I asked around in ##chemistry and ##physics who claim it's plausible because the hydrogen present in stars would be in plasma state but no citation on any numbers were produced. From the same NASA link, there seems to be more hydrogen outside stars unless I am misunderstanding it. "This is an interesting question. It is known that most of the hydrogen now in the galaxy is within stars. One estimate I found (Gene Smith's Astonomy Tutorial: http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/ISM.html is that only about 5% of hydrogen in the galaxy is in the form of interstellar gas. That's within a galaxy. Outside of a galaxy, but within a galaxy cluster, the density of hydrogen is about a thousand times less, but clusters are millions of times larger than galaxies, so there is likely much more hydrogen in intergalactic gas than there is in stars. " https://web.archive.org/web/20170216110630/https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/ask_astro/stars.html . Sincerely, Itchyjunk (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the source supplied had turned into a dead link, so I changed the reference to a page from the same work on the website. The numbers did not match, but the article said "about" and that was close enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's talking about hydrogen in stars, right? The issue is around the claim that monatomic Hydrogen (H) as opposed to diatomic Hydrogen (H2) is the most abundant in the Universe. The NASA link also says there is a lot more Hydrogen outside of stars than in stars. That begs the question, "Why are 2 monatomic hydrogen floating around and not forming diatomic hydrogen?" I am not saying it correct or incorrect. But you need some citation to keep the claim. And as far as I could find, no source makes such a claim. "Hydrogen is most abundant?", sure. "Monatomic Hydrogen is most abundant?", citation needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itchyjunk (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not simply drop "monatomic" altogether? For instance Its monatomic form (H) is the most abundant chemical substance Hydrogen (H) is the most abundant atom in the Universe, constituting roughly 75% of all baryonic mass.
 * I think it is awkward to describe hydrogen in a plasma state as "monoatomic" - a plasma of H2 and a plasma of H look exactly the same: a soup of electrons and protons (and maybe a couple neutrons with some protons). Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed "monatomic". Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 07:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Monatomic?
"When bonded to fluorine, oxygen, or nitrogen, hydrogen can participate in a form of medium-strength noncovalent bonding with the hydrogen of other similar molecules, a phenomenon called hydrogen bonding that is critical to the stability of many biological molecules."

Hydrogen bonding doesn't mean the hydrogens are bonding. They have a partial positive charge and the fluorine, oxygen and nitrogen have a partial negative charge, so the hydrogen is attracted to the negative charge on the other molecule.Syd Henderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:B402:FA00:CDE2:6F82:11E:FADA (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Replaced with "When bonded to a more electronegative element, particularly fluorine, oxygen, or nitrogen, hydrogen can participate in a form of medium-strength noncovalent bonding with another electronegative element with a lone pair, a phenomenon called hydrogen bonding that is critical to the stability of many biological molecules." Thank you for spotting the error! Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Therapeutic properties
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  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5651618/ 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" [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/24/11/2076/htm 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)
 * , I noticed that you have not yet answered '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

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

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.

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

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

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.

There are many trials are multiple indication but no multiple trials on one indication. 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.

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.

Many reviews have expressed interests in future application of this molecule if more evidence is provided.

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)

New development
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)

Atom
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)

Biological reactions
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. KX Toh (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2020
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


 * WP:FRINGE. Polyamorph (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2020
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)
 * ❌ 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)

H or H2?
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)

Dihydrogen
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)

Geologic Hydrogen
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020
103.224.152.26 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

History
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)

New information
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021
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)

possible merge
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)

Some language cleanup needed
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)
 * ✅ 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021
change hindenburg disaster to 9/11 Daskere (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense whatsoever. SmartSE (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hydrogen Constitutes 74% of Elemental Mass of this Universe
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)

74% of Hydrogen is Orthohydrogen
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 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)

Picture
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)
 * So, where should I add the picture? Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 21:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Hydrogen ampoule.jpg : 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * , Thank you. Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 18:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's placed in the lead. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Image addition was reverted by : "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)
 * , What does he mean by "breaks page formatting"? Keres🌕Luna edits! 16:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * , well it would be nice to have a image of the real gas. Keres🌕Luna edits! 04:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

Methane Pyrolysis
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. The other details are not relevant, and references are not required to be open-access. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 02:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal: hydrogen water
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. –LaundryPizza<b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 23:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Hydrogen water. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 01:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Shouldn't the article state that hydrogen is the least dense element in the period table instead of lightest element?
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. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 05:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Naturally-occurring hydrogen deposits
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2023
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)
 * ✅ Good catch. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

00
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)


 * at Template:infobox hydrogen. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 01:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Atompic3.jpg

Deuterium section has mildly inaccurate information
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 &#124; contribs) 01:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Tritium glow
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)

Misleading text in paragraph under "combustion"
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 &#124; 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023
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 &#124; 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 &#124; contribs) 01:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
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. Sandy Georgia (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 &#124; contribs) 00:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts making up in your mind about restoring the version done by Grendon84 newly to the original one?
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 elementINS ; 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 - ... chemical elementINS ; it has symbol was the outcome of the discussion.  141 Pr  {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)

Hello, may you put heading infomation to notify the readers we are looking through the article about a chemical element?
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. ✅ Tollens (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I have an opinion that we should modify the lead sentence to be more a bit constructive.
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)

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

I don't think hydrogen was coined in 1783 by Lavoisier
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:


 * 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)