This is an archive of past discussions about Water. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Section on Deuterated compounds of water has error
The section says
Hydrogen has three isotopes. The most common, making up more than 95% of water, has 1 proton and 0 neutrons. A second isotope, deuterium (short form "D"), has 1 proton and 1 neutron. Deuterium, D2O, is also known as heavy water and is used in nuclear reactors for storing nuclear wastes.
Deuterium is not used in nuclear reactors for storing waste, it is used as a neutron moderator. ManInStone Sept 2007
Section on "Deuterated compounds of water" is incorrect
Suggest changing the header to "Heavy Water" and replacing with:
Hydrogen has three isotopes. The most common, making up more than 95% of water, has 1 proton and 0 neutrons. A second isotope, deuterium, has 1 proton and 1 neutron. D2O is also known as heavy water and is used in some nuclear reactors such as the CANDU. The third isotope, tritium, has 1 proton and 2 neutrons, and is radioactive. D2O and T20 differ from H2O in being heavier and denser, and occur naturally in low concentrations. Consumption of large amounts of heavy water may adversely affect biochemical processes.
Oh come ON!
"Water is a chemical substance that is essential to all known forms of life. It appears colourless to the naked eye in small quantities, though it is actually slightly blue in colour. It feels wet to the touch."
No shit? Really? Aside from wikiPeadantry, is there ant reason to keep that last sentance?
This article gets a lot of vandalism. I've removed that sentence. It's not necessarily true anyhow (Ice is still water, and it doesn't always feel wet). Now that the article is semi-protected maybe it'll get a bit better. (P.S. new comments are supposed to go at the bottom of the page) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving18:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Optical Properties
My first post seems to have been removed for a reason unknown to me...anyway...
Is there a reason why there is nothing on the optical properties of water (the refractive index etc.)? I would put them in but I don't know if there is any kind of preferred format that is used for this kind of thing.
The section on physical properties claims water is in dynamic equilibrium between liquid and vapour at 'standard temperature and pressure' which is a wikipedia reference itself and confirms that it means approximately the freezing point of water and normal atmospheric pressure. Shouldn't water also be in equilibrium with the solid state at that temperature and pressure???
Surely Knotwork has a point here! Shouldn't it read: "water is in dynamic equilibrium between solid and liquid at 'standard temperature and pressure' " ? According to the 'Dynamic equilibrium' page, dynamic equilibrium between liquid water and water vapour occurs in different conditions, specifically: at any temperature, if the air is saturated. If Knotwork and I are wrong could someone properly explain why? 88.109.27.5510:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Display in Opera
The page doesn't display correctly in the Opera browser. I think it has something to do with the image or table floating.
It works fine with Opera v7.52. However, the "Thermochemistry" table on the right site doesn't display correctly in IE6SP1.
While nitpicking another users comments about water supposedly beeing colorless, I noticed that this article states the same. In fact the excitation of molecular vibrations by certain frequencies of light leads to a distinct absorption spectrum[1] which has a minimum in the blue region and a comparativly high absorption in the red to near-infrared region. Water only seems colorless to us because we usually look at tiny amounts and do not notice this absorption. --Dschwen21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see how technically there is some color - but not at the level of ordinary human observation. We shold come up with some wording to reflect this. How about "colorless to the naked eye"? or "colorless for any volume of pure water most people are ever going to see"? Johntex\talk21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably better would be "appears colorless to the naked eye in small quantities, though can be seen to be blue in large quantities or with scientific instruments" - then we provide one or a few references. Johntex\talk21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This sounds good. I wouldn't say "any volume of pure water most people are ever going to see", just think diving. Granted you'll probably never be diving in pure water, unless you take a plunge into Super Kamiokande, but apart from scattering related coloration the effect would still be there. --Dschwen21:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Water: the liquid of life
Remember: if you are a very active person, drink 8 glases of water!
not active? drink about 3-6 glasses of water a day.
Define how much a "glass" of water is. There are different sizes of glasses. Generally, it is stated to drink 8 8-ounce servings of water, which amounts to 2 quarts, or roughly 2 L. That also includes the water found in foods, though. And how active is "very active"? And what if someone is "active" but not "very active"? Really unhelpful advice if you don't define the terms you use. -- 12.116.162.16216:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
water's "color"
i thought water appears blue because the sky happens to be blue. the article says that water in large bodies, is blue. now on cloudy days, it's gray. so what gives? Drmagic01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Reflection of the sky, impurities (scattering centers) make up the color of naturally occuring water for the most part. But pure H2O has a faint blue color. The article correctly states this fact after a tiny revision. The old version incorrectly stated that water was colorless. --Dschwen17:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Science is Spotty
Throughout the article the chemistry is very spotty and not well explained as to why certain properties actually make water what it is and as useful as it is. For example:
Some substances, however, do not mix well with water, including lipids, some proteins and other hydrophobic substances. This is why oil and water, famously, do not mix.
Water doesn't mix with oils because water doesn't mix with oils is essentially what this line (and, similarly, many others) is saying. Things like this need to be cleaned and cleared up. --66.82.9.1213:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Fix it. See water (molecule) for the chemistry details. The water article was split into a general and a technical article way back when. This is the water for dummies version :-) Vsmith
About SUEZ in Mexico
I dont know where did the info stating that suez has operations in Mexico come from.. To begin with, mexican National Water Comission, the company that is in charge of the water at federal level, is an state-owned entity of the goverment, secondly, the constitution of mexico states that all natural resources are property of the nation (just as the petroleoum). Perhaps SUEZ was hired by the mexican goverment to build desalinization plants or so but definitively it has no water concessions as this is prohibited by mexican laws.
Almost all other chemicals are denser as solids than they are as liquids, and freeze from the bottom up. Do we have any examples of other chemicals which share this property?--feline109:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Bismuth, sculpting bronze, and the alloy used to make type metal do so. In the latter case it is important as it means that the metal fills, rather than shrinks away from, the moulds it is cast into, thus creating sharp edges which give better quality printing - MPF21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It says that water is most dense at 3.98, but i have also heard that at -4 it starts to then become more dense again. This isnt mentioned at all. Neither is it's specific coefficient of expansion. Also, in reference to above, Water is the only substance which is at it's most dense as a liquid, but others do sometimes have a more dense liquid phase than at some temperatures of the solid, but there is a temperature at which the solid is will be more dense than any temp. of the liquid. Matt McGowan 7th feb, 2007
How much water we need
As opposed to a real number, I remember the "rule" being that you drink when you are thirsty, aside from strenuous activity or exercise, which would require more. 70.111.244.6901:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Tastelesness
Water isn't tasteless in my experience. I mean, if it had not taste how could one know it was water you were drinking? And water from different parts of the country tastes completely different. But then again I suppose pure water might not have any taste...acht I dunno...forgive my ramblings...
I imagine that water is lost from the body in a number of ways, not just those listed in the article. Breast feeding, bleeding, ejaculation, menstruation, saliva loss, etc are all probably significant losses of water--and yet the article lists urination, sweating, defecation, and exhalation as if that is the complete list. AdamBiswanger118:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Without a good source, this is just speculation (although, what's in the article now should also considered to be speculation, for it also is without a source). I encourage editors to try to find a citable source so that Wikipedia can be made more accurate. --Muéro21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well but those are processes that always happen, always consuming water. Menstruation doesn't happen if you're not a woman, bleeding doesn't happen if you're not injured, etcetera and they are temporary losses, not permanent. And they are small too (apart from breast feeding maybe?) -Freebird-21:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Removal of Freezing Point
I see that the addition of the freezing point of water was removed. Why?
I am adding it back, and anyone who wishes to explain the reason for the removal
please do so here.
Vsmith. You are a high school science teacher, of all people, I assumed you would surely do your research before stating that the data I have provided is erroneous. Ok well please allow me to explain for everyone interested in this little debate.
First off. The wiki site is titled water. It contains properties of this molecule. It is defined as H2O This would signify to pretty well everyone it is speaking of PURE water. Not polluted water, rain water, tap water, distilled water, etc.. This article by the University Of New South Wales School Of Physics in Sydney Austrailia denotes why PURE water aka H2O does not freeze at its melting point of 0 °C, 32 °F (273.15 K) but rather at the noted -42 °C, -43.6 °F (211.15 K) Please take a read of these articles on wiki as well. Freezing , Nucleation, Water_(molecule)
Thank You all for your time.
If you would like to include this information in another way other than on the physical property pane. Please do so. I just feel better knowing that wikipedia is as accurate and informative as possible. :) Nyourhead10:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
weight of water?
I think it might be helpful if we said the weight of water per, say, a cubic foot. I heard from this distinct professor from texas that it weighs about 62 lbs. per cubic foot.
The information is there (density). In everyday terms, one litre weighs one kilogram or, in British Imperial units, one pint weighs twenty ounces. Density varies with temperature as discussed in article. Nunquam Dormio19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected -- water weighs in the neighborhood of 62 lbs per cubic foot. I knew it weighed approximately 8.6 lbs per gallon, but figured one cubic foot would only amount to a volume of 2-3 gallons. Apparently one cubic foot is enough space to hold almost 8 gallons of liquid. Surprising! -- Moondigger20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
69.114.151.9 keeps editing the article, renaming key words to childish/nonsense words, i.e. 'DooDoo'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.23.220 (talk)
Declined, not enough activity to justify protection at this time. There looks to be enough users available to revert vandalism on the page (which doesn't seem too frequent), so semi-protection should only be used if it becomes too much to revert. Cowman109Talk 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
"Water (in its pure form) taste like poop, smells like cooked spinach and is a substance that is essential to all known forms of extraterestrial existance and is known as the universal solvent. It appears green and fuzzy to the streaking weirdo at IHOP ."
I'm assuming this should be...
"Water (in its pure form) is tasteless, odorless, and transparent. It is essential to all known forms of life."
Now the intro to the article has a bunch of crap about water tanks right at the intro that I know shouldn't be there but I didn't realy want to cut out a chunk like that without others aproval or the consideration that it might be moved. I am in favor of at least some type of protection, it's not as if the article has any breaking news that will need to be changed quickly. If a lower leval viewer wants to change somthing it wouldn't kill them to post it to the talk page to get looked over by more senior members.
I archived a lot of stuff from this talk page. Most of it was older than a year. I also archived the image vote I made, and a previous image discussion as I felt a concensus (albeit a weak one) was achived in the vote and all the images take up a lot of room.
However, while archiving I noticed this comment which somehow escaped my attention previously:
I uploaded this image as an example for what the above users have suggested. I would like feedback as to which images to include, how long each image should appear (in milliseconds), etc., before putting this on the water page. --Muéro 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems that I was not the only one interested in that type of solution; and perhaps this comment escaped the notice of other people as well. I thought I'd bring it back to the talk page for additional discussion. I think it's a good idea, though I would pick different images. Specifically I'd leave the girl in the pool out per JZG's reasoning (see the image archive for that). Anyone else have ideas? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Addition to water uses
For my English 314 Technical Writing Class, we were assigned to post an article on Wikipedia. I wrote mine about how water affects and is used in food processing. I have seen the to do list for this article and understand that it has a good rating. With that in mind, I was wondering if it would be ok if I posted a section under the uses section of this article about food processing? Lswinger12:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Lswinger
Between Samsara and I, the article has been pretty extensively reformatted today. If anybody objects to the changes, or has a suggestion for a better way to handle it, please speak up. The placement of the portal tag is my primary concern; if it's inserted into the upper-right section above the infobox, the text flows strangely. -- Moondigger17:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The one question I have is about the chemical infobox being at the top of the page. Why? There is a seperate article on the water as a molecule (Water (molecule)) which (appropriately) has the full infobox at the top. Wouldn't the abreviated chemical infobox in this article be better placed in the Chemical and physical properties section? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I placed it at the top for a few reasons. Samsara's earlier edit was an attempt to reduce the image density in the article. One of the worst "offenders" was the Chemical and Physical properties section, which contained six images plus the infobox. Moving it to the top of the article helped alleviate the clutter in that section. Second, I thought it made sense to match the de-facto standard layout of most chemistry-related articles, which usually contain the infobox right at the top. Third, it seems somehow more encyclopedic to me to have it at the top. Fourth, it helps resolve the ongoing question of which image should appear at the top of the article, discussed recently.
That said, obviously if others disagree with the new layout it can be modified. I'm not familiar with infobox formatting, but if it is moved back to the other section we should reformat it to take up considerably less space. If you feel strongly about moving it back, maybe we could raise the question "officially" here on the talk page, in its own section? -- Moondigger19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Besides, as you point out the full infobox is in the Water (molecule) article; it makes a certain amount of sense for an abbreviated infobox to be at the top of the water article, doesn't it? -- Moondigger19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, the full infobox is in the Water (molecule) article. You said, "I thought it made sense to match the de-facto standard layout of most chemistry-related articles, which usually contain the infobox right at the top," but this article is not primarily a chemistry-related article. Water (molecule), however, is. This article is supposed to be more general then that one, and includes information about chemical and physical properties as a subsection. If the infobox is at the top, then we're saying that this is a chemistry-related article and there is no point to Water (molecule) remaining on its own - they should be merged. User:Muéro's sample gif As for the image, I thought it looked like the consensus on the poll I made was to have Image:Water droplet blue bg05.jpg at the top, which is why I archived that discussion. However, I did not think that the idea of an animated gif recieved the amount of attention it deserved, so I maintained one comment from the image discussion above. I would really like to see some more discussion of that since User:Muéro volunteered to create one and did create a sample. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
If the focus isn't on chemistry, and the full infobox already exists on the water article that does focus on chemistry, then why have an infobox on this article at all? It takes up a lot of space considering the amount of information imparted. One or both of the molecule diagrams could be more easily placed without having to sit inside the infobox. -- Moondigger00:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
So, recently, some anonymous editor removed the chembox. Are we happy about this? Jack · talk · 01:13, Friday, 2 February 2007
No, I'm not. The guy has a history of vandalism, and I still believe it held some good info that Joe Bloggs could understand - Jack · talk · 01:17, Friday, 2 February 2007
I'm not sure what the statement "water ... is known as the universal solvent" means.
I certainly wouldn't say water is a "universal solvent". There are probably more compounds that are insoluble in water than are soluble in water. For example grease does not dissolve in water, that's why soap was invented, and when it rains most of the world doesn't dissolve!
Perhaps this is some well known phrase I've not heard; if so can we find a citation to support it?
Perhaps the statement should read "water ... is the universal solvent of life" - even that it is fairly meaningless. I suggest removing the statement. Your thoughts please -- Quantockgoblin13:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a link to a chat room post that explains why it's called that [2]. Not exactly the kind of reliable source we would want in the article, but hey, good enough for the talk page. I might have a book at home I could cite if I remember to look when I get home. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Opening my Science textbook to the section on water, it says very clearly that water is known as the universal solvent. Just sayin--
I want to remove "I am emma and I amhothothot from the main site, but I can't find it. Can any wiki guru get that for me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.66.11 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Conductivity units
Erm. My headphones' wire of finite cross-section and length has a conductivity that could be measured in the the millions of micro siemens. 'Water', being dimensionless, can't. Thats all I know -Copper's article describes dimensionless resistance with a different unit.
65.32.239.18116:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This was in the intro. I felt that it didn't belong there, so I'm moving it here in case anyone finds a proper place to put it into the body of the article.
Thales of Miletus, an early Greek philosopher, known for his analysis
of the scope and nature of the term "landscaping", believed that "all is water."
On Christmas day, I was putting some bottles of seltzer water outside to cool when this popped into my head. All of the chemistry teachers at my school could not come up with an answer:
If you freeze water, it expands. If you, say, freeze a bottle of water, the pressure gets to the point where the bottle bursts. Now, what if you filled a burst proof container with water and put it well below 0 degrees celcius and standard pressure (1 atm). If there is no room for the freezing water to expand into, and the container cannot burst, expand, or bend in any way, does the water freeze?
Rob: I do not have the means, or at least an impenitrable container. I tried it in a nalgene, but the lid broke. I found articles online with almost identicle questions, but all the responses were along the lines of 'the container would end up breaking under those temperatures.' Just for clarity, let me state that it is a hypothetical, un-breakable container in an ideal universe. And depending on the response to this question, there could be a second part to it:
If the answer was that it would not freeze without room for expansion... then what would happen if the container suddenly opened up (i.e. if you took the lid off the bottle)? Would all the unfrozen water suddenly freeze into a solid?
Oh, and by the way, Wikipedia artilce talk pages are not the right places to bring questions like these. Instead, please see the Wikipedia:Reference desk. These talk page are just here to discuss improvements to articles. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As you've been guessing, it would do one of two things. It would either freeze and yet take up a smaller volume (probably by freezing with a different structure), or it would stay liquid below it's normal freezing point. Which it does depends on the exact values of the pressure and temperature, for details see this article
The water would not freeze, for the reason that freezing involves the particles of matter slowing down and spreading out. If the lid was suddenly opened, the water would flash freeze, nearly the opposite of sublimation.--
At a pressure of about 2000 atmospheres, water remains liquid down to -22.0 C. Below -22.0 C, water has no liquid phase. In a rigid container, it would most likely become Ice III (there are about 20 different kinds of ice). See here. Rracecarr12:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's similar to superheating water above it's boiling point (like in a microwave or something) and then putting a fork or other non-smooth item into the water. For some reason the water superheats instead of boils. When the fork is put in, it causes bubbles to form, and the water starts boiling. So, the extension of that is the water would get to (or below?) the freezing point, but would not solidify, since it couldn't expand. When the container opens, it would immidiately begin forming ice, since it is at or below freezing and can now expand. I'm not an expert in this, I'm just giving what i think would happen. -- 12.116.162.16217:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Question (restated): What happens to water that is cooled from 1 deg C to -10 deg C, if it is in a container that is so strong that it does not stretch or expand (so that the volume of the water stays constant)?
Answer: The pressure of the water would go up and up and up. As the pressure goes up, the freezing point of water goes down, helping it stay liquid. But it takes a lot of pressure to lower the freezing point just a little. By the time the temperature reaches -1 deg C, the pressure is forced up to over 10 MPa. As the pressure goes up, the density of the liquid form also goes up. So, there would have to be a mixture of liquid water and solid ice so that the average density averages out to exactly 1.0. This same process continues this way down to -10 deg C, and then all the way down to about -20 deg C. Then, as the pressure reaches about 200 MPa, everything changes. That is the end of normal ice. There is a switch there to ice-three (Ice III) and other special forms of solid water. These are much more dense than normal ice, and also even more dense than liquid water, at these high pressures. (And there is no liquid water below this temperature.) So, if the volume is held constant, as the temperature goes below about -20 deg C, the pressure has to stay a constant 200 MPa, and there would be a mixture of normal ice and Ice III, so that the average density would be exactly one. (Note: this answer is based on just reading the graphs. If you have more knowledge, please provide a better answer.)
Now, WP is not the right place to ask and answer these kinds of questions. But, WP articles should definitely contain all the basic information, to answer such basic physics questions -- in the most accessible way possible. And in this case, this question highlights that the WP water and ice articles currently do a bad job of giving information about water and ice densities at various temperature and pressures. The Water Phase Diagram and Density/Temp vs. Pressure graphs at http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html by Martin Chaplin are much better, so let's work to improve WP. That website is full of great details, but hard for ordinary people to understand. -69.87.200.232 (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
overall water use
"Since 1980, overall water use in Canada has increased by 25.7%. This is five times higher than the overall OECD increase of 4.5%. In contrast, nine OECD nations were able to decrease their overall water use since 1980 (Sweden, the Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Poland, Finland and Denmark)."
The original source states the above and it is rewritten in the article. With "overall water use", do they mean use per capita (All people's water use divided by number of inhabitants) or do they mean the overall use in the country. Without dividing it by the number of inhabitants, the figure makes no sense of course. I assume that the former meaning is intended, but I thought of the latter first (which made me write this), because of the unlucky wording. I won't change it to per-capita, because according to my (non-native) understanding, it sounds ambigous. --Ruben23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
food preparation
In this section, there is a reference to an image I do not see. "Not only does microbial growth affect the safety of food but also the preservation and shelf life of food. Figure 2 shows a slice of moldy bread, an example of microbial growth."209.191.166.20216:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)jonah
I added an image of moldy bread. However, reading through that section I'm wondering if someone copied it straight out of some book somewhere? It really reads like a copyvio, what with the "Figure 2" stuff and the odd references to "Vaclacik and Christian, 2003" and "DeMan, 1999" without giving any clue who Vaclaciek, Christian, and DeMan are or what book or paper they may have written. Anyone else think that section is a little odd? If so, can anyone identify where it came from? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving17:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Optical Properties
Is there a reason why there is nothing on the optical properties of water (the refractive index etc.)? I would put them in but I don't know if there is any kind of preferred format that is used for this kind of thing.
I presume that the reason it's not there is simply that no one has added it. If I were you and I had information to add; I'd add it. Wikipedia encourages its readers to be bold in adding any information they think needs to be added. As far as format goes; read through the article and figure out where you think it'd fit best. Then create a sub-heading by typing ==Optical properties== (or whatever you want the subheading to be - the important thing is the equal signs). Then type your text. You are encoraged to cite your sources, and this page has some handy fill-in-the-blank templates which you can use. Some people find those templates confusing and prefer not to use them; they are not required. In other words; no, there is no preferred format. Just do it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving15:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Some idiot's vandalised it; the article now starts;
Water is a gay substance that is essential to all known forms of bum.
Im guessing that this used to be :
Water is a clear substance that is essential to all known forms of life
Im going to change it back, Moverington20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Pee review!
I noticed a peer review. But no follow up! Did we implement the suggested changes and more importantly are we ready to go for featured article? --CyclePat17:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I would highly doubt that this would come anything close to passing a featured article nomination. The peer review was in 2004 - several years ago. It's currently listed as a good article, but I don't really think it even quite makes it up to the current GA standards, let alone featured. If you want to try to clean it up until you think it's good enough for featured; by all means go ahead. Likewise, if you want to ask for a new peer review for the current version of the article to help you learn what needs to be done to get it to featured; go ahead. But I really think it's a long way from featured at the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
The section on privatization is clearly biased against it. It cites as sources only newspaper reports. Even in Bolivia, one of the cases mentioned, despite the protests, the fact is that water prices *went down*. [3] has argued that privatization is unpopular despite, rather than because of its consequences.
Other than that, rate increases are often due not to privatization per se, but to subsidy cuts which are performed at the same time (even though they are really separate issues).
luispedro (Jan 27 2007)
H OH-
1 x 10^-7 water is dissociated per liter or mole I am not sure but it is 1 x 10^-5 percent for any given volume of pure water when at a chemical equilibrium. For that reason the amount of H is exactly equal to the amount of OH- which is why it is on the ph scale of 7
if what i said can help the article in anyway please someone check my factuality and put it into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barry White (talk • contribs) 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Factual accuracy dispute
If you read the paragraph carefully, it is implied that fluorine is more less electronegative than is oxygen. This is incorrect (needs fixing) Dashboardy08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Dashboardy
I've fixed this section, by mentioning that HF has only 1 fluorine while water has 2 oxygens. This is more correct Dashboardy08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Dashboardy
Percentage of Different Water that exists on earth?
Please ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk. For a less preceise answer, one of the image captions says:
Over two thirds of the earth's surface is covered with water, 97.2% of which is contained in the five oceans. The Antarctic ice sheet, containing 90% of all fresh water on the planet, is visible at the bottom.
Water slightly blue yet appearing colourless? I think that this needs citation and was removed until competent source has been provided.
water can hydrate our bodies, keep us alive, and ...it can also kill us. Might i note the tsunami ??? AND KATRINA???? the ...er...hurricane that is. water is a wonderful substance that although as scary as it may be keeps "all of us here humans" alive.....got that line from the movie deliverance......interesting....a stupid movie like that shows simple things that all of us can relate too......
This article doesn't have any discussion of water's role as a charge-separating molecule in the production of lightning through convection transport (both on Earth and on Jupiter). Could this be included? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
i swear...i have never before seen such a group {not the guys who stood up for wik yall are smart;)) of idiotic idiots. the reason for this website is to teach not to teach about poop or other such innececary subjects.....ya know what i mean??? if you idiotic KIDs call yourself adults get real and grow up i mean come on people water is a sincere subject for sincere people if you arent sincere get off and go to some club and talk about those stupid things —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Candino (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
Gaia in an article about water
The section headed "Position of the Earth relating to water" appears to be something of a disparate collection of ideas & themes. I'm not sure most of what's stated in that section is particularly relevant to an article on water. In particular, the Gaia rant seems rather incongruent, along with the suggestion of the constancy of Earth's temperature over geological timescales being simply incorrect. I'll have a go at editing, unless there's a strong objection in which case a new heading along the lines of the significance of water in climate change might be appropriate. Fizzackerly17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Gee, the English language really sucks. I heard about some guy working on some kind of collaborative communication solution that does not involve something so misleading as the March 15th, 2007, 3:38PM version of the Wikipedia entry for "water." The definition of water is beyond words, at least the ones I have available. Water IS NOT typically referred to as a chemical. In my experience, the word "chemical" refers to manufactured, that is, man-made synthetic substances, often liquids (some including water and some not), though also solids and gases. I find it absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary to use the word "chemical" at the beginning of the wikipedia entry ... in such an obviously confusing way ... and then "protect" the article from direct editing. We are taking about water here. Rain. Puddles. Rivers. Lakes. Oceans. I have constructed and refined wiki software that avoid such group-think crap and denies word-game manipulators. Maybe you want to help me get funding to get a secure place to work ... BETTERDIFFERENT.COM NATE88 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N888 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
I will not lower the standards of wikipedia for the ignorant masses. If you don't understand the word chemical, go back to elementary school. --Savant1319:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Human use of water
This topic is as critical for wikipedia quality as it is vital for humanity.
However,
There is no mention of the use in agriculture, although more water is consumed for irrigation than for direct human use (drinking, cooking, washing,…).
The section "as solvent" could be renamed in a more generic "cleaning" or "washing", and include the largest use in that category : the sewerage system.
The section "thermal transfer agent" do not mention that most of the houses and building relies on water for heating.
Some kind of statistics would also be appreciated.
Is this still true? Is this a good theme? Just what is important to humanity?
Some sort organizing objective is surely necessary to improve this page. This article is going to be an overview of this subject, and so we will need to be somewhat ruthless about what is covered here. The page is already a long enough for break up. Some technical topics may need to be dropped or reduced. This may hurt, and I expect to lose some of my pet topics.
Also somebody explain or justify these in this article, especially with some reference?
Add a section on the memory-effect that water has (research by Dr. Emoto).
Consider adding expansion on physical properties of water including Molier Diagram and exerts (if available) from the Gov't lab (forgot name) results on other "phases" of water at various temperatures and pressures; these were the basis for the design of the BWR reactor.
The "Solar distance and Earth gravity" section claims that liquid water would be unlikely on Earth if our distance from the sun was a million miles more or less. Does anyone have a citation for this? Given that the Earth's distance from the sun varies by about 3 million miles over the course of the year, I'm skeptical.
I've added a source that says 5% (which would be about 8 million km or 5 million miles), and changed the numbers accordingly. You can find it on Google books.[4] The author got the estimate from Kondratyev KY, Hunt GE (1982) Weather and Climate on Planets. Pergamon Press, Oxford, but I haven't been able to look up that book to verify. If anyone can check it out, please update the citation accordingly. --Itub13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Infobox location
The infobox for the article is located after the introduction. Any ideas why this is so? Better yet, are there any objections to relocating it to the head of the article? --Aarktica17:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The information on Water as a chemical was diverted to a sub-article sometime in 05 I think. Then for a long time this article had no infobox. Then someone added a shortened version of the chemical infobox in the section on water as a chemical. For the full infobox, see the sub article referenced in that section. The reasoning is that the infobox (dealing solely with chemistry) is more appropriately located in the section of the article it deals with, rather than in the lead as it is in the sub-article. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The phrase branch water is a redirect to water, but the article does not contain the word "branch." While the phrase "branch water" does just mean ordinary water (esp. in the context of mixing liquor), this meaning should be made clear in the article in order to justify the redirect. Can anyone think of an elegant way to fit that in? --Trevor Burnham06:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The South Florida Water Management District is a regional governmental agency responsible for water quality, flood control, water supply and environmental restoration in 16 counties, from Orlando to the Florida Keys. It is the oldest and largest of the state's five water management districts.
The District is managing and protecting the state's water resources on behalf of 7.5 million South Floridians and is the lead agency in restoring America's Everglades – the largest environmental restoration project in the nation's history.
Greenhouse Effect
Given how important a topic the greenhouse effect is today, shouldn't the paragraph that mentions it be separated into it's own category? The current article says: "Water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provide a greenhouse effect which helps maintain a relatively steady surface temperature. If Earth were smaller, a thinner atmosphere would cause temperature extremes preventing the accumulation of water except in polar ice caps (as on Mars)." I propose we add a new section that mentions water's part in the greenhouse effect, just like the article on [water vapor] does or, in fact, that the [Greenhouse Gas] article does. Invasion1008:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Etymology is definitely relevant to an encyclopaedic entry on one of English's most fundamental words. This is from etymonline. Note the last line:
O.E. wæter, from P.Gmc. *watar (cf. O.S. watar, O.Fris. wetir, Du. water, O.H.G. wazzar, Ger. Wasser, O.N. vatn, Goth. wato "water"), from PIE *wodor/*wedor/*uder-, from root *wed- (cf. Hittite watar, Skt. udnah, Gk. hydor, O.C.S., Rus. voda, Lith. vanduo, O.Prus. wundan, Gael. uisge "water;" L. unda "wave"). Linguists believe PIE had two root words for water: *ap- and *wed-. The first (preserved in Skt. apah) was "animate," referring to water as a living force; the latter referred to it as an inanimate substance.
Why is the caption to the water molecule figure "Water is a natural and renewable energy source.
It is also the base of human life, considering people are 2/3 water.". It's hardly a helpful caption and doesn't really have the same tone as most of wikipedia 129.67.50.19513:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It is dumb, so I've changed it to "Water is the base of human life, and an abundant compound on the earth's surface." Feel free to change it or post here with suggestions. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, DNA is carbon based, therefore human life is carbon based and water dependent. The statement should read at minimum "Water is a requirement of human life". The statement should not read that water is a renewable energy source!!!! The statement may read that it is "an abundant compound on the earth's surface", but this is a rather tacky statement.
Overall I think the caption should read "Water is a requirement of human life, and is the largest potential source of hydrogen other than hydrocarbons". Noah Seidman23:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Just having a discussion on WP:NPOV touching on other planets and I realize this article doesn't actually have a section on water on other planets. It does however mention it in the lead. I realize the article is very full as it is, but perhaps there should be a small section on this subject discussing the presence of water on the moon, Mars, Europa etc, and it's necessity for life or habitability on those planets (and the fact that its spectra is searched for in space). If we don't mention it in the article, it seems inconsistent to give it a mention in the lead (which is only supposed to mention material presented in the main body) as follows:
Outside of our planet, a significant quantity is thought to exist underground on the planet Mars, on the moons Europa and Enceladus, and on the exoplanet known as HD 209458 b.
XCan someone change the stat for water percentage in atmosphere?
I notice that the article says that about 0.0% of the earth's water is in the atmosphere. I found a site that gives a more useful number for that figure, but I don't know how to add references.
Here it says the earth's atmosphere holds about 0.001% of the total water on the planet. Can someone who knows what they're doing add it?
Water usage
It says that the US uses 2000 cubic meters per person per year. A cubic meter is 1000 cubic liters, so this means the average person uses 2000000/356 liters per day, or 5617 liters. I know some developed countries use an extraordinary amount of water, but isn't 5 tonnes per day a bit much? The UN development report reference gives 575 liters per day for the US, which sounds more believable. It's hard enough to believe a person can use even half a tonne a day, but 5 just seems impossible. Richard00108:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, assuming the statistics are correct, you have to look at them a bit differently. The statistic doesn't say it's simply talking about personal household usage (the UN statistic you mentioned sounds reasonable for that). It appears to refer to the total US water consumption, listed as a per capita statistic. So that would include all the water used in growing crops, raising livestock, manufacture of various products, etc. The amount of these things exported would also inflate the statistic. 76.202.59.9103:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
71% or 70%
The general agreement is and we need to correct this, a simple statement about 70% will be correct, % of water on earth.
Correctish, unless somebody has as a citation with error bars. This is mostly to give a magnitude of coverage. 70% is good as a representation of 7/10, but it seems fair to say "a bit over 70%." Seasonal and tidal variation seem unlikely to move coverage by 1/2%, but rising mean sea level can. This sort of change should, however, be covered elsewhre for now. Unless somebody has a peer reviewed recent reference, something like "just over 70%" or the like should do.rmo1303:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Who gives a shit? It's close enough. Wikipedia is serious business
Is this really a "good" article?
I put in some editorial points in the to do template some time ago. This is very important article to really put in order. Sections 1 and 2 seem to be in some sort of order, but border on being jargony and uneven in depth of coverage. Sections 4-6 seem very uneven, a sort of montage of detailed subjects unconnected by logic or appropriate transitions. This is blatantly out of line with criteria 3b for a good article. Should this be delisted? In the mean time we should think about using Category:Coherency_templates such as .rmo1304:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually re-reviewing all of the chemistry articles currently as part of WikiProject Good Articles' sweeps process. In doing so, I have found that this article was listed as a Good Article on December 16, 2005, by Llywrch. I am unable to find evidence of a complete GA review on this article in the talk pages or archives, but I can see that this was done in the early days of the GA program, and the criteria had not developed to what it is today. So, in short, I cannot say that this article passes the current Good Article criteria, and am going to delist it now, as I can see numerous issues.
First, there are several 'citation needed' tags in the article. These MUST be addressed. While the GA criteria do allow for a few gaps in references, citation needed tags are an indication that another editor has challenged the information, and this is a no-no.
Secondly, is the NPOV tag in the 'poltics: middle east' section. Good articles cannot have any serious NPOV issues, so this disqualifies it right there.
Third, I see several problems with organization. While the prose is overall quite good, the organization of information seems to be going off into all sorts of tangents and not really bringing the information together. Too many sub-topics, sub-sub-topics, and sub-sub-sub-topics, make the article very difficult to read. I think this really hurts the article in the long run. Perhaps the best solution would be to keep this article focused on the chemical substance of water, primarily, and move most of the cultural and political impact information to other articles, providing a brief introduction to some of this impact in this article. The vast number of sub-articles listed as 'main' and 'see also' links probably should be looked at as well; some of these can probably be combined and merged with other articles, some are not really related to this topic (or only slightly), so probably shouldn't be listed. There's just too many issues related to this to name them all here -- this will be quite a mammoth undertaking.
I did check all of the images in the article, and they all do check out per the image criteria. There are several featured pictures used by this article (3 or 4), though I am concerned that some of these images might just be added to give more exposure to someone's featured picture. For example, while the image of the earth from space at the top is nice, it doesn't seem to be contributing anything to the article, and it wouldn't hurt to get rid of it. It couldn't hurt to go back and look at all of the images in this article anyway.
Anyway, that should cover the significant problems with the article. It's difficult to cover everything, since there's so much. It's still somewhat sad to see this article leaving WP:GA, since it's so important. But for now, that's the best option. Hopefully, the article will be renominated once these issues are resolved. Dr. Cash02:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
While you make some good points and suggestions, I'd like to take issue with your suggestion that "Perhaps the best solution would be to keep this article focused on the chemical substance of water, primarily, and move most of the cultural and political impact information to other articles, providing a brief introduction to some of this impact in this article." Water (molecule) is focused on the chemical substance of water, and this is ment to be a more general article touching on all aspects. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving03:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that there is a micro-consensus for major revision, some organizational issues are on the table. This needs to be a unifying article on water, linking major topics, it needs to touch on many topics from chemical/physical properties to religious/spiritual meaning in a rather superficial but coherent way. I propose:
Rewrite to do list starting with statement of scope and limitations. A previous attempt is noted at Talk:Water#To_do_list. Perhaps a list of the 5 to 8 overall headings should be there.
I went browsing today for articles that would be likely targets of vandalism and bad writing, and figured water would be a sure hit. Sure enough! This article is remarkably bad. I respectfully urge that this radio frequency gimmick be left out. It is a chemistry trick that has no real relevance to an artile on water, in my opinion. Now, if we could only apply the same standard to the rest of this long, rambling article...
I am not trying to introduce vandalism. Please stop implying that. I didn't write this in the article because I know this can possibly stir controversy. That is also the exact reason I ask here. If nobody thinks this important enough to mention here, then fine. I will not put this here. And if you dislike the article so much, you can certainly rewrite it. Chris!my talk04:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many newspapers report the same dubious fact from the same dubious source. The number of Google hits does not increase the credibility of the claim. --Malleus Fatuarum04:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do leave it out. This is one more in a long list of similar, blatantly pseudoscientific claims, and it doesn't belong here. --Reuben22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Update: The matter has just made the December 2007 issue of Popular Science, pp.27, article "Heat Waves," where they state that though the phenomenon is conclusively shown to exist, critics claim that the radio emission generator uses up far more energy than it creates (thus far), and is thus "a carnival trick at best." The magazine, however, effectively takes a neutral stance, and awaits further developments. --Chr.K.21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Watter??
That's a terrible opening to the Water article. Who gives a damn that people in Yorkshire call it 'watter'? On that basis, why not put "L'eau in France" or 100 other regional variations? Of course the article is protected and so this odd paragraph cannot be edited. Please consider removing this unnecessary statement. Yorkshiremen eh, think they own the world. 146.87.82.24211:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is protected if you haven't a user ID - so why not register?
I've changed the 'Watter' reference to a footnote.
The lead section says that earth has a total of 107 Tt of water. What units are Tt? Could someone please clarify, e.g. 107 Teratonnes (Tt) if the unit is Teratonnes? ShalomHello01:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Water on high gravity planets
Under the section about Solar distance and Earth gravity it states that "If a planet is sufficiently massive, the water on it may be solid even at high temperatures, because of the high pressure caused by gravity." but isnt this incorect because of the fact that water EXPANDS when it turns to a solid? Can someone please corect this.
InedibleSubstance01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There are several different forms of ice, depending on the pressure, and some are more dense than liquid water. See the article on ice for details. --Itub10:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to say this, but the beginning of the article before the text, which lists the characteristics of water such as melting point and boiling point, needs heavy editing in terms of spelling and grammar. Part of it is incomprehensible (see the Collateral section) and appears to be written by a non-English speaker. I don't mean to insult anyone but this needs to be cleaned up.Mhklein00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the section in question. The section meant for, and is found at, Water (molecule). Water (molecule) "describes water from a scientific and technical perspective"; water, this article, on the other hand, describes water's "importance in sustaining life and humanity". (Quoted from disambiguation-link section of the Water (molecule) article.) --Ianleow714:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
--72.22.154.3803:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[[Link title[[Media:<blockquote>
Insert non-formatted text here
</blockquote>
<gallery>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
Image:Example.jpg|Caption1
Image:Example.jpg|Caption2
|}
</gallery>]]]]
Water freezing point isn't 0 celsius
"Freezing temperature" is when the liquid turns into solid. Water does that only at -42 celsius, so is that its freezing temperature? Water will freeze at 0 celsius only under certain conditions... Gil_mo (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well it says melting point, not freezing point. I can assure you that at normal atmospheric pressure, water melts at 0 degrees Celsius. Sakkura (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I was refering to freezing point, not melting. And as the article explains, if there are no nucleation points water will freeze at -42 deg. celsius. If there are no objections I will correct the article. Gil_mo (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The article clearly explains that water usually freezes at 0 degrees but can be supercooled under certain conditions. There is no reason to change anything. Sakkura (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Constipation, 8-10 glasses?
The article makes the claim that water has little or no effect on constipation (saying that the myth is dispelled); however, it seems to me that the general consensus wherever I look is that water intake is a good way to battle constipation. When I had a bowel obstruction, my doctor recommended more water intake. And a Wikipedia article on constipation also states this. I think the article needs to be modified to reflect this truth.
I have heard that drinking 8-10 glasses on water a day is recommended for the average person to be healthy; however, I have also heard that this isn't necessary, and that one should only drink when thirsty. Even more confusing, there are those who say it's dangerous to drink only when thirsty (only when the body warns you that you need water). And this article itself seems to state in the beginning that the consensus is to drink 8-10 glasses, and then later, in the same section, it states that 8-10 glasses of water intake isn't necessary. So which is it? The section contradicts itself. 207.12.38.83 (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The published reports contradict each other, the drinking water section only references them and attempts to categorize them (as in, this one is from "advocates", this one is medical, etc) --Cubbi (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirected here from a discussion on the negative dimension of democracy I wanted to see if the negative component of water, ie drowing was noted. Only one indirect reference.
Perhaps the negative side to water, ie drowing, ie in water or through body misfunction, would be a suggestion.
Happy New Years !
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone added a sentence just to say that "water fuel cell" and "water ionizer" are "uses of water". "Water fuel cells" were a minor nonsense scam which was eventually stopped by the Ohio courts. Water ionizers are not a use of water, but rather, something that operates upon water. Regardless, the sentence was not placed properly in the article. Xezlec (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Inconsistencies in picture headings
There are inconsistencies in the headings for the picture, and it's really starting to bug me.
For example, "ice used for cooling" has no punctuation or capitalization.
Two pictures away, "A water-carrier in India, circa ~1882. In many places where running water is not available, water has to be transported by people." has both capitalization and punctuation.
A few more pictures up, "a young girl is drinking water." has no capitalization, but has punctuation. Can someone please look into that? Thanks ♥70.181.168.148 (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Water. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is a new form of water called 'Primary Water' that puts forward that water can be formed by chemical processes deep inside the earths core. This might explain the recent discoveries of water being found on Mars (yet there is no atmosphere to produce water). This would be an interesting addition to 'Source of Water' in the wiki article. See Primary Water for additional infomation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacubanja (talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made a start on it over at Water and life - there's _much_ that needs to be added to it and improvements to be made though - my first attempt at a proper article so I'm sure there's much that needs to be done. :P GreenOnBlue (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw the new article, but as it is written now, it really just rehashes what already exists in the Water article, and IMO there is better information in the existing water and life subsection of Water than the new article. Unless there is a vast amount added as to why it should be its own article, my prod tag will remain.--Terrillja (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"All the major components in cells (proteins, DNA and polysaccharides) are also dissolved in water."
- I believe this should be "Most of the major...." since cell membranes are lipid-based and insoluble in water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeyWestSkipper (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
"Water can be used to cook foods such as noodles."
When presenting such data as a substances boiling point or melting point it should be made abundantly clear that the data is according to STP conditions is applicable. For example, water boils at 100C under 1atm of pressure or 14.7 psi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidproquo2004 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Water in the universe"
The figures given for Earth and Mercury seem to have become mixed up if they are not erroneous. A figure .002% is given for Venus but Earth as having a trace, I would say a trace is always less than a cited number. Giving the atmosphere of Mercury a definite water vapour content of 3.4% for a planet with an atmospheric pressure in the region of 10^-15 does not inspire confidence without a reference.Damorbel (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Habitable Zone picture
The HZ paragraph states that earth would not have liquid water if it were much further away from the sun. However, according to the picture immediately adjacent, the HZ extends to about a third further away from earth's orbit, clearly more that "slightly further." 24.252.195.3 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Some rather useless info here
including, but not limited to, the fact that the freezing and boiling points of water are affected by addition of a solute. This is true for the vast majority of fluids. A statement about the value of water's constant for this property might be more useful, but in any case the food processing section seems to be too little about water - or food processing for that matter - to merit inclusion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.223.26 (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Phases of Water
In the book "A Short History of Everything" by Bill Bryson, He mentioned that water has at least 9 phase. I do not know any besides the 3 common phases (liquid, solid and gas). May be supper cooled and under pressure it might be still liquid, I do not know, but think that it would in this article. mark45n Mark45n (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That link exist in the data sheet, but it is not easy to find. I think a small mention should be in the main article, and then a reference to the (data page) as being main. Same for the solubility that I searched for. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
physical properties of real water
The "Chemical and physical properties" section is far too limited, somewhat misguided. This article should be about all water, real-world water in all it's glory: tap water, rain water, lake water, sea water, etc. We want density etc data for real water, not just pure-theory water. All of the other WP water data articles are currently limited to only pure water. Where can one find data on the physical properties of real water?
-69.87.199.87 (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Water has more than one structure or arrangement of being ice. For instance, steel has bcc structure at room temperature (101 Pa and low carbon), fcc at a higher temperature, and then bcc again at an even higher temperature before melting. For ice, changing pressure and temperature produces different arrangements of the H2O molecules in the solid phase.
Check out
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
In the article regarding surface tension, there is this statement:
Flotation of objects denser than water occurs when the object is nonwettable and its weight is small enough to be borne by the forces arising from surface tension.[2]
The object is nonwettable by water, it cannot be made wet by water. It is implied that water is wet.
The "Taste and Odor" section of the article claims that "Humans also tend to prefer cold water to lukewarm water since cold water is likely to contain fewer microbes." This is culturally specific information - in China and Taiwan (for example), cool to lukewarm water is widely preferred, and it is in fact widely believed that ingesting cold water is subtly detrimental to health. The article's language should either reflect this, or else not mention the issue. The claim is not even cited, prompting the question of whether it might be no more than the assumption of a person familiar only with Western culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.45.216.144 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"Cool to lukewarm water is widely preferred, and it is in fact widely believed that ingesting cold water is subtly detrimental to health". Do you realize how you just contradicted yourself there? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the contradiction. The writer contrasted "cool to lukewarm" with "cold." The same belief is widespread in Germany, by the way. Kdammers (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Water has the second highest specific heat capacity of any known substance, after ammonia ?
The first paragraph says "a ubiquitous" but it should be "an" right? I can't change it because it's "semi protected" so I hope someone does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsum Miner (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay that's cool I was right.
You deleted your rationale so I'm repeating it here: water is ubiquitous on Earth but not in general. --NeilNtalk to me15:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
As a heat transfer fluid
The section "As a heat transfer fluid" contains the following text:
Water and steam are used as heat transfer fluids in diverse heat exchange systems, due to its availability and high heat capacity, both as a coolant and for heating. Cool water may even be naturally available from a lake or the sea. Condensing steam is a particularly efficient heating fluid because of the large heat of vaporization. A disadvantage is that water and steam are somewhat corrosive. In almost all electric power stations, water is the coolant, which vaporizes and drives steam turbines to drive generators. In the U.S., cooling power plants is the largest use of water.[31]
I believe there is a mistake, or at least some complications, in the very last sentence.
When I read the cited source, I found the following information in the section "Thermoelectric Water Use":
"About 52 percent of fresh surface-water withdrawals ... are for thermoelectric-power use."
However, the key word here is surface-water. This does not include ground water. The next section in the source, "Irrigation Water Use", states
Irrigation accounts for about a third of water use and is currently the largest use of fresh water in the United States. Irrigation water use includes water used for growing crops, frost protection, chemical applications, weed control, and other agricultural purposes, as well as water used to maintain areas such as parks and golf courses. Historically, more surface water than ground water has been used for irrigation. However, the percentage of total irrigation withdrawals from ground water has continued to increase, from 23 percent in 1950 to 42 percent in 2000.
I think this means that the single highest user of fresh water (surface ground water) is irrigation, not thermoelectric power.
Why is water so important to life? It all has to do with the unique properties that water exhibits. Firstly, it is the only substance on Earth that is in liquid form at the temperatures commonly found on the Surface of our planet. Secondly, it is a superb solvent, meaning that other substances regularly and easily dissolve into it. This allows water to carry nutrients to cells, and carry waste away from them.
In addition, water has the unique property of expanding as it freezes. Because water expands becoming less dense, frozen water, or ice floats. This is very important, because it protects the water underneath, insolating it from freezing.
Imagine what would happen if water became more dense? It would sink, allowing another layer of water to freeze. Eventually all the water across the entire surface of our planet would freeze, making life impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.87.34 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Under "Water on Earth", sidebars seem to disagree. Water distribution chart to right cites world ice holding 68.7% of world freshwater; caption under the image of Earth has Antarctica alone holding 90%. I am guessing Antarctica's value may be a volume, the other using (say) mass, but the bare numbers suggest a contradiction.
The article linked in that caption : Antarctic ice sheet says 61%, so I've changed it to that for now, which seems more sensible. Anyone with better sourced figures please alter it. Incidentally, the bar chart is sourced to the USGS[5] - Begoon (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The following text in the article needs to be referenced for verification and validation.....
"purified water, laboratory-grade, analytical-grade or reagent-grade water – water which has been highly purified for specific uses in science or engineering. Often broadly classified as Type I, Type II, or Type III, this category of water includes, but is not limited to, the following: "
--222.64.26.211 (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
need a short mention of ice clathrates (methane) because of their significance re global warming of permafrost and continental shelf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brybryan (talk • contribs) 08:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps more suited to global warming article(s) or articles about the ice sheets, than to a general article on water, though? - Begoon (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Effects on Life
This section has a paragraph which appears to be completely irrelevant to this article. It only briefly mentions water once, but looks like it belongs in a different article. Stomach acid or Digestion, maybe?
"Stomach acid (HCl) is useful to digestion. However, its corrosive effect on the esophagus during reflux can temporarily be neutralized by ingestion of a base such as aluminum hydroxide to produce the neutral molecules water and the salt aluminum chloride. Human biochemistry that involves enzymes usually performs optimally around a biologically neutral pH of 7.4."
Hydroelectric is Gravity Energy and Solar Energy and Hydrokinetic is Mechanical or Kinetic Energy Transfer
The article on water does not talk much about the renewable energy contribution of hydroelectric nearly enough. The article is slightly inaccurate when it says that "the energy is supplied by the sun." The sun only provides energy to make water lighter. The buoyant force positions water high as it evaporates: that is the water becomes lighter than the regular atmosphere. Then gravitational force acts on the water as it condenses in the higher cooler atmosphere to make it fall towards the center of the earth.
Solar radiation is only a part of the energy transferring from water to mist to water again. Gravity is so ubiquitous that people have forgotten it is one of two fundamental forces that have infinite range; 1) electromagnetic and 2) gravitational.
In the article "Water" the section entitled "Industrial Applications" has a very small discussion of hydroelectric energy and propagates a recent myth stating the sun is the [only] energy source.
Industrial applications
Water is used in power generation. Hydroelectricity is electricity obtained from hydropower. Hydroelectric power comes from water driving a water turbine connected to a generator. Hydroelectricity is a low-cost, non-polluting, renewable energy source. ````The energy is transferred continuously between gravity pulling towards the center of the earth and by the sun creating buoyant water mist. Heat from the sun evaporates water upwards away from the radiant heat of the earth and then the water mist condenses as rain in higher cooler altitudes, from where it flows down as rain, snow, drizzle, or hail.Genergy (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
````
Hydroelectric and Hydrokinetic
Hydroelectric power is the largest, cheapest, and oldest renewable energy. Traditional hydroelectric dams a river or stream to create a reservoir where the force of gravity on the water spins turbines connected to electric generators to produce electricity. Submerged hydroelectric places a dam underwater in oceans or in large lakes.
Hydrokinetic energy is a new subsidiary classification of hydropower where different kinetic actions on water such as waves, tides, currents; and thermal energy of ocean currents from deep cold water to higher warmer water is transferred. Wave, tidal, underwater currents, and ocean thermal current renewable energy systems are being tested and improved around the world.````
The United Kingdom has a very large ocean energy technology program with high expectations for wave generation replacing a great deal of fossil fuel power.
Some Water Can be dirty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.80.136.137 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 207.28.249.98, 23 September 2010
Have been looking at the citations which supposedly back the statement that the Moon has liquid water. Both articles do refer to "water", but neither speaks explicitly of _liquid_ water. The article from Der Spiegel speaks of "small amounts of the substance", discovered by a device that detects particles. The one from the NASA site actually says very clearly that liquid water is _not_ what they are talking about...
"When we say 'water on the Moon,' we are not talking about lakes, oceans or even puddles," explained Carle Pieters, M3's principal investigator from Brown University, Providence, R.I. "Water on the Moon means molecules of water and hydroxyl that interact with molecules of rock and dust specifically in the top millimeters of the Moon's surface." (emphasis added) —Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Ionic water as an explosive?
There is no ionic water article yet.
It should properly be discussed in this article, as there's not a lot to talk about.
However, reading some information on Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) nuclear plants, it appears that under failure conditions, sufficient heat and pressure is developed to free oxygen and hydrogen atoms, which can result in explosions (Cherynobyl, Fukushima, etc). I'm *ASSUMING* that this is ionic water. But I'm not sure. If it is not, I'd like to know more specifically at what temperature and pressure H & O atoms free up from water molecules - and how likely it is that they will 'burn' vigorously, and how 'free' they actually are from each other (enough to be separated?).
~ender 2011-03-13 21:05:PM MST
The topic of thermal decomposition of water is not related to the topic of pressurized steam explosions, and neither of these topics is related to the pseudoscientific concept of "ionic water". Water decomposes into hydrogen and oxygen at 2000 - 2500 °C. It does not 'burn' or does anything of that sort vigorously, and the products can indeed be separated. It's a well-researched process, especially with the recent interest in alternative sources of energy. --Cubbi (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
So people suggesting that the hydrogen & oxygen combining outside of containment causing an explosion are in error? It wasn't called a 'steam explosion' (which is just pressure caused by a change in state & pressure drop).
So what happens to the atoms/results after decomposition? Ie: does free hydrogen & free oxygen (or the H2 and O2 pairs) immediately re-combine into water? Or do they float free?
And can TD be mentioned somewhere in the article? (I'm tired, and not sure where I'd put it in the article, or how to word it).
Decomposition produces hydrogen and oxygen, the compounds, not the atoms (as you can see on Thermal decomposition). At that temperature, they cannot react with each other. The source of hydrogen in overheating nuclear reactors such as Three Mile Island and Fukushima is not thermal decomposition, it's the reaction of Zircaloy with water. That's the fourth unrelated topic. --Cubbi (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from Wbwater, 27 April 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
After the paragraph on "Water Industry" I request that this sentence be placed:
"Institutions such as the World Bank present the case for using public-private partnerships to improve the quality of services, including to the poor."
Not done: Your edit appears to not adhere to the NPOV policy (and seems to be like an advertisment). Your username (Wbwater) appears to show you have a conflict of interest. Wb seems to stand for World Bank. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S03:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Strange caption
A graph in this article has the caption "An estimate of the share of people in developing countries with access to drinking water 1970–2000"
The graph appears to show that large numbers of people have no access to drinking water. One wonders how they survive. The accompanying text seems to suggest that "drinking water" should read "safe drinking water"? 81.151.33.228 (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Another strange caption: The topmost picture says that it is of "Water in three states," solid, liquid and "(invisible) water vapor." Does it seem absurd to anyone else to claim that a photograph depicts something invisible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.14.247 (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Spelling error
Hi all, in the section about undrinkable water, the word "example" is misspelled (missing a "p"). Since the article is currently locked, could someone please correct it. Thanks. 125.254.30.66 (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed a contentious addition regarding the alleged methane emissions from reservoirs. The source provided is a web site of a pressure group and not a peer-reviewed scientific paper or review article. Where are the direct measurements of gas emissions? Peterlewis (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
"The advertised purity of spring and mineral water refers to absence of toxins, pollutants and microbes, not the absence of naturally occurring minerals."
This is POV the advertised purity derives from advertisers, could we please not help them. And mention that in many countries tap water is just as good, if at all possible NPOV. At least, write it such that is clear that the claim is that it 'absence of toxins pollutants and microbes'.( feelgood BS factor but i am POV)82.171.225.84 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It is not advertising if the brand name is not given. You do not want to drink 100% pure H2O, some dissolved minerals are essential to health, and pure water can be corrosive to metal pipes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.64.229 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
That sentence should be changed, because the "purity" is just a marketing conceit. As the planet becomes more polluted, there isn't much of any place the companies get their water that is really free of contamination, unless they are using melted glaciars. Also, some companies just get river water and dump in chemicals that are natural in water, elsewhere. 76.102.1.193 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
gas, vapor, steam confusion
The article obscures slightly between gas, vapor, "water vapor", and steam. And between "condensed water", "precipitation", and "steam". It's might be less of a problem if it was explained, as in the Wiki article on steam, that, "In common language it is often use to refer to the visible mist of water droplets formed as water vapor condenses..." at least I've found very many people think that steam itself is the third major state of water, and are confused when someone says water is an invisible gas. 76.102.1.193 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I find the image of an American soldier giving bottled water to a (Iraqi?) child irrelevant to the topic of the article and believe it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.120.89 (talk • contribs) - 7 July 2012
Edit request on 24 September 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The article states that "Water is a liquid at ambient conditions", but it is in fact a gas at STP. Please amend this.
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The link in the article that goes to "ambient temperate" is Standard conditions for temperature and pressure. According to that link, STP is 32 degrees F which would make water a solid. That article also says that ambient temperure usually means 77 degrees F and at that temperature water is liquid. Please explain why you think it is a gas at ambient temperature. RudolfRed (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Second paragraph of the Agricultural uses of water, the last sentence starts with "In future" and should read "In the future". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.73.110 (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Water in Earth crust
The most amount of water in Earth is in minerals in form of chrystall water. This fact fails in related Wiki articles, despite this is an old date. The water content is impotant in many aspects: isotope contant, magmetism, primordial events etc.
Sorry, I have not yet the source of this date, but I have red it 40 years ago in an old chemistry encyclopaedia about minerals. I would help to complete the real dates, me be somebody can cite a good and new source for. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emorynf (talk • contribs) 11:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Emorynf (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
at 4 °C; ice has a density of 917 kg/m3 ?
In the section [8] the statement " at 4 °C; ice has a density of 917 kg/m3 " appears.
Ice at 4oC?
This is new to me and the ref. gives no help. I have long thought water had a maximum density at 4oC
Full sentence: Its density is 1,000 kg/m3 (62.428 lb/cu ft or 8.3454 lb/US gal) liquid (at 4 °C; ice has a density of 917 kg/m3). - note the semicolon. Rewrote for clarity. The ref given seems rather non-WP:RS: Online Conversion – Density, Kidsnewsroom.org/elmer/infocentral/conversions - fun huh? :) Vsmith (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
"Water is not a fuel, it is an end-product of the combustion of hydrogen. The energy required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis or any other means is greater than the energy that can be collected when the hydrogen and oxygen recombine.[17]"
Question:
What is the ratio of energy required to split water into Hydrogen oxygen, vs. the energy received from burning hydrogen? Is this ratio more efficient then charging a cell phone battery or a car battery, or any other battery for that matter? Because i know that the energy required to charge a batter is great then the energy recovered from a battery. But what are the ratios?
This idea about drinking 6-7 glasses (2L) of water per day to maintain proper hydration is unsubstantiated nonsense. The old 8-glasses-per-day rule was predicated upon a 1950s study, ignoring the fact that said study recommended a *total* consumption equivalent to 8 glasses per day-- including all water ingested with food. The link currently backing the 6-7 glasses claim is a dead BBC page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrule (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect graph in "Law, politics, and crisis" section
The graph shown in the "Law, politics, and crisis" vaguely resembles the data described in the section's text. Suggest revising it to use the actual data points or removing it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.204.154 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 20 October 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
because it clearly is not. At 56.7 °C, the highest temperature ever recorded, at 100% saturation, the water vapor/air ratio is only 13%. This is exactly the definition of immicible.Nick Beeson (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Water Vapor is Invisible
I think that the first image should be clarified: clouds are not made of water vapor, they are made of liquid, condensed water. The image should read:
"Water in three states: liquid, solid (ice), and water vapor (invisible) in the air. Clouds are accumulations of water droplets, condensed from vapor-saturated air." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcortesucla (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Sentence on so-called fourth-phase in introduction paragraph
There's been a couple of inserts of a fourth-phase in the introduction paragraph. It seems like this is the wrong place to put such a statement. I frankly don't think it should be included in the article at all, as it's a bit niche and not well supported. Wikipedia should be reserved for established ideas supported by the literature, and marked clearly as such when it's not part of the consensus. It certainly shouldn't be a place for people to put their pet theories. I don't know if that's what's happening here, but linking to a researcher's home page as a source, and putting a single sentence in the introductory paragraph without any more material in the article, suggests something like that may be happening. Grj23 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Minimum temperature
"Dew usually form {sic} in the morning when the temperature is the lowest, just before sunrise and when the temperature of the earth's surface starts to increase.[32]" The source does say that (see chapter 3), but that was written for children. A more exact explanation is here, so it's wrong to say the temperature is the lowest before sunrise, and that the temperature of the earth's surface starts to increase. Minimum temperature is usually later, on average up to an hour after sunrise. Art LaPella (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The article states incorrectly that "The density of liquid water is 1,000 kg/m3 (62.43 lb/cu ft) at 4 °C. Ice has a density of 917 kg/m3 (57.25 lb/cu ft)."
Ice density CHANGES with temperature. Hence, it should be specified AT a temperature (or expressed as a function of temperature and pressure (and isotopic composition)) and pressure. Ice beneath 3 miles of an ice shelf certainly has a different density that that of a snowflake... Additionally, it is quite simply false that "All of the components in cells... are dissolved...". Aside from the cell wall (which arguably isn't "in" the cell) there are several other membranes which are not "dissolved". At the cellular level, solvation is not as sharp as at the macro-scale, but even DNA will crystallize out of water - and I doubt it would be characterized as "water soluble" at the high MW typical of most chromosomes. I'd think "dispersed" would be more accurate (although, again, the difference between solvated and dispersed at the colloidal scale is a bit arbitrary). What should be done: the bald statement that "Ice has a density of" should be changed to include temperature and pressure, and posssibly isotopic composition. This can be doen by incorporating it in the previous sentence or adding text to it to qualify the number. The statement about cell contents should be changed from "All" to "Most" (or 'dissolved' changed to 'dissolved or dispersed'Abitslow (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
H2O Redirect?
At the moment searching for H2O redirects to here, was just wondering if it might make more sense for it to redirect to the Properties of Water page, as a search for H2O as opposed to Water seems to indicate that someone is searching for a scientific take on it, and the Properties page is the one with the chem box on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.0.129 (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Water and life
In the section "Effects on Life", there is the statement "...water has many distinct properties that are critical for the proliferation of life that set it apart from other substances." Which "other substances" are being referred to?
"Water is considered to be neutral, with a pH of 7." Isn't that simply the result of the Arrhenius definition of acidity, where everything is related to water from the start?
Is the importance of water for life on earth due to water's intrinsic qualities? Or is it because earth life has emerged and evolved in an environment where liquid water is abundant?
Hi,
The page has been very well writen and revised, but I think a Chembox is missing. Chemboxes are so useful. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.120.55 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The section on chemical and physical properties links to the main article on water as a chemical, which is Properties of water. There is a chembox in that article. Personally, I agree an abbreviated chembox might be useful in this article, but at the moment that's where you can find it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
History of the understanding of water
Include something of Gay-Lussac's discovery of the composition of water. I'm sure more could be included here.
Scientists HIGHLY SUSPECT liquid water is present in the Saturnian moons of Enceladus, ... The use of the word "believe" in relation to science is a creation of US politics in order to drag Science down to the level of religion, where it can be dismissed. The word "believe" should not be used in relation to Science, as it denotes emotional investment in a tenet. It is not allowed in Science, and so the term of 'believe' is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.17.173 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Salt? Citation?
There's a factoid that says that 3.5% of seawater is NaCl. But neglects to mention other salts. I'd like a citation. I'm thinking someone used the phrase 'salt' to mean 'all salts' and then someone else linked it up to a specific salt (thus leading to an error).
[removed gas question, probably going to properties of water if unanswered there]
Oh yeah,
~ender 2013-05-15 19:14:PM MST
Electrolysis of water
Hello all,
the following is stated under "Chemical and physical properties":
"Water can be split by electrolysis into hydrogen and oxygen. The energy required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis or any other means is greater than the energy that can be collected when the hydrogen and oxygen recombine.[14]"
The reference is a very opinionated article from Nature News (Ball, Philip (14 September 2007). "Burning water and other myths". Nature News. Retrieved 14 September 2007.), flaming at some individuals claiming to make burning water. I do not think this article is a good source.
As that page explains, electrolysis is an endothermic reaction, meaning that it does absorb energy (in the form of heat) from the environment, which means that burning electrolysed theoretically does give off more energy than was required to be put in as electrical energy to drive the electrolysis. As far as I know, this is not used in practical applications, but it does invalidate the strong statement currently in the list of chemical and physical properties of water.
I suggest the following revised text for the point mentioned above:
"Water can be split by electrolysis into hydrogen and oxygen. This is an endothermic reaction, often used to produce hydrogen.[14]"
Please note: this is my first contribution to a talk page, so please advise me if you think I should have done something different. I am a professional scientific analyst, and want to contribute to keep wikipedia on par with the standard of knowledge from the fields (of thermodynamics and physics in this case).
Usually, for scientific material, people like linking to a good textbook or a review article in a reputable journal. Do you think that this question would be addressed in such a source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Merger Proposal
I propose that Properties of Water be merged into Water. I think that the content in the Properties of Water article can easily be explained in the context of Water, and the Water article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Properties of Water will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 2601:640:4001:266C:1D30:5C8B:C105:C107 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand the rationale, but having just re-read both articles I believe that both have merit as stand-alone article. It is probably true that Water contains too much overlapping information about the properties of water which could be reduced and the heading given a hat note to Properties of water. The main article still needs to summarise the properties. Similarly, there may be too much general introduction in Properties of water which could , with benefit, be reduced. VelellaVelella Talk 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The following table was removed since some of its entries are incorrect or meaningless, and others either redundant or are better stated in text form. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Property
Remarks
Importance to the environment
Physical state
Only substance occurring naturally in all three phases as solid, liquid, and gas on Earth's surface
Transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere by phase change
Dissolving ability
Dissolves more substances in greater quantities than any other common liquid
Important in chemical, physical, and biological processes
Density: mass per unit volume
Density is determined by (1) temperature, (2) salinity, and (3) pressure, in that order of importance. The temperature of maximum density for pure water is 4 °C. For seawater, the freezing point decreases with increasing salinity
Controls oceanic vertical circulation, aids in heat distribution, and allows seasonal stratification
Surface tension
Highest of all common liquids
Controls drop formation in rain and clouds; important in cell physiology
Conduction of heat
Highest of all common liquids
Important on the small scale, especially on cellular level
Specific Heat capacity
Highest of all common solids and liquids
Prevents extreme range in Earth's temperatures (i.e., great heat moderator)
Latent heat of fusion
Highest of all common liquids and most solids
Thermostatic heat-regulating effect due to the release of heat on freezing and absorption on melting
Latent heat of vaporization
Highest of all common substances
Immense importance: a major factor in the transfer of heat in and between ocean and atmosphere, driving weather and climate
Refractive index
Increases with increasing salinity and decreases with increasing temperature
Objects appear closer than in air
Transparency
Relatively great for visible light; absorption high for infrared and ultraviolet
Important for photosynthesis
Sound transmission
Good compared with other fluids
Allows for sonar and precision depth recorders to rapidly determine water depth, and to detect subsurface features and animals; sounds can be heard great distances underwater
Compressibility
Only slight
Density changes only slightly with pressure/depth
Boiling and melting points
Unusually high
Allows water to exist as a liquid on most of Earth
Also removed the the hazard label figure at right (which was commented out in the source) and its caption "ADRlabel for transporting goods dangerously reactive with water". --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
universal solvent
especially from biological point of view the notion of "universal solvent" is underlined in every introductory biology book. here is just one source: usgs.gov. indeed wiki has a redirection page [Universal_solvent] which mentions water. So I guess it should be mentioned here at least. Moreover I think it should be emphasized with a paragraph. "Water is a good solvent for a wide variety of chemical substances;" the phrase 'good solvent' is misleading I think --aruz (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2016
This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
At the end of the first paragraph, in the sentence: "It also occurs in nature as snow, glaciers, ice packs and icebergs, clouds, fog, dew, aquifers, and atmospheric humidity.", the words "ice packs" refer to this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_ice
This certainly does not make sense as the sentence lists all the formations of water found in NATURE and plastic bags filled with refrigerant gels are no usually found in nature. Please, correct the links.
I have just modified 5 external links on Water. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Not done: as you have not requested a change. Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Video
The video "Video demonstrating states of water present in domestic life" is an insult to the intelligence of the reader. Not only is it pathetic (a 7-year-old in a kitchen could have put this together), it mixes states (which it is supposed to be according to the legend) with uses. Secondly, if it is to include uses, then why cooking and washing, what water has hundreds of uses? I am sorry, but we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
In the Chemical and physical properties/States section, several factually false claims are made.
1. "Water also differs from most liquids in that it becomes less dense as it freezes." The density of water at 1 atm. pressure has a maximum at 3.98°C. Between 100°C and 4°C is does NOT become "less dense" (at 1 atm.). At 200 atm. there is decrease in density of liquid water with decreasing temperature - the maximum in the liquid state disappears and the solid state is asymptotically denser (i.e. the density curve is monotonic & decreasing over its entire liquid range at these relatively high pressures (the maximum disappears between 75 & 100 atm.)).
2."The maximum density of water is 1,000 kg/m3 (62.43 lb/cu ft), that occurs at 3.98 °C (39.16 °F),..." The density of water continues to increase with pressure. At 10 GPa the density is approximately 2400 kg/m3. Also, where the maximum occurs depends on pressure.
3."... the density of ice is 917 kg/m3 (57.25 lb/cu ft)." This is only true at (and near and below) 1 atm.
4."Thus, water expands 9% in volume as it freezes, which accounts for the fact that ice floats on liquid water." Only near 1 atm.
5."At temperatures from 30 °C to 60 °C water has 2 liquid states.[13][14][15]" The references cited contain two different claims. One claims that water on time scales of ~1 ns and spatial scales of ~1 nm can be characterized as having two distinct structures. The reference is to the primary literature, and the claim is controversial (as is noted in the paper itself). I have no opinion on whether or not two "structures" exist, but the cited reference does not claim that these exist at timescales long enough to have relevance to the discussion of the phases of water. That is, it is a red herring, even if it is correct. The other two references state that for some of the physical properties of water, the rate of their change with temperature changes somewhere between 40° and 60°C (that is dx/dt is linear but the slope changes around 50°C for various properties x). Neither reference claims that water exists in a state which is different at 20°C (or 1°C !) than its state at 70°C (or 99°C) {at 1 atm.}.
The first 4 problems can be fixed by qualifying pressure at or near 101 kPa (1 atmosphere), although it might be useful to mention the fact that the maximum disappears by 100 atm. (and perhaps even to point out that density at extreme pressures Mega and Giga Pascals are typically much higher than between 0 and 1000 atm. (Water at 0° and 200 atm has a density of 1010 kg/m^3).) The 5th problem is more difficult. The structure of water has yet to be fully determined, but there is a vast difference between the electronic and atomic effects at the nanoscale and the phases of water on the macroscale. And note that this article is specifically not about the H2O molecule. If atomic/molecular level details are appropriate here (I'd argue that they're not appropriate), then they should be placed in context. A change in the slope of the lines of various properties vs temperature do not prove different state (the clearest demonstration of this is the monotonic (but nonlinear) decrease of viscosity with increasing temperature), although the change suggests that some fundamental structural change is occurring (it may be statistical or quantitative rather than qualitative however). I think that is far beyond the scope of this article.67.140.179.46 (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a primarily non-technical article, atmospheric pressure should be assumed if nothing contrary is stated. There are a few awkward wordings in the article; I'll do an editing pass at some point this week. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, in that regard, the article briefly mentions the triple point of water as being defined at 0.01 degrees Celsius, but this is definitely not at atmospheric pressure. I happened to look up this page today in order to find the pressure of water's triple point and found that information sadly missing. There is a sidebar on the wiki pages for chemicals that contains many scientifically interesting features of substances (including their triple point). Is that worth adding? Emilius V (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The relevant paragraph makes three claims, in a bit of a haphazard order too, that all seem at odd with each other, although they are all cited:
"It is not clear how much water intake is needed by healthy people, though most specialists agree that approximately 2 liters (6 to 7 glasses) of water daily is the minimum to maintain proper hydration."
"Medical literature favors a lower consumption, typically 1 liter of water for an average male, excluding extra requirements due to fluid loss from exercise or warm weather."
"The popular claim that "a person should consume eight glasses of water per day" seems to have no real basis in science."
If 1 and 2 are compatible because one is about "most specialists" while the other is about "medical literature", then I'd be thankful if someone with access to the sources could tell me which specialists are being referred to, if not medical professionals.
Claim 3 could be compatible with 1 if taken in an extremely literal way since the former says 6 to 7 glasses, while the latter says 8, but that's not what the source for claim 3 (available online) is really saying. If it is a fringe view, then it should be described as such and attributed in-boxy, while if there are simply two schools of thought (one basically saying 1, the other 2 and 3), all of them should be mentioned in the body instead of making general claims about what "seems" to be the case.
That is not all, as there is another rather glaring contradiction:
"Most of this [water needed by the body to function properly] is ingested through foods or beverages other than drinking straight water."
"Also noted is that normally, about 20% of water intake comes from food, while the rest comes from drinking water and beverages (caffeinated included)."
Although claim 1 doesn't name any particular percentage, these seem like the polar opposites of each other.
To make the two issues into one, we finally have this further claim:
"The latest dietary reference intake report by the United States National Research Council in general recommended, based on the median total water intake from U.S. survey data (including food sources): 3.7 liters for men and 2.7 liters of water total for women, noting that water contained in food provided approximately 19% of total water intake in the survey."
At least it's directly attributed, so we know who to blame for this final bit of confusion.
I have just modified 2 external links on Water. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It should be noted that water is NOT Transparent, it is Translucent. The difference being that transparent means completely totally clear, and water is NOT. Water has it's own color, and will block light quite effectively. Thus it is translucent NOT transparent. Go read a Merriam Webster's dictionary before you write these articles.
It should also be noted that water is NOT tasteless. Water has a taste, specifically that of the Di-Hydrogen Monoxide chemical compound. Can we remove "tasteless" from the description? 2600:1700:5D90:62A0:F450:B740:E6B3:7DAF (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Not done. Before you give arrogant advice on writing, double check your ideas. A transparent material may well be colored, that does not appear as a limiting criterion. It is probably more the capacity of permitting image-quality transmission, which requires some adherence to Snell's law of refraction, without much scattering. Checking Merriam-Wester's online edition, this seems implied in their less technical description, I saw no mentioning of color or lack thereof. Kbrose (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
It says she goes into anaphylaxis if she drinks a sip of water and she needs adrenaline when she does. She survives on 4 small glasses of milk or orange juice a day. She had surgery on her appendix, and because of her allergy, doctors had to operate on her without using any water, however she reacted to the IV drip after the surgery as it was water based.
This seems very distinct from Aquagenic Urticaria, as this person suffers an allergic reaction if they just ingest a mere sip of water, whereas Aquagenic Urticaria is a skin condition only and not a histamine producing allergy.
According to the article, Heidi Falconer was born with her severe allergy to the H2O molecule and is famous in her area.
Does this warrant an edit to the article mentioning that the water molecule is an allergen? I find this significant, since small molecules aren't supposed to be able to cause allergic reactions by themselves (eg. haptens) however the H2O molecule is neither a large molecule nor is it a hapten (small molecule that binds to a protein or lipid carrier). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.86.104 (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This isn't trolling. It's a person with a question about whether something that's widely called "water allergy" is actually an allergy.
For the new editor: This woman has Aquagenic urticaria, exactly like those news stories say. You're right, that it doesn't involve the particular mechanism that modern medicine calls a true "allergy" (which, by the way, is all about IgE, not histamine) but you'll notice that none of the news stories say that she's experiencing that particular mechanism, either. People still use the casual name of water allergy for AU, even though it's not "really" an allergy, and that can cause some confusion. Her symptoms sound pretty typical for a severe case, especially not being able to drink a glass of water. (The inside of the mouth, throat, and even esophagus counts as "skin" in this disease.)
The actual mechanism of AU is unknown. There are several ideas (e.g., water binds to something [yes, it can do that; read "The contribution of water to protein structure" and Conformational epitope for more on that], or two things bind to each other in the presence of water, or something gets produced when the skin gets wetter, or that it really is histamine-based, or several other ideas), but nobody actually knows. It's considered a Physical urticaria, but even that could be reconsidered if someone ever finds out how it really works.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The first sentence is very long. Could you split it? "Water is a transparent, tasteless, odorless, and nearly colorless chemical substance, which is the main constituent of Earth's streams, lakes, and oceans, and the fluids of most living organisms. It is vital for all known forms of life, even though it provides no calories or organic nutrients." 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018 (take two)
This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the religion sentence is the following phrase. "Water is considered a purifier in most religions. Faiths that incorporate ritual washing (ablution) include Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, the Rastafari movement, Shinto, Taoism, and Wicca." Why is Christianity not linked? It would help if you could link it, or if you could unlink others, because I can't see why Christianity should be treated differently. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Missing from the article is some mention of how water is formed, and specifically how water was formed on Earth in such abundance, even if its just to say 'no one knows.' -Inowen (nlfte) 23:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
In the image of the three states of water, there is a mistake: vapor an invisible gas; it should be turned to this: vapor (an invisible gas). 111.88.15.221 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Content needs adding
Some brief information about the history of water needs adding to the 'History' section of the article despite there already being a 'Main article' link as bar the link the 'History' section of the article is empty. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Also, Properties_of_water#History is a very short section detailing only the history of scientific study of water. I would think a history of water section would/should include information about theories regarding when water first formed in the universe and when it first appeared on Earth. As this article focuses on human uses of water, a well-written history section should also include a history of human uses and attempts to control water for irrigation and flood control purposes. Some of that information is detailed in other sections of the article, but I would like to see it added to a history section here. Maybe I'll have time to research and write such a section someday. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving14:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Since water vapour is technically in the photo (although invisible), shouldn’t it be stating there are 3 states in the photo? IWI (chat) 03:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Now we have "all three states: ... and vapor (clouds)" which is plain wrong. Water vapour is invisible. Clouds are condensed vapour, e.g. ice crystals.--80.64.181.153 (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The caption has been clarified by now. However, water vapor is actually visible sometimes, e.g. when exhaled and condensed on an appropriate surface. Brandmeistertalk19:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The page is locked, unfortunately. The first paragraph states water is odorless, implying the author has never been severely dehydrated. In my chemistry education we clearly learned water is strongly scented like other chalcogen molecules (found in rotten eggs and garlic). People just often keep so much of it around they learn not to notice the smell. It smells wonderful, like life and nourishment and swimming and rain.
The statement should at least have some kind of qualification on it, without a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.239.7.194 (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
In my high-school chemistry course I learnt that pure water is colorless, odorless and tasteless, at least at laboratory temperature and pressure. Of course water readily dissolves many substances, and in that case its color, odor and taste depend on what is dissolved in it. If the OP, 50.239.7.194, thinks that water smells like rotten eggs or garlic, then I wonder how potable tapwater is where (s)he lives. — Tonymec (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Add "Purified water" link to "See also" section
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It's a long, complex article in which the words "purified water" are absent. For common users looking for an easy link to additional content, I felt it was useful and simplified to have the term in See also. --Zefr (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Under "On Earth", the latest edit replaced one sentence by «Earth's approximate water volume (the total water supply of the world) is 1.338 billion cubic kilometers (3.21 × 108 cu mi).» Now the word "billion" is ambiguous: in some countries it means a thousand million (and a million million is a "trillion"), in others it means a million million (and a thousand million is a "milliard"), and I often don't know which one is meant. I'd rather the number had been expressed as a decimal number multiplied by a power of ten, as it was in the case of cubic miles. — Tonymec (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Good point! Wikipedia should produce a guideline of some sort. I recently edited the lead of the article Organism using "billion" and "trillion", meaning "thousand million" and "million million" respectively; now I have to figure out how to reword it. I'm not fond of the 10n notation, since I and doubtless other readers need to convert it to "billion" or whatever to make sense of it. Perhaps I'll use parentheses: "n billion (thousand million)" and "n trillion (million million)".
The magazine The Economist regularly goes with "bn" (meaning thousand million), usually referring to dollars or euros, though it's read in many English-speaking countries.
In this particular case, there already is mention of «3.21 × 108 cu mi» so I think «1.338 × 10whatever km³» wouldn't be out of place. For the particular case of the «short billion» (109) in general, if you don't like exponential notation, you could spell out «thousand million» in full, but for larger numbers this would soon become unwieldy. Or maybe specify explicitly whether long or short billions, trillions, etc. are meant, with a link to the Long and short scales page. — Tonymec (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
P.S. For the sake of consistency, I suppose any single article could use either long or short billions but not both, similar to the guiderule about using either British or American English but not both in any single article. — Tonymec (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
See WP:Numeral: "Billion and trillion are understood to represent their short-scale values of 109 (1,000,000,000) and 1012 (1,000,000,000,000), respectively. Keep this in mind when translating articles from non-English or older sources." Rmhermen (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
When I edited this article, I did not change any of the formatting. All I did was change "321 × 106" to the proper scientific notation "3.21 × 108". The word "billion" was already there. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Illogical grammar, in my opinion, sorry to but in.
Your otherwise correctly written article says:
'.. other forms of entertainment, such as swimming,..'
This is a very common error. It is better logic to write:
'..other forms of entertainment including: swimming..,
Is it an American thing, to break ideas into clauses?
I suspect most automatic grammar checkers would disagree with me.
I like reading Wikipedia, especially the Maths and Science.
(The History is dodgy in so many places and times, but can't be told.)
Wikipedia is a wonderful example of the Human Collective Mind.
I wonder if you all believe that you think for yourselves, as do ants, btw.
'cite yur sources,' I hear you say.
It is another fault of History that only what left tangible evidence is deemed to have existed.
NaumTered 00:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
How exactly is that an error? It is a very ubiquitous and abundantly used construct, and I see it as not differring much from what you suggest, except for the punctuation (the colon which, I'd argue, is wrong or at least unnecessary in your example). Furthermore, there are no clauses in the example you've cited; a clause must containe a predicate, which there is in neither the citation nor your suggestion. Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Calories or organic nutrients?
"even though it provides no calories or organic nutrients", at the end of the first sentence, is a pointless statement. It appears that it was added just to wrap up the sentence in a way that sounds good, or something. Calories or organic nutrients is not a condition for anything, and has nothing to do with water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.214.185.212 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Water is not tasteless
In the beginning of the article, it states that water is tasteless. While it is hard to describe the taste of water, you can still taste it, although extremely slight. Even in its pure form, it is still possible to notice the flavor of water. We normally judge water as tasteless, due to what it is like compared to other drinks, but if you drink water without anything else added to it, you can notice it the taste if you try to look for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessWess99 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
If true, that would still need a good source. In reality very few people have ever tasted pure water under controlled conditions that exclude other possible sources of taste and odour. Tap water or river water all have a wide range of dissolved mineral and biological materials in them which add both taste and odour and it it these that typically gives water its taste. VelellaVelella Talk 16:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Outdated and Misleading "Perceptions of Bottled Water"
Regarding contents pertaining to the usage of bottled water, outdated and misleading information is cited to promote the false narrative that the public generally prefers bottled water over tap.
Even the inclusion of a large red non-potable tap icon is presented without meaningful reference or context.
It seems the Wikipedia page may have suffered from, or is an unwittingly subject of, misleading and false advertising campaigns on behalf of financial interests associated with bottled water.
Specific Dated Reference of note:1 March 2001
Bottled Water: Understanding a Social Phenomenon
There appear to be only three mentions of bottled water in the article. One is a mention in the section about taste, one is in a caption to a picture and one is included in a section about potable water supply but without any suggestion that the use of bottled water is good. So I am perplexed. There is no advocacy of bottled water here. Your ref however does promote a very strong advocacy against bottled water. It may be correct, but this clearly isn't the article at which it should be directed. Added it here it would simply be tilting at windmills. VelellaVelella Talk 17:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that the images on the right showing the three states of water (ice, liquid water, and water vapor) do a poor job at showing what they are supposed to do. I didn't know the top image was ice until reading the caption, and the latter two images aren't clear either. Surely Wikimedia Commons has better images than those 3; I'd propose changing them. User:Heyoostorm_talk!19:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
This sentance isnt very clear regarding Groundwater? thanks:
Water covers 71% of the Earth's surface, mostly in seas and oceans.[3] Small portions of water occur as groundwater (1.7%), in the glaciers and the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland (1.7%), and in the air as vapor, clouds (formed of ice and liquid water suspended in air), and precipitation (0.001%).[4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.10.61 (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Are the 0 °C and 100 °C accurate in both directions: melt-freeze, boil-condense?
Wikipedia claims:
At a pressure of one atmosphere (atm), ice melts or water freezes at 0 °C (32 °F) and water boils or vapor condenses at 100 °C (212 °F).
Yes this is the same I learned at high school physics class 40 years ago, but is this accurately true?
If water melts at 0 °C, does it mean it also freezes at 0 °C, or could these temperatures be slightly different?
If water boils at 100 °C, does it mean it also condenses at 100 °C, or could these temperatures be slightly different?
(And the same questions for Fahrenheit and Kelvin).
All the reputable sources assert that they are the same temperature. This is readily demonstrated by gently heating or cooling a well mixed liquid water and water ice mixture at standard pressure and continuously monitoring the temperature. This experiment forms a part of the elementary science syllabus of most secondary schools. If you can find a reputable source that disagrees, please bring it and start a discussion. Wikipedia doesn't deal in speculation of what "might" or "might not" be. VelellaVelella Talk 17:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
In my home language everyone can say "This text consist of water" about big text what haven't any sense or about text what have huge size, but text's sense we can describe literally one or two sentences.
Cause the biggest part of this text as u diluted text with water.
We might say "watered down" to describe a text whose important parts have been diluted with unimportant things but the word "verbose" would be used if too much text is used when it can be stated more simply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troother (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rumrunner3210. Peer reviewers: Kedmvl, Sltannaeemi.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aodunlam, Tguagent.
Why does this page not have a list of chemical and physical properties on the right hand side of the page like every other substance on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troother (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022
This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add the fact that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit and 100 degrees Celsius, and that it freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 0 degrees Celsius NOTIME4Ushotty (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can I put more descriptions about water on this Wikipedia page, please?
Water covers approximately 70.9% of the Earth's surface, mostly in seas and oceans. Below the surface of the Earth, freshwater takes up approximately 30% all water. Small portions of water occur as groundwater (1.7%), in the glaciers and the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland (1.7%), and in the air as vapor, clouds (consisting of ice and liquid water suspended in air), and precipitation (0.001%). Water moves continually through the water cycle of evaporation, transpiration (evapotranspiration), condensation, precipitation, and runoff, usually reaching the sea.
Water plays an important role in the world economy. Of all the water that exists on the planet, saltwater from oceans and seas accounted for roughly 97% while freshwater from rivers, lakes, streams, etc accounted for 3%. Approximately 70% of the freshwater used by humans goes to agriculture. Fishing in salt and fresh water bodies is a major source of food for many parts of the world. Much of the long-distance trade of commodities (such as oil, natural gas, and manufactured products) is transported by boats through seas, rivers, lakes, and canals. Large quantities of water, ice, and steam are used for cooling and heating, in industry and homes. Water is an excellent solvent for a wide variety of substances both mineral and organic; as such it is widely used in industrial processes, and in cooking and washing. Water, ice and snow are also central to many sports and other forms of entertainment, such as swimming, pleasure boating, boat racing, surfing, sport fishing, diving, ice skating and skiing.
"Earth's Freshwater | National Geographic Society". www.nationalgeographic.org. Retrieved 2022-02-17.
This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Water "is the main constituent of Earth's hydrosphere" is confusing and also a tautology given the article for Hydrosphere defines it as "the combined mass of water found on, under, and above the surface of a planet". The line should either be removed or reworded. Either don't state or or say it is the only constituent. 72.136.25.166 (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In first paragraph: "even though it provides no calories or organic nutrients." Edit to "even though it provides no calories nor organic nutrients" for negative conventions of grammar. 128.135.98.135 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This is simply false. It is called "the universal solvent" because it is able to dissolve many common (and uncommon) substances. I know of no solvent which is capable of dissolution of all "solutes". There are plenty of things that can exist a solutes and that are insoluble in water! 174.131.48.89 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Declined, not enough activity to justify protection at this time. There looks to be enough users available to revert vandalism on the page (which doesn't seem too frequent), so semi-protection should only be used if it becomes too much to revert. Cowman109Talk 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Celestra (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Your edit appears to not adhere to the NPOV policy (and seems to be like an advertisment). Your username (Wbwater) appears to show you have a conflict of interest. Wb seems to stand for World Bank. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 03:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Done Added a proper {{cite journal}}:
Undone per MOS:NOTSEEALSO; the link is already present in the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kwatye. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Kwatye until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rumrunner3210. Peer reviewers: Kedmvl, Sltannaeemi.
Already done Look at the phase transitions section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)