Talk:Phlogiston theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
The last two paragraphs of this article appear to be plagarized from the Columbia Encyclopedia. They are attributed to this source in several other on-line encyclopedias.
How is this handled in WikiPedia?
- When in doubt (of copyright violation), take it out! As I will do, or edit it. - DavidWBrooks 19:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is the sentence, "This is a load of bull" really necessary for the scholarly development of the article?
Contents |
[edit] Clarification
The article doesn't seem consistent. First Phlogiston is described as being weightless, and then metals should lose weight when the phlogiston has been burned up.
- There were many variations on the phlogiston theory, as people tried to correct some of the problems. For example, see http://books.google.com/books?q=phlogiston+intitle%3Ashort+intitle%3Ahistory+intitle%3Achemistry , particularly around page 88 (you may need a google account). Ideally, this article should be expanded to mention the variations and attribute them to their respective proponents. Itub 15:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Phlogiston is a member of the group of substances known as "Imponderable substances". It was known as an "imponderable fluid". There were many more imponderable fluids, some attatched to gravity, some to light, etc. There are no articles on the subjects of "imponderable fluids/substances" to tie all these old theories together. In addition, the biggest problem with phlogiston theory was with rusting metals (they gain weight but lose phlogiston). The main fix to this, I believe, was to fiddle with positive and negative phlogiston until the theory of conservation of mass came along. --72.73.107.103 07:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd certainly encourage you to create such an article, or to nominate it for creation within the History of Science project. I'd read it! Jouster 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming
I would like to suggest the title of this page be renamed "Phlogiston Hypothesis". Phlogiston never had the emperical weight to be called a theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.156.161 (talk • contribs)
- At the time of this theory/hypothesis's prominence, was there really enough refinement in the scientific method to assert a difference? Jouster (whisper) 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Boyle's experiment
The article contains the line "Mikhail Lomonosov attempted to repeat Robert Boyle's celebrated experiment in 1753"—what experiment does this refer to? Robert Boyle's article does not mention phlogiston. —pfahlstrom 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- There ought to be a mention of Boyle's experiment, hopefully someone has some documentation of this.--RLent 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stahl
Why no mention of Stahl???
Rosa Lichtenstein 13:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
