Talk:Hydrogen

Inaccurate to say hydrogen is "explosive" at 4% to 74% in air. This is its flammability range.

Hydrogen's explosivity is listed here as 4% to 74% in air. It's more accurate to say its limit of detonability is 18% to 59%. See, for example, https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety "inerting and purging

This should be amended in the first paragraphs of the "properties" section. Saying it is explosive at 4% gives a false impression about its risks, and feeds into a common misconception that flammability limit = detonation limit. Indeed, citation [21] refers to flammability range, and does not appear to mention explosive mixtures.51.194.9.191 (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Mention the routes of the word Hydrogen

Mention the routes of the word hydrogen (Hydro) from Ancient Greek: ὕδωρ, romanized: hýdōr, lit. 'water' (water) as well what caused the discoverer came up with the respective name reference (Gen) from Ancient Greek: γένος, 'birth' (meaning formation) Clearly showing the processes and reasoning of the making of the word (Water being composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen) Athan Kokkinos (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You probably mean "roots", not "routes". The English term for word origins is "etymology". Hydrogen can be thought of as meaning "water generator" or "water origin" which is accurate in the context of burning elemental hydrogen and oxygen (2H₂ + O₂) produces water.71.31.145.237 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Where are the molecular properties?

I figured certainly either this article would have the H-H bond distance in H2, or it would link to molecular hydrogen article. The fact that it does neither is quite disappointing.

Also I see an illustration of a spherical H atom and a cutout depicting the proton. This is really unfortunate. It should be removed. Reasons:#1 The Bohr Model is OBSOLETE, it does our readers a disservice to mention it here.#2 The sphere shows a definite surface which is misleading. The reason why the electron cloud is called a 'cloud' is because it HAS no distinct surface. #3 The surface is some UNSPECIFIED cumulative electron (charge) probability and is mostly arbitrary. Is it any more useful if it's the 80% surface? the 90%? 95%? 99%?, 99.9%? There's nothing special about the arbitrary 1.1 Angstrom diameter. #4 Atoms radii, not diameter, appears far more frequently in the chemical literature. #5 Juxtapositioning the spherical "atom" diameter in the same illustration as the much, much, much, much, much smaller proton (it can't even be shown at the same scale and that should be a good hint!) is not useful. Why not just use numbers? H radius 550 pm, proton radius 0.00085 pm (along with a note that atomic scale (and smaller) sizes strongly depend on the method, the probe, used to measure them.) 71.31.145.237 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Early universe and development of hydrogen

I am wondering whether or not mention of the development of hydrogen in the early universe is lacking. Currently, there is a mention of it in the lede, where it describes at what point in time hydrogen first existed, then at what point in time electrons joined hydrogens. This is not elaborated anywhere else in the article, which I feel could be very useful, where one could include other relevant pieces of information, such as at what point molecular hydrogen first formed. Also, the mention of the formation of hydrogens' protons do not appear in its subsequent source, and is disputed to be slightly longer than that (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis, although perhaps the article could be referring to the creation of protons, and not nucleosynthesis? It is not clear). MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 02:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)