This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Footnote #5 goes to pg 4 of a lecture with unrelated content. Delete the footnote?Electricmic (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NerdGirlLouie.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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?
Is the sentence, "This is a load of bull" really necessary for the scholarly development of the article?
The first sentence doesn't seem to be a sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.20.216 (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
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.
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 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)
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)
Why no mention of Stahl???
Rosa Lichtenstein 13:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There has been a onslaught of vandalism to this page recently. I've tried to correct what I can. Keep your eyes open.
This is not very good information Devnish.S.mishra (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
"Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals, such as magnesium, gained weight when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston."
Magnesium was not first purified until the early 1800s. There's no way that it could have been used at the time to disprove the phlogiston theory. Other reactive metals (below carbon in the electrochamical series)such as iron and zinc were used to provide the example that burning metal would cause it to gain mass. If a flame is intense enough, even copper oxidizes such that the weight gain is significant.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkingfan (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the nearest modern analogue to phlogiston are actually valence electrons, not entropy. Entropy can be increased, say, by boiling water, which I highly doubt any chemist in Stahl's era would have confused with a chemical process, while metabolism, rust formation, and combustion are all redox reactions which involve the transfer of electrons.--Scigatt (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that phlogiston and even caloric have both been superceded by the concept of energy. Both are associated with energy change, and could be regarded as precursors to the modern concept of energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phicumbutfo (talk • contribs) 07:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
there appear to be several logical contradictions made in the discussion of the theory, which are then subsequently used as proofs for the challenging theories:
accepting the statement of difference as correct -- '"Phlogisticated" substances are those that contain phlogiston and are "dephlogisticated" when burned....When air had become completely phlogisticated it would no longer serve to support combustion of any material'
and that -- phlogiston is 'a substance without color, odor, taste, or mass' and 'Terra pinguis was the element which imparted oily, sulphurous, or combustible properties' as stated in the opening of the Theory section which do not contradict each other.
'...nor could phlogisticated air support life' should infact read 'nor could(DE)phlogisticated air support life'.
Hence the next paragraph's quotation is rendered fundamentally flawed in its argument:
since the theory of phlogiston holds that:
I will make the changes discussed in the next few days if i recieve no objections. Daenumen (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thanks, im new and still figuring out all the formalities of formatting on this platform architecture.
if dephlogisticated refers to (calx) ie material 'devoid' of phlogiston, then to phlogisticate a material you must ADD phlogiston to it. they are grammatically diametric opposites. hence dephlogisticated air is de-oxygenated.
the statement made in the article is linguistically erroneous, not to mention scientifically contradictory.
i think you are completely viewing this from the wrong angle.
the theory claims that all materials contain phlogiston, hence oxygen would contain phlogiston under the theory. the fact that we do not 'find' phlogiston doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
(this is an issue of the logical clarity of the article, at current, the theory contradicts itself as it has been described, and you support, and i do not mean in terms of the later discovery of oxygen. again, the theory does not define how many materials are required for phlogiston to be present, it may be 1, 2, or 1000).
if breathable air is phlogiston unsaturated air...why then does wood burn in breatheable air??? can you see that you are fundamentally wrong!
i am not contradicting that FROM THE THEORIES, NEW THEORIES EMERGED (and where very close to the original theory, ie a possible addition to resolve for greater applicability of the theory. THIS DOES NOT JUSTIFY ERRONEOUS ADDITIONS RESULTING IN THE DEMISE OF THE THEORY.
look if i add a cosmo-non-sensical constant to einsteins general relativity, yes! it wouldnt work! this is what the article is using to justify the demise of phlogiston.
if this is the historical discussion, then fine, but it should be labelled as such. it should not however be viewed as a logical or scientific demise in ANY REGARD. Daenumen (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
fruthermore, the oxygen theory and phlogiston theories are not conflated by the linguistic corrections; in terms of the null hypothesese, they are not contraditory.Daenumen (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I will attempt to prove that the discussions i have held can be shown valid, given what was known in the 18th century.
it is well accepted that:
phlogiston containing wood + dephlogisticated air --> calx(phlogiston depleted wood) + phlogisticated air.
phlogisticated air --> dephlogisticated air + phlogiston (which must be contained within a material, otherwise it is still in the air)
thus it 'should' be possible to:
calx(phlogiston depleted wood) + phlogisticated air ----> phlogiston containing wood + dephlogisticated air
we also know this is contradictory to the definitions of calx and phlogistication! HOWEVER, it can also be understood that it is NOT possible, by considering Iron and Iron Calx to show that:
Iron + dephlogisticated air --> Iron Calx + phlogisticated air
Iron Calx + phlogiston containing wood + dephlogisticated air --> Iron + Wood Calx + phlogisticated air
this can be understood as a resistance to reversibility in irons case, and irreversibility with wood (unless phlogistication of wood calx were discovered), and would be in agreement with the modern understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, without requiring modern understanding.
Hence: either the article is claiming that the scientists did not know what they were doing, or many misinterpretations have been made, ON LINGUISTIC AND ETYMOLOGICAL GROUNDS!!! Daenumen (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, to clarify,
The key difference assumed is that:
phlogiston rich air does not burn phlogiston rich wood does burn
which again are in contradiction to the Null hypothesis definitions of Phlogiston and Calx: And it is in this sense that the definitions utilised in the 'challenge and demise' are inconsistent, and hence have exacted a conclusion that phlogiston is not correct, where it is infact the alternative hypothesese namely, that phlogiston has mass, that are invalidated.
whether this is by hands of the scientists themselves, or by modern misunderstanding is the topic of discussion; where i believe the later to be true; in that it has been misunderstood when the article was compiled.
Daenumen (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
perhaps it would be most correct to refer to the process of phlogistication with regard a closed system only, such that:
the closed system of a combustion vessel containing lit wood and air is dephlogisticated once the flames have disappeared.
such that fire itself signifies a change in phlogiston, baring in mind that the flame itself is not necessarily phlogiston (as per the definition).
hence a closed system can be described as phlogisticated, ie rich in phlogiston and able to support combustion (or life), or dephlogisticated, and hence unable to support combustion (or life).
ie 'elemental fire' must be available within the materials that are combusting in order for that combustion to occur, such that the description should read:
air or wood containing phlogiston are phlogisticated and can support combustion or life. air or wood that contains no phlogiston are dephlogisticated and cannot support combustion or life.
then when considering the calx, it should be noted that a piece of wood, burnt in a vessel may not completely be combusted, such that, on the addition of 'new air' the wood may continue to burn. hence:
a piece of wood, becomes a calx when combusted in enough air to convert all the wood into a calx air is transformed into a calx when, in a closed vessel, the process of combustion has stopped prior to the conversion of all the wood into calx.
again this is information that would have been readily available to the scientists investigating phlogiston.
and once more 'phlogistication', because it sounds good. Daenumen (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
FINALLY Phlogiston could be understood by modern understanding as the 'diametrically opposite concept' to that of 'Entropy', in all cases the laws of entropy must hold true: The difference between Phlogiston and Entropy of course is in the subjective aapproach to the phenomena. 18:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Daenumen (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
In the section "Enduring aspects", reference is made to "the metabolism of living orgasms"... possibly the author had something else on his/her mind at the time... ;-)
Elio1 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Glad to note that the requisite correction has been applied by some kindly editor... it was funnier before, though... :-) Elio1 (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Both Deferent and epicycle and Phlogiston theory were theories that fit the data but were abandoned due to other reasons. 96.26.97.207 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph under Challenge and demise and the quote that follows seem to contradict each other. The article reads, "Mikhail Lomonosov repeated this experiment in 1753 and concluded that the phlogiston theory was false." By disproving Boyle, did not Lomonosov support also disprove the theory given "magnesium, gained mass when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston"? Apologies if my understanding is wrong. wneo (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I am working on the History of Science Wikipedia Education project and am currently working on this page. I will have multiple edits coming to mainly the History section of the article, but also to fix some errors that are in different places. I have already made a few changes to the Theory section. NerdGirlLouie (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I have found one source that said Rouelle brought the theory into France, but as I can't back that up and can't really find anything else on it I don't want to expand too much upon it. Any help would be appreciated NerdGirlLouie (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
In his book Medicalization of Everyday Life, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz compares the idea of phlogiston to the idea of mental illness. I think it's in the second chapter, if anyone feels this relevant to note in this article, or on Thomas Szasz.
Also, does anyone know if any notable people have compared phlogiston theory to ideas related to dark matter and dark energy? Did you know that I hate life? Also, the theory of me is out today, it is half off. ;)
Thanks. Cheers. Michael Ten (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
references:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Medicalization_of_Everyday_Life/u9qWtgitwcIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=phlogiston Michael Ten (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Phlogiston theory is one of the things that Jeff Grubb used as inspiration when designing a Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting called Spelljammer.
This has brought the word to people who have never looked at phlogiston theory and it might be worth having a section about culture and how people writing about Spelljammer's phlogiston, rather than phlogiston theory, might be influencing what people know about the word and the theory behind it. (In Spelljammer the phlogiston is actually a flammable rainbow ocean that surrounds crystal spheres that each contain planetary systems.)
I don't know of anything other than Spelljammer that uses phlogiston, but if there are other cultural references to phlogiston, it would probably be worth noting them and any differences between how those things present phlogiston and how phlogiston was theorised to work.
Obviously a new section would need to focus on the actual subject, so if other people think this is worth doing, I'd be looking to find sources that talk about Jeff Grubb referring to phlogiston theory for inspiration. (There is a section for "The Phlogiston" on the Spelljammer article, for people who want details of how that fictional version of phlogiston works.) Big Mac (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)