Talk:Acetylene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal Acetylene is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?] Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.[?] Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?] Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 09670 kg, use 09670 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 09670 kg.[?] Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 8 additive terms, a bit too much. Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bryan, I note the very close similarity between this acetylene article and the one I put under "Links." This is almost too close for comfort...actually it is too close for comfort.

Perhaps, if the article were developed further, it wouldn't look so much like copyright infringement. --LMS

Not sure what to do with it other than simply rearranging the sentances more and perhaps substituting synonyms; this is pretty close to a simple list of facts, and facts are uncopyrightable. I'll give it a shot, though. -BD

Which article?

Contents 1 What's that stuff? 2 c3H6 3 wha? 4 Acetylene or ethyne 5 Why "acetylene"? 6 Why? 7 Generation and storage 8 Ethyne is far more appropriate 9 bad wording? Acetylene is not so hot. 10 Flawed Nanotechnology Concept? 11 Underwater?

[edit] What's that stuff?

What is the black substance that comes off from the flame and floats away into the air when starting up an oxy-acetelyne torch?

Lampblack. Of course, it wouldn't be surprising to find it contains buckyballs as well.

Atlant 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] c3H6

[edit] wha?

Please correct the following: a liquid does not sublime, by definition. A material can not sublime at its boiling point, again by definition (although there may be exceptions...) The boiling point can not be BELOW the melting point (under the same pressure and temperature). The completely trivial (sorry, guys) list of side combustion products is unenlightening and certainly incomplete (eg how about NOx compounds and COR or COOR where R is multitude). The opinion that the sweet smell of pure C2H2 is pleasant is not in accord with my experience. The last paragraph is in dire need of rewriting. Its only partially intelligible and has garbled syntax and grammar. One of your links states that polymerization can occur at 15 psig. So which is it? The 1st paragraph has a run on sentence that is one for the books. Is it transported in acetone? If so then why not mention it. Whats the pressure in a tank or a tanker? No mention of toxicity. 400 C is NOT a low temperature for a hydrocarbon (with multiple bonds).

Acetylene can be easily stored in pressurized gas cylinders. What do you think how people weld? They have to tanks oxygen and acetylene. The acetylene is definetely not dissolved in acetone. It is correct that acetylene may explade at 100 kPa pressure (which is 1 atmosphere) but only in the presence of oxygen. It won't do anything on its own. Also the acetylene oxygene flame is one of the hottest burning flame of any hydrocarbon we know

From my distant memory Acetylene will decompose at around 15psi spontaneously, releasing lots of energy (in an explosion). It is stored in Acetone in welding cylinders to prevent this (as it dissolves readily and thus has a lower partial pressure). There are hotter flames using different oxidisers or reducers, but acetylene + oxygen is the hottest hydrocarbon - oxygen flame AFAIK. --njh 11:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acetylene or ethyne

Why does the article claim that the chemical name of the compound is acetylene when it should be ethyne? In alkyne it states that the acetylene is officially known as ethyne which I assume is refering to IUPAC nomenclature.

[edit] Why "acetylene"?

Why is the compound even called acetylene at all? I see no similarities to the acetyl radical. No methyls, no carbonyls (not even an oxygen atom), nothing.

[edit] Why?

History and tradition, most likely some misconception by the person(s) who first discovered or synthesized it.

Look up how hydrocarbon came about from early experimenters calling them 'watered carbons' due to all the hydrogen in them which had to be an indicator of water involved in the processes that create them. Of course the assumptions were wrong but hydrocarbon stuck as the name of that class of compounds.

You might be thinking of carbohydrates? --njh 11:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generation and storage

Here's a free e-book that contains plenty of information on the gas.

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7969

I've no idea how old it is, but the text has a "feel" to it that appears to date it to the early 20th century. There's no metric units mentioned and the terms 'Sulphuretted Hydrogen' instead of hydrogen sulphide and 'Phosphoretted Hydrogen' instead of phosphine are definately old terminology. Unfortunatly it's just the text, none of the illustrations are included.

[edit] Ethyne is far more appropriate

I think we all agree that acetylene is a silly old confusing name- please change it to ethyne

Wow. Now you only need to convince hundreds of thousands of welders, etc.

Google test:

• Acetylene: 3,550,000 hits
• Ethyne: 94,100 hits
• Ethine: 12,900 hits

Atlant 17:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethine is most DEFINITLY wrong!

Now in the past women wore corsets and were not allowed to vote! Thankfully we don't all live in the past!! :D

Times are a changing!

Acetylene does not make sense from a chemists Perspective wheras ethyne DOES

Whats the alcohol used to make vodka more than just potatoe water: is it "grain alchohol" or is it ethanol!

Give it a few years mate and you'll let women vote too!

Blonde2max 18:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethyne may be the correct name to chemists, but everyone else calls it acetylene. There are already redirects in place for "ethine" and "ethyne". Just add a sentence in the article that explains the confusion between acetylene and ethyne and be done with it.

Bizzako 2:28, 02 August 2006 (MDT)

Don't change it to ethyne. I'm a chemist and I call it acetylene. Most simple, common chemical compounds are primarily known by their trivial (non-systematic) names. Check out this page - it is an online version of IUPAC's Blue Book (organic nomenclature bible). It categorically states that the name acetylene is retained. That's straight from the horse's mouth.

What WP editors seem to be confused about is the difference between rigidly systematic nomenclature and IUPAC recommendations. Although in schools, we are generally taught to always use the systematic name, this is in fact for the purposes of education and to not overload students by making them learn loads of trivial names off by heart. In scientific practice and in general commercial and industrial settings, calling acetylene by the name ethyne would usually be considered to be excessively pedantic and would most likely cause confusion.

In response to Blonde2max's comments, yes ethanol is generally called ethanol by chemists, but acetaldehyde is generally not called ethanal, nor is formaldehyde ever called methanal. Toluene is always used in preference to methylbenzene, as are many, many other compounds. Acetone, not propanone. Acetic acid, not ethanoic acid. The list goes on. Keep this page called acetylene.

Ben 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

IUPAC nomenclature rule A-3.2 notes that "The name "acetylene" for HC≡CH is retained." --Spoon! 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bad wording? Acetylene is not so hot.

"Oxyacetylene is the hottest burning of all fuel gases." What counts as a fuel gas? There are hotter stuffs: [1]. A whole bunch of poluynes go noncharted in thèrmokemistry. -lysdexia 20:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flawed Nanotechnology Concept?

In the "Uses" section:

"Acetylene has been proposed as a carbon feedstock for molecular manufacturing using nanotechnology. Since it does not occur naturally, using acetylene could limit out-of-control self-replication."

In the "Natural occurrence" section:

"Acetylene is a moderately common chemical in the universe... Natural acetylene..."

How could the two quotes square with each other? Given the second one, the first is conceptually flawed. Shawn D. 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Underwater?

We've been studying reactions in chemistry lately, and yesterday we demonstrated the synthesis and combustion of acetylene. Did I hear my teacher wrong when he said that some acetylene torches can burn underwater? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.143.208 (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Acetylene torches have their own oxygen tank. Maybe that's enough to make them burn underwater? --Itub 14:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The combination of the bottled acetylene combined with the bottled oxygen could theoretically allow it. However, on the torch tips I know of, the acetylene and oxygen streams combine externally after exiting individual holes -- the water could entrain the gases and prevent them from mixing and igniting or maintaining ignition. Shawn D. 15:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the article on oxy-fuel welding and cutting. From what it says, it seems to me that oxy-acetylene torches could work underwater, but only at very low pressures, so hydrogen is used instead. --Itub 08:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)