text:
Lismore, Scotland

Lismore (Lios Mòr, possibly meaning "great enclosure" or "garden") is an island of some 2351 ha in the Inner Hebrides of Scotland. The climate is damp and mild, with over 166 cm of rain recorded annually. This fertile, low-lying island was once a major centre of Celtic Christianity, with a 6th-century monastery associated with Saint Moluag, and later became the seat of the medieval Bishop of Argyll. There are numerous ruined structures, including a broch and two 13th-century castles.

During the 19th century, various new industries were introduced, including lime quarrying. During the early decades of the 20th century, the population exceeded 1,000, but this was followed by a lengthy decline. Although resident numbers are now less than 200, there was a small increase from 2001 to 2011. About a third of the population were recorded as Gaelic-speaking at the former date. The modern economy is largely based on farming, fishing and tourism, and the largest settlement is Achnacroish. Various shipwrecks have been recorded in the vicinity.

Etymology
In the Gaelic name, lios means "garden" or "enclosure", and mòr is simply "big" or "great", reflecting either the fertility of the island amidst mountainous surroundings, or the presence of a defined area surrounding the early monastery. One of the earliest English language references is to "Lismoir", recorded in the 16th century.

Achnacroish is from Achadh na Croise and means "the field of the cross". The other small settlements are Clachan (village with a church) and Port Ramsay, opposite Eilean Ramsay (Ramsay's isle). Most of the surrounding islets have descriptive names, such as Eilean Dubh (black island), Eilean nan Gamhna (isle of the stirks) and Pladda (flat island, from Old Norse).

Geology
Lismore is formed almost wholly from rocks of the Neoproterozoic age Lismore Limestone Formation, which is ascribed to the Blair Atholl Subgroup of the Appin Group within the Dalradian sequence. There are also some minor graphitic pelites (sometimes described as 'interbedded black slate', within the formation. The limestone country rock is intruded by a handful of NE-SW aligned lamprophyre dykes of Silurian to early Devonian age associated with the Strontian Granite Complex and by large numbers of NW-SE aligned dykes of dolerite and basalt of Palaeogene age along with a rather fewer number assigned to the ‘Loch Scridain Suite.

Quaternary deposits include glacial till and peat alongside some small patches of alluvium (clay, silt, sand and gravel) which occupy lower ground. Around the margins of Lismore are modern beach deposits and raised marine deposits of clay, silt and sand, the latter being a product of varying relative sea-levels during the Holocene epoch. The whole of Scotland was subjected to glaciation during the Pleistocene epoch. A sign of this on Lismore is the presence of rock-cut platforms close to the seashore that indicate the changing sea-levels; in some areas of the northern coast, they also betray the presence of ice by the striation marks on the rocks.

Geography
The island of Lismore lies in Loch Linnhe, north east of Mull, in the Argyll and Bute council area. It is 15 km long and about 2 km wide and oriented from SW to NE, roughly parallel to the Great Glen Fault. To the east is an arm of Loch Linnhe known as the Lynn of Lorn. Composed almost entirely of limestone, Lismore has fertile soil and an abundance of trees and shrubs, including ash and sycamore. The topography consists of sheltered furrows of land between raised areas that run longitudinally up the island's spine.

The area of the island is 2351 ha and the highest elevation is Barr Mòr in the south above Kilcheran, which reaches only 127 m. (Haswell-Smith ranks Lismore as the 50th offshore Scottish island by height).

There are several small lochs on the island, the largest of which are Loch Fiart in the southwest, Kilcheran Loch 3 km further northeast, and Loch Baile a' Ghobhainn another 4 km northeast, north of Achnacroish. These three water bodies form the Lismore Lochs Special Area of Conservation, a status which is accorded as they are amongst the best examples in Scotland of lochs on a limestone substrate. The alkaline waters are very clear and low in nutrients and support the rare Chara stoneworts C. rudis and C. curtis. C. pedunculata has also been recorded. The lochs lie longitudinally down the island and are of roughly similar size. The total surface area of all three combined is about 32 ha, and they are inhabited by trout.

Lismore is part of the ancient district of Lorne and is said to lie "in the cockpit" of this territory. In the modern day, it is at the heart of the Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Area, one of forty such areas in Scotland, which have been defined so as to identify areas of exceptional scenery and to ensure its protection from inappropriate development. The national scenic areas cover 15,726 ha, of which 10,088 ha are marine seascape, and includes the whole of Lismore, along with neighbouring areas on the mainland such as Benderloch and Port Appin, and the Shuna Island.

The views from Barr Mòr, the island's highest point, are superlative. Although Barr Mòr is only of modest height, from there "the skyscape is vast and made so not by its emptiness, but by the throng of high and pointed hills lifting out of the glittering seas and islands. Nowhere else on the Highland coast can you enjoy a view of the mountainous mainland to equal this one."

The offshore islets of Eilean na Cloich and Eilean Dubh in the Lynn of Lorn and Bernera and Dubh Sgeir in the Lynn of Morvern to the west and Eilean Gainimh to the NE are extensively used by common seals and form the Eileanan agus Sgeirean Lios mòr Special Area of Conservation. The whole island of Bernera is also an SSSI, its limestone maritime cliffs being a key feature along with the presence of the nationally scarce rock whitebeam. Creag Island and Pladda are other islets in the Lynn of Lorn. Eilean nan Caorach, Inn Island, Eilean Droineach and Eilean Ramsay are amongst another cluster of small islands off the north coast, and Eilean Loch Oscair is to the NW. Lismore Lighthouse, built by Robert Stevenson, lies on the small island of Eilean Musdile to the south west, with Lady's Rock a kilometre further away in the same direction.

Climate
Lismore has a maritime climate with cool summers and mild winters. The nearest official Met Office weather station for which online records are available is Dunstaffnage on the mainland north of Oban.

Prehistory
There are various Bronze Age cairns on the island. Tirefour Castle is an Iron Age broch of an uncertain date that is a prominent landmark on Lismore's east coast. The walls have an average thickness of 4.5 m, enclosing a circular court about 12.2 m in diameter. The wall still stands 3 m high and reaches 4.9 m in the south east. There is a second possible broch site at An Dùn, SW of Loch Fiart, and these are amongst the most southerly examples of these enigmatic fortifications. There are also various duns on the island that may date to the 1st or 2nd centuries AD.

Early Christianity and Scandinavian influence
Lismore was an important centre of Celtic Christianity from an early date. The Iona Chronicle records the death of Mo-Luóc (also known as Moluag), who was probably abbot of the Lismore monastery in 594, and of his successors Neman in 613 and Eochaid in 637. There is, however, no reason to suppose that this was a daughter house of Columba's abbey on Iona itself. Lismore probably maintained its status as the principal religious house of the Cenél Loairn during the remainder of the 7th century and the deaths of abbots Iarnlaigh c. 700, Colmán in 704 and Crónán ua Eoain in 718 are recorded in the Annals of Ulster. Five further such obituaries are recorded in the latter half of the 8th century.

Lismore was part of the kingdom of Dalriada in the 6th century and probably thereafter until the arrival of the Vikings in the late 8th century, after which it is likely the island was absorbed into the Norse-Gael Kingdom of the Isles. Magnus Barelegs had established direct Norwegian overlordship over this sprawling sea kingdom by 1098. In that year, Edgar of Scotland signed a treaty with Magnus which settled much of the boundary between the Scots and Norwegian claims in these islands. Edgar formally acknowledged the existing situation by giving up his claims to the Hebrides but there were a few exceptions including Luing and Lismore, which were retained by the Scots.

Medieval period
Lismore later became the seat of the medieval Bishopric of Argyll. Before the late 12th century the Bishopric of Dunkeld included all of Argyll, but sometime between 1183 and 1193 they were separated, as apparently the then Bishop John Scotus was unable to speak Gaelic. Lismore became the seat of the new bishop, and he and his successors were known as Episcopi Lismorenses but a papal mandate in 1249 proposed that the see be transferred to "some more secure and accessible place". At least by 1268, Laurence de Ergadia became Bishop of Argyll and served in that position until his death in 1299.

In the event St Moluag's cathedral at Clachan maintained its position until 1507, when the diocese's centre was moved to Saddell in Kintyre. It was burned down during the Reformation and only the choir survives in greatly altered form, the nave and western tower having been reduced to their foundations. There is also evidence of an enclosure, probably medieval.

The ruins of Coeffin Castle stand on the summit of a rocky promontory on the coast west of Clachan. There is the outline of an oblong hall-house, which may be 13th century, and an irregularly shaped bailey, likely of a later date. A tidal fish trap, of unknown age, is located in the small bay to the south-east of the castle. To the north-east of the castle are the remains of a stone-walled fort.

The remains of Achanduin Castle west of Achnacroish is also thought to date back to the 13th century. Built by the MacDougalls around 1290, who held it throughout the 14th century, the castle is then thought to have been held by the Bishops of Argyll until the mid 16th century. The castle overlooks the island of Bernera.

In the 16th century Donald Monro provided a brief description of the island in Scots: Lismoir, ane iyle quher leid ure is, fornent Douard. This iyle is four myle lang, with ane paroche kirke in it. ("Lismore, an isle where lead ore is, opposite Duart. This isle is four miles long, with a parish church on it".) Monro's Description of the Western Isles of Scotland also mentions Eilean Droineach and Eilean Ramsay. He stated that both were "good for corn and store" and had many "Elders and thorns" and that Eilean Droineach was the "habitation of Bishops and Nobles in auld times". However, the view of Munro (1961) is that this last comment more properly applies to the larger "Ramsay Isle".

Lismore is the home of the Clan MacLea, who claim kinship with the Livingstone family, and who were recognised by the Lord Lyon in 2002. The Plod nam Baran, which is adjacent to the site of Saint Moluag's church, may be the burial ground of its clan chiefs, or "barons". The current chief, Niall Livingstone of Bachuil, is the "Coarb of Saint Moluag" and since the 16th century or earlier, the chiefs have been hereditary keepers of the saint's crozier or pastoral staff known as the Bachuil Mòr.

18th to 20th centuries
In 1707, the Acts of Union merged England and Scotland, and Lismore became part of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Thereafter taxes on whisky distillation rose dramatically, and much of Scotland's distillation was either shut down or forced underground until the 1823 Excise Act provided a legal framework for the industry. The remains of at least two illicit stills from this period have been found on Lismore.

In 1749 the ruins of the old cathedral were trimmed down from their remaining height, given a roof and turned into a parish church with a bell tower.

In the 19th century lime was quarried, particularly on the west coast. The ruined remains of the quarriers' cottages can still be seen on Eilean nan Caorach and Inn Island, and old lime kilns can be seen at Sailean, Port na Moralachd and Port Ramsay; the last lime was produced in 1934. The remains of another two kilns can be seen at Kilcheran near Lismore Seminary, a Roman Catholic divinity school that was in operation from 1803 to 1828 at a time when the other inhabitants of the island were staunchly Presbyterian.

John Stuart McCaig, the architect of McCaig's Tower in Oban, was born on Lismore in the 19th century as was the folklorist Alexander Carmichael. Overlooking Lismore Bay is a Celtic Cross, a memorial to Waverley Arthur Cameron, the son of Duncan Cameron, inventor of the "Waverley" nib pen and the owner of The Oban Times newspaper. Waverley was drowned in 1891 when his yacht foundered off the coast nearby.

There have been various other shipwrecks in the vicinity. In 1889 the paddle steamer Mountaineer lived up to its name by clambering onto Lady's Rock, the damage to which was still visible in 1995. In 1905 the MacBrayne steamship Clydesdale hit the same obstruction in a Force 6 wind. The harbour patrol craft Appletree was sunk in a collision with an RAF pinnace east of the Lismore light in October 1940 with, according to one report, the loss of two lives. The trawler MFV Solway Firth foundered south of this position in 1977.

Lismore, like other Hebridean islands, has suffered from depopulation since the 19th century, in large part due to the Clearances. In 1798 there were 900 people living on the island and 1399 by 1841. Over the next 40 years the population more than halved to 621. By 1961 there were only 155 residents, and by the time of the 1991 census there were just 140. There are various examples of abandoned townships, such as Coille nam Bard. In the 2001 census, the population had risen slightly to 146, over 45% of whom were over 60 years old, making it the Scottish island with the oldest population.

Present day
The island's population was recorded as 192 at the 2011 census, an increase of over 30% since 2001. During the same period Scottish island populations as a whole grew by 4% to 103,702. The majority of the resident working population are engaged in farming or fishing, and sheep raised on the island have a reputation for quality. Majority of the land is owner occupied.

Prior to 2007 there was no mains supply of drinking water on the island, water being supplied instead from wells and springs. In that year the then Scottish Executive announced plans for a mains supply to be provided at a cost of £1 million: a pipe was laid under Loch Linnhe and work was to begin on laying about 10 km of pipes across Lismore. However, Scottish Water later decided to supply water from boreholes instead.

The island is linked to the mainland by two ferries: a Caledonian MacBrayne vehicle ferry making the crossing to Oban and a council passenger ferry making the shorter crossing from Point, at the north-eastern tip of the island, to Port Appin. The B8045 is the main road on the island, which it traverses from beyond Kilcheran in the SW, to Point in the NE.

Facilities on Lismore include a shop which is also a post office, and a café. Bicycles may be hired at Point. Explore Lismore provide Land Rover Tours and the island's only taxi service. There is no petrol filling station. In 2001 29% of the population of the island spoke Gaelic and maintaining this heritage is one of the aims of the Comann Eachdraidh Lios Mòr, the Lismore Gaelic Heritage Centre.

Lismore is part of the multi-member ward of Oban, Lorn and the Isles in the Argyll and Bute council area. The island is represented by Jenni Minto of the SNP at the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh who was elected for the Argyll and Bute constituency in 2011, and by Brendan O'Hara of the SNP at the Westminster parliament in London.

In 2023, the sole shop on the island, which is also the post office, was threatened with closure because the person running it had decided to return to school teaching. The Lismore Community Trust, a local charitable organisation, organised a campaign to keep it open, and with the help of residents, holiday home owners and tourists raised more than their target of £70,000 to do so.

Myths and culture
"The Piper's Cave" is a local story about a piper and his dog. According to Alexander Carmichael, the piper entered the Uamh-Chraidh (the "cave of pain") and intended to exit through the Uamh-an-duine (the "cave of the man"). The sounds of his bagpipes could be heard throughout the island. When the piping ceased the dog emerged sightless and hairless but the piper was presumed to have drowned in one of the cave's impassable pools and was never seen again. His lament is recorded as:

 * Mis air airin baidh 'us burrail           I was drowning and howling
 * Measg nan glumag eagalaich            Amongst the horrid pools

Another story has St Moluag and St Mulhac conducting a boat race across the Lynn of Lorn with the first to land on Lismore having the right to found a monastery there. Realising that he was going to lose, Moluag cut off his finger and threw it ashore north of the broch of Tirefour, enabling him to claim victory.

The Book of the Dean of Lismore was compiled by the titular dean, James MacGregor, in the 15th century. Held in the National Library of Scotland, it is "one of the greatest treasures" of early Gaelic writing. However it was written in Fortingall, Perthshire and its connection with Lismore itself, if any, is uncertain.

title: Lismore, Scotland


text:
George Jessel

George Jessel may refer to:

 * George Jessel (actor) (1898–1981), American actor
 * George Jessel (jurist) (1824–1883), English jurist
 * George Jessel of the Jessel Baronets

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: George Jessel


text:
Talk:Standard temperature and pressure

0oC vs. 25oC
perhaps some applications of calculations at these two temps could be discussed. if i recall correctly, STP is used for most gas calculations (e.g. PV=nRT) and SATP is used for thermodynamic calculations (e.g. free energy). Bubbachuck 14:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

101325 Pa vs. 105 Pa
In this page it's said:

"In chemistry, the term standard temperature and pressure (abbreviated STP) denotes an exact reference temperature of 0°C (273.15 K) and pressure of 1 atm (defined as 101325 Pa)."

But in this page:

http://goldbook.iupac.org/goldbook/S06036.html

I read that it's 105 Pa instead of 1 atm:

"STP Abbreviation for standard temperature (273.15 K or 0 °C) and pressure (105 Pa); usually employed in reporting gas volumes."

 * I think the 105 Pa is only a (very rough) approximation. Eric119 04:55, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

http://goldbook.iupac.org/goldbook/S05910.html provides a partial explanation. Rich Farmbrough 20:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Local Military Std
i have moved that here:

The Army Standard Metro atmosphere, now used only in ballistics, defines sea-level conditions as 750.000 mmHg of pressure (29.5275 inHg, 99.9918 kPa), 59 °F (15 °C), and 78% humidity. (Ref: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground)

as Wikipedia is a international project any National Std should not been given prefference, perhaps if some wants to introduce, he should make a page of US or US mil std....

(Wilhelm.peter 14:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC))

 * Whether or not it is a national standard (and I doubt that this one is) is irrelevant, it isn't a matter of giving preference, it is one of the "standard conditions" used. It belongs here. Gene Nygaard 00:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

i searced a little: The ARMY STANDARD METRO atmosphere was established at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground and was used for many years by the U.S. Army as the atmosphere for which all standard firing tables were computed. This standard atmosphere was also adopted by the manufacturers of commercial ammunition, and it is still in use by the major manufacturers of commercial ammunition and bullets. In the Army Standard Metro, the atmosphere at sea-level has a temperature of 59 degrees F., a barometric pressure of about 29.53 inches of mercury, and a relative humidity of 78 percent. The atmospheric density under these conditions is about .0751 pounds per cubic foot.

it still looks like a National Std. if it is international used than I agree with Gene, but I have not been able to proove that perhaps Gene or someoene else could check?

its also loking as it is based on 750mmHg and the inch values are calculated found that at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/s/st/standard_conditions_for_temperature_and_pressure.htm :

The Army Standard Metro atmosphere, now used only in (The science of flight dynamics) ballistics, defines sea-level conditions as 750.000 mmHg of pressure (29.5275 inHg, 99.9918 kPa), 59F (15degC), and 78%  (Wetness in the atmosphere) humidity. (Ref: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground)

as seen above area of use is not compleetly clear as well, can wee keep it here at the discussion, till we worked all out?

If we consider National Standards to be published here or elsewere, also this national Std should be considered:

U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976 United States Committee on Extension to the Standard Atmosphere (COESA) Parameter: Atmospheric density, temperature, and pressure

Brief Description: The work of the U.S. Committee on Extension to the Standard Atmosphere (COESA), established in 1953, led to the 1958, 1962, 1966, and 1976 versions of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere. These models were published in book form jointly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the U.S. Air Force. Altogether 30 U.S. organizations representing government, industry, research institutions, and universities participated in the COESA effort. Based on rocket and satellite data and perfect gas theory, the atmospheric densities and temperatures are represented from sea level to 1000 km. Below 32 km the U.S. Standard Atmosphere is identical with the Standard Atmosphere of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The U.S. Standard Atmospheres 1958, 1962, and 1976 consist of single profiles representing the idealized, steady-state atmosphere for moderate solar activity. Parameters listed include temperature, pressure, density, acceleration caused by gravity, pressure scale height, number density, mean particle speed, mean collision frequency, mean free path, mean molecular weight, sound speed, dynamic viscosity, kinematic viscosity, thermal conductivity, and geopotential altitude. The altitude resolution varies from 0.05 km at low altitudes to 5 km at high altitudes. All tables are given in English (foot) as well as metric (meter) units. The U.S. Standard Atmosphere Supplements, 1966 includes tables of temperature, pressure, density, sound speed, viscosity, and thermal conductivity for five northern latitudes (15, 30, 45, 60, 75), for summer and winter conditions.

Availability: In hard copy from the National Technical Information Office, Springfield, Virginia (Product Number: ADA-035-6000). The Fortran code can be obtained from Public Domain Aeronautical Software. A DOS executable and turbo pascal source code is available from Small World Communications.

References: U.S. Extension to the ICAO Standard Atmosphere, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1958.

U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1962, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1962.

U.S. Standard Atmosphere Supplements, 1966, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966.

U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1976.

there is work ahead, opinions please

Wilhelm.peter 16:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

New versus Old
Based on my 30 years of experience as a chemical engineer working in Europe and in the USA, I offer these comments:

 * What this articles labels as being the "Old" standard is still being used far, far more often than what is labeled as being the "New" standard. Very few practicing engineers are even aware of the "New" standard.  I would suggest deleting the words "New" and "Old" and simply state that both are used.

mbeychok 22:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are literally a dozen or more definitions of standard temperature and pressure conditions in use in the metric world as well as in the USA. Besides national preferences, many industries prefer their own standards.  This article should include a very prominently displayed caution that whenever publishing any gas flows (or quantities, or data of any kind) that are dependent upon  reference or standard conditions of temperature and pressure, then the author should clearly state the specific temperature and pressure conditions that apply.

 * Hi! If you wish, you can go ahead and be bold in making changes like that, since they don't seem to be very controversial, and you probably know what you're mean best.  If anyone disagrees, one can always go to the talk page afterwards.  I can help out too, if you like.  Happy editing! --AySz88 ^  -  ^  03:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Complete Revision
I have just completely revised this article so that it accurately reflects current usage. I also added a good many categories (other than simply chemistry and measurement) because the subject matter applies to many physical science and engineering fields. Further, I removed the external link to Normal temperature and pressure because it also needs to be updated, which I will do by redirecting from that article to this one. Finally, I deleted discussions of other subject matter which were really not directly apropros to the subject matter of this article.

The categories listed at the bottom of the edit page for this article includes many categories in languages other than English. I don't know what to do about them ... so I left them there unchanged. mbeychok 19:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for working on this article! I'll try to help to wikify it (put it into the same kind of format as other Wikipedia entries) soon; meanwhile, feel free to continue editing if you wish.
 * By the way, the list on the bottom aren't categories, they are for the "this article in other languages" section at the bottom of the left sidebar. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

0oC vs. 25oC
There appears to be a typo in the phrase "gas volumes as being 0 °C (298 °K)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.99.53 (talk • contribs) 11:29, February 4, 2006 (UTC

 * Thanks for picking that up. It has been fixed.
 * mbeychok 23:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments on revisions made by Crissov
First let me thank you, Crissov for your editing help. I really appreciate you're taking the time to help. I have made changes to your revisions as follows:

 * 1) I disagree with using the term "English system of units" to replace "customary USA units".  Many readers will interpret English system to mean Imperial system and that will cause confusion.  As you know, there are many differences between the Imperial system and the customary USA units.  Two notable examples: the Imperial gallon is 20% larger than the US gallon, and the Imperial billion is 1012 whereas the USA billion is 109.
 * 2) The NIST is a national institute of the United States.  Altho knowledgeable scientists and engineers worldwide know that fact, there are many unknowledgeable readers  for whom I think that we should use U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology when we spell it out.
 * 3) 15 °C is equal to 59°F rather than being approximately equal, so I changed it back to that.
 * 4) I don't see where putting parentheses around the °C, °F, kPa, psia, and % RH in the column headings of Table 1 added anything beneficial to the table.  In my opinion, that simply tends to clutter the table, so I removed the parenthesis.
 * 5) Altho chemists and physicists are acclimated to using the term "mol" for a gram mole, there are thousands of engineers (chemical engineers in particular), scientists and environmental regulators who are acclimated to explicitly differentiating between gram moles, kilogram moles (i.e., kgmol), and pound mols (i.e., lbmol) who might be misled  by the use of "mol" instead of gram mole or gmol. I think is is very important to use the more explicit term "gmol" instead of "mol" so as to avoid mistakes. As a matter of interest, I am amazed that there is not yet any mention that I could find of the term "lbmol" or "pound mol" anywhere in the Wiki as yet.
 * 6) I don't agree with your exclusion of the list of the acronyms used in Table 1 which included their spelled-out names.  I am sure that many of those acronyms will not be known to all readers of the article.  Some of them may not even know what ISO or IUPAC means much less all of the others.  So I have reinstated that list.
 * 7) Don't you think that your method of listing the acronym on one line and the spelled out name on another line just makes the list longer for no really good reason?  I think the original listing of the acronym followed by the spelled out name on the same line was a good deal more compact.
 * 8) I made a number of other very inconsequential changes that I really can't remember well enough to list.

I fully realize that some of my comments above may not be in line with Wiki style but I am sure that there is room for some discretion. I also believe that it is important to keep in mind (as I said above) that there are many engineers, scientists and others who have adopted certain usages that may not yet be recognized in the Wiki styles. In the short time that I have been involved in Wiki, I have gotten the distinct feeling that evolution and development of the Wiki did not involve many experienced chemical engineers.

Wow! It is now 1:30 AM in California and that is late for an 80-year old retired engineer!! Good night to all.< mbeychok 09:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[I changed the imperial and US billion from 109 and 106 to 1012 and 109, right into the text. This is one point where the Wiki system may be a bit too liberal: I can make changes not only to articles but to other peoples' comments so that the impression is as if my words were written by the original author. -- An visitor remaining anonymous]

 * Thanks for fixing my mistake. - mbeychok 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup is in progress
Cleanup is in progress with the editing help of User:Crissov. I can not find a tag that says that, so I am removing the cleanup tag. I hope that is okay. mbeychok 18:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Standard conditions symbol
I do not hope I am too off-topic here. In some situations a special symbol is used to mean "standard". The symbol in question looks like an 0 with a horizontal line through it. Not identical (but somewhat similar) to the Greef letter Θ. It can be seen here, in a symbol for standard molar entropy. In a Danish-language high-school textbook I have, the symbol is called "the standard sign" (standardtegnet).

Does anyone know information about this symbol? Is it included in Unicode (where)? /217.116.235.34 10:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * User:217.116.235.34:
 * The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) uses something fairly similar to your Danish symbol to denote the standard state of thermodynamic properties. For instance, NIST denotes the standard entropy of a chemical as So and the standard enthalpy of formation of a chemical as fHo. The "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" published by CRC Press, denotes the standard entropy of a chemical as So and the standard enthalpy of formation of a chemical as ΔHfo. That usage of a o to denote the standard state seems to be used mostly in the fields of chemistry and chemical thermodynamics. - mbeychok 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Names of the standard conditions would be helpful
Hi! I think that the name of each standard condition should be added if possible, so that the reader can see whether a certain temperature-pressure-humidity combination is called "Standard Temperature and Pressure" (STP) or "Normal Temperature and Pressure" (NTP) or something else. Thanks...

 * The basic point of the whole article is to show that there simply is no universally accepted STP or NTP or any other such name. As shown in the table, various organizations and entities have all established their own different definitions for those names.  As stated in the article, "The table makes it quite obvious that it is absolutely necessary to clearly state the temperature and pressure reference conditions whenever expressing a gas volume or gas volumetric flowrate." - mbeychok 17:15, 29

March 2006 (UTC)

 * I see your point, but I think the information about standard names would still be helpful in some cases: For example, the conditions used when I was at school here in Finland were officially called NTP conditions and I'd like to find out what exactly those conditions were. So, if the list of different standard conditions in the article had names (STP, NTP etc), I would have a more limited subset to choose from when trying to find out what the NTP in that case referred to. (Well, my best guess is 101,325 kPa and 20 degrees Celsius.)

 * I don't know what more to tell you. It is not up to you or I to decide which standard conditions shall be labeled STP or NTP.  It is up to the entire community of engineers, chemists, scientists, professional organizations, etc. to form a concensus and define those conditions.  As shown in the article as it now stands, it is quite obvious that there is no such consensus.  The only prudent thing you or I can do is to always clearly state what T and P we used as reference conditions whenever we write a report, publish a technical article or book, or send each other emails. It is very easy to to be mis-understood if we are not careful.  For example, just above you refer to 101,325 kPa whereas I, as an American, use 101.325 kPa for atmospheric pressure ... so you see we must even be careful to explain what delimiter we use as a decimal point indicator. To me, 101,325 means one hundred and one thousand, and three hundred and twenty-five. To you, it means one hundred and one, and three hundred and twenty-five thousandths. Regards, - mbeychok 09:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Wikify tag by Stevertigo
I am at loss to see why you feel this article needs more Wikifying.
 * It has a lead-in paragraph which includes the article title in bold print in the opening sentence.
 * It has a navigation box following the lead-in.
 * It has a great many words in the text that have wikifying links to other Wikipedia articles.
 * The table is a wikiclass table.
 * There are a host of internal wikifying links, one for each of the specific organizations listed in the main table of data ... and it is important that those be closely associated with and "tied" to the table.
 * There is an external links section at the end of the article for generalized information available from external sources
 * There is a reference list with a great many references using the Wiki methodology of and
 * A number of relevant categories have been specified for including the article.

It seem to me that all of the above is completely in line with the Guide to layout.

If you will tell us what you think needs more wikifying, I for one shall do my best to do so. However, until then, I think the article is wikified as it now stands and I am therefore removing the your tag.

Partial reversion of edits by User:Sadi Carnot
Sadi, I have partially reverted and revised your recent edits of this article. In my opinion, your comments were too focused on the the definition and usage of STP from the viewpoint of chemists and thermodynamicists. Standard reference conditions are used throughout industry and other fields for many reasons other than for defining "experimental measurements". For example, standard reference conditions are used: to define gas and liquid flow measurements in gas delivery contracts by pipeline companies among others; to define test conditions during the performance testing of equipment such as compressors and gas turbines; and very widely used by engineers to define industrial process material balances. I don't agree that such usage should be characterized as "Technicalities". I know that you didn't intend to be disdainful of usages other than those of the chemists and thermodynamicists, but that is how your editing was perceived by me. I also don't think that your sentence about being "earth bound" is at all necessary nor does it add any substantive knowledge to the article.

Yes, STP has for many years in the past been defined as 273.15 K and 1 atmosphere, but that is no longer true. The IUPAC definition is currently 273.15 K (0 °C) and 1 bar. And one of the International Standard Organization's (ISO) current definitions is 15 °C and 1 atmosphere. The IUPAC and the ISO are both internationally accepted.

I don't see how the various reference conditions documented in Table 1 can be interpreted in any other way other than as done in the lead-in paragraphs, namely: The available data on the various definitions of standard reference conditions clearly indicates that currently there is no universally accepted definition of the standard conditions of temperature and pressure.

Besides partially reverting and revising your edits, I also re-wrote some of my previous edits so as to be more encyclopedic and less informal. I thank you for bringing that to my attention. Regards, - mbeychok 21:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

99.992 kPa ≈ 1 bar is correct as is. Please don't change again.
Please read these opening paragraphs from Manual of Style:

This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making the encyclopedia easy to read by following a consistent format — it is a style guide. The following rules do not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style. One way is often as good as any other, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit. In this regard, the following quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice:

 * Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.

In this vein, editors of new and existing articles should strive to have their articles follow these guidelines.

Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so: the joy of wiki editing is that Wikipedia does not require perfection.

[The bolding in the above has been added by User:Mbeychok for emphasis.]

Also please read the the Table of mathematical symbols. - mbeychok 14:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * They're all ≈ 1 bar. There's nothing particularly distinguishing this one from any of the others which are not exactly one bar.  There's no good reason to round this off to while not rounding off ≈ 100 kPa or ≈ 15 psi.  There's no particular reason to include the non-cgs and non-SI bars in any case.

 * Don't know how your rambling about style guides has anything to do with the rough approximation to 1 bar. Gene Nygaard 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * So now 99.992 kPa ≈ 1 bar is a rough approximation? Just what would it take for you to call it a good approximation rather than a rough approximation? Most people who are not obsessive about styles would be satisfied to accept 99.992 kPa as being equal to 1 bar for all practical purposes ... the very thought of that probably makes you shudder. The reason that I asked you not to change it again is because you had removed the ≈ 1 bar completely in one of your previous edits. That is also the reasoning for my providing the above direct quote from the Wikipedia Manual of style ... which you have dismissed out of hand as "ramblings". I am sure that the people who wrote that Manual would love to know that you think it is "rambling". Gene, I want to acknowledge as I have done before that most of the edits you have made in this article and others were correct ... but you sure do tend to go overboard sometimes. Its a bad habit. - mbeychok 05:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is a rough approximation, and there is no good reason not to express all the conversions to the same precision. Why not, for example, "0.99992 bar" and "100 kPa"?  Why not "101.325 kPa ≈ 1 bar"? Gene Nygaard 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Or, if you are going to go by that "for all practical purposes" reasoning, why are you considering 750 mmHg as distinct from 100 kPa? Gene Nygaard 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

kPa or Pa-ideal gas law
when using the ideal gas law to have an outcome in kgmol (or kmol) kPa should be used? no? - 2nd year chem eng Student (adeliade, Australia) Someone with more expertise may be able to rectify with more confidence than me??

 * Not necessarily so. It depends on the units used for the gas constant R. What is necessary is to always do some dimensional analyis and see that that all of the units used in your gas law calculation are consistent. See Units conversion by factor-label article. - mbeychok 16:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

With this in mind it appears to me that there is a typo in the section "Molar Volumes of Gas". In the lines of text such as   V ÷ n = 8.3145 × 273.15 ÷ 101.325 = 22.414 m³/kmol at 0 °C and 101.325 kPa absolute pressure the units of the left hand side do not match the right hand side, given than n is earlier defined as number of kgmol.192.102.214.6 17:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The units on both sides of (V / n) = (R T /P) are:

 * m³ / kgmol = (m³ • kPa) / (kgmol • K) (K / kPa)

 * If we cancel out similar units in the numerators and denominators of the right hand side, we get the same units as the left hand side, namely m³ / kgmol. Is that not correct? - mbeychok 21:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

STP vs SATP
I'm confused by the article... I was searching for the values for SATP, which as learned from high school, I remember as 25oC... however, SATP redirects to STP, and I was misled... only temporarily, however... could a better distinction be made, or is the term "SATP" not in use anymore? Kareeser|Talk! 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Kareeser, the best advice I can give you is to read the article again, slowly and carefully. In particular, study Table 1. One of the primary purposes of the article is to show that there are many, many different sets of standard conditions in use today by various organization, agencies and other entities. In fact there are so many, that using terms such as STP or SATP is quite meaningless unless you specify exactly what temperature and pressure you are using as the reference or standard conditions.

 * To specifically answer your comment, to the best of my knowledge, SATP is in some use today but it it is not very common .. and if you use it, you should carefully state what reference temperature and pressure you are using. It is a mistake to assume that people will understand what your reference conditions are unless you spell them out. I hope this helps clear up your confusion. - mbeychok 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Document Organization
This is a good source of information, but as I have noticed, and personally experienced. The current way the document is organized leads to quite a bit of confusion. We need to find a way to better organize. I would love to spend a day rearranging the text, but I lack in depth understanding of the more complex Wikipedia markup that would be necessary. What can be done about this? Does any one person have a good Wikipedia markup tutorial. And how does one go about adding a document to the "Article of the Week" project? - Turbinator 16:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

 * It is a good idea, before making any extensive major revisions, to first discuss here on this talk page exactly what you propose to do ... and see if a consensus can be reacehd. That may also encourage others to to help you do the markup or even to do it for you. Regards, - mbeychok 01:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Class rating to A
Laurascudder: I am not a physicist so I will not dispute your importance rating of B. However, from what I read in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment article, it does indeed deserve the Class A rating so I reverted the class rating to A. Regards, - mbeychok 04:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

100 kPa and 101.325 kPa
I'm a civil & environmental engineering student, and before my most recent revision, the opening of this article made it seem like standard pressure is now universally used as 100 kPa. This is not true: probably mostly influenced by the EPA, environmental engineering students use 101.325 kPa as standard pressure, at least here in Iowa. My revision makes it clear that there is not 1 universally used definition, but even my revision is not perfect and if it could be improved, that would be nice.

-One corollary to this is that if you want 1 mol of gas to occupy 22.414 litres of space at STP, you MUST use 101.325 kPa - if you use 100 kPa, then you get 22.711 litres (unless of course you modify R from 8.3143 cubic-meter pascals per mole-kelvin).JW 07:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * With all due respect, you seem to have missed the entire point of the article ... which is that there is no universally accepted set of standard conditions. The second paragraph in the lead-in paragraph states: The available data on the various definitions of standard reference conditions clearly indicates that the IUPAC's STP is not a universally accepted definition of the standard conditions of temperature and pressure. How much clearer can that be? All one has to do is read more than just the first paragraph.

 * The tabulation included in that table makes the same point quite clear.

 * I see no point in adding that sentence about American environmental engineers and am deleting it. - mbeychok 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Value of R
User:JW, I moved your sentence about the US Standard Atmosphere's value of the gas constant R to the bottom of that section ... rather than leaving it in the middle of the two equations where it interrupted the flow of the section. Also please read Gas constant and especially Gas constant. - mbeychok 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

CODATA
Please... add CODATA

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Results?search_for=volume+molar values to volume molar. Thanks from Brazil. - user Mago® from wiki-pt

 * I added your above link to the CODATA values on the NIST wbesite as a reference in the "Molar volume of a gas" section of this article. - mbeychok 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes! Very good! user Mago® from wiki-pt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.161.59.67 (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

too complicated
it is a little annoying that i have to read the page for a minute to get crucial, basic, and the most commonly used information. this is what i was looking for: http://chemistry.about.com/library/glossary/bldef855.htm. please make the info 90% of people want to see more clear and focused intead of obscured in midst of a winding paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.4.31 (talk • contribs) 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Gosh, I am sorry you had to spend a minute to read this article ... a whole 60 seconds!! Wow!! Yes, the one-liner in About.com is indeed simple ... it is also simply wrong! You really should tell Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D. (who wrote that one-liner) to read this article and please tell her to take more than one minute doing so.

 * By the way, comments on Talk pages don't get inserted in the middle of the page. They get inserted at the bottom of the page. And they should be signed. All you have to do is write ~ and your name will get signed and dated automatically. Isn't that a great way to save time?? It is also useful if one uses capitalization where it is meant to be used ... it makes a better impression on those who read the comments.

 * All that aside, the main message of this articles is that the available data on the various definitions of standard reference conditions clearly indicates that currently there is no universally accepted definition of the standard conditions of temperature and pressure. And also it is absolutely necessary to clearly state the temperature and pressure reference conditions no matter what standard or other name you give those conditions. - mbeychok (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Layout of Table 1
You have now changed Table 1 twice from its original form which has been there for over two years (since March 11, 2006) without any changes or complaints. This is exactly why you were very recently denied your request to become an administrator! Your belief that you know better than anyone else and your refusal to accept anyone else's opinion.

You argued with everyone who opposed your request to be an administrator just as you are now arguing with my polite request that you cease changing the layout of Table 1.

Once more, would you please change Table 1 back to its original layout? If not, I must conclude that you are doing this only out of spite because I was one of those who opposed your request for adminship. mbeychok (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Please stop accusing me of know-it-allness and to make shoddy parallels with irrelevant things. The former table had dozens of notes to give conversions for everything there. I placed it in a more convenient format with no need to punch things in a calculator. Things are not automatically better because they are old. I also suggest you reading WP:OWN. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I fully agree with you that "Things are not automatically better because they are old." ... but that isn't the point. The point is that hundreds of people have read this article in the two and half years since March, 2006. None of those readers voiced any opinion that the Table needed to be changed or that they had a problem with the conversion notes at the bottom of the table ... until you came along with your propensity of believing that you "know better" than anyone else that the Table needed changing.

 * The intent was for the table to make a strong, visual impact on readers with the fact that many organizations had various standard conditions so that the point was made that there is no universal set of standard conditions. That visual impact is now lost because the table now just looks like a table of conversions. That is very definitely the impression that it makes. mbeychok (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Encyclopedias are compendiums of information. There's more information in the table now, all of it useful and well formatted. It's certainly a lot better than having a table with half the information contained in footnotes (if your willing to do conversion yourself). There's just as many standards listed than before so I really don't see how a reader would interpret this as an indication that there is a universal standard out there. The table could be improved however, since it is not clear in which unit these organization define their standards. If you still have a problem with my edits, I suggest contacting Wikiproject physics and Wikiproject Chemistry for comments. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * IMO, the difference between the tables is not a big deal. However, I think Headbomb's version has too many columns. I would only include the units that were actually used for defining these standards, which would leave only deg C, deg F, atm, bar or kPa, and inHg. Also note that you made a big mistake in the last row, by confusing inches of mercury with millimeters of mercury. I also suggest bolding or otherwise highlighting the cells that actually define a standard. --Itub (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I'll check the mmHg/inHg thing. I ain't too sure about axing columns down (other perhaps than the degrees Rankine one), as all these units are currently used in various industries.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I fixed the AMCA entry. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, IMHO, the original table better achieved the purpose of illustrating the different standards. Having all the values converted isn't helpful in this case. Information hiding and progressive disclosure are User-centered design principles that apply to good writing as well. Samw (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I am going to seconds this. The new table is way too big, and has many superfluous fields.  Having one temperature and one pressure in the list is enough, if the units have a link, recalculation can be done easily.  The new table is way too big, and as said, this does not illustrate the different standards, it is a recalculation table.  May I suggest reversion to the old table, and discussing things first (especially since there was already early in the process some comments on the new table)?  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 14:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I'll slash the rankine, bars and mmHg. That should help. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * It helps, but still, only one temperature scale and one pressure scale demonstrates the differences better. And also, I think the column for publishing or establishing entity should move to the right column, not be the first column.  A third change would be that the publishing or establishing entity could easily be a wikilink, which removes the necessity of the notes section almost completely, and finally, make a seperate column for the references, which would improve the readability of the publishing or establishing entity column even more.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 15:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't think we can slash the columns further without harming the value of the table. Kelvin and Celsius needs to be there since these are respectively the scientific units, and the common metric units. Fahrenheit needs to be there mostly because of American (and maybe British) readers and many of those standards are given in Farenheits. Same goes for pressure, kPa = scientific, psi = american and british readers, atm = gives a sense of scale to laypeople.

 * Publishing entities need to be kept on left, as you need a to first identify the standards. Notes and references however, could use a cleanup. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The value of the table is comparing, not giving a complete overview. Therefor, only one temperature scale, and one pressure scale is more than enough.  Now it is more difficult to see what changes with all the values.  And as generally, first you make the statement, then you give the reference, and as we are comparing the different temperatures and pressures, those are the columns which are more important, and hence it makes more sense that they are on the left.  I am sorry, Headbomb, there are several people here who suggest this here, I still think that the original table was more clear, except that I would suggest to make links to the entities inside the table, not as notes below.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 16:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with Beetstra. Columns for temp, pressure, humidity and entity, in that order, with wikilinks instead of notes. --Kkmurray (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * But that makes no sense. You need to identify things before you list them. See Electrical resistivity for an example of a well formatted table. It wouldn't make much sense to list the properties first, then identify the material.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There's only one person so far who commented on the latest version of the table (you). It's rather pre-emptive to suppose that this version is deemed inferior by consensus. I'll ask for comments on WP Physics and WP Chemistry. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on this discussion, but have not commented previously. I see you have asked for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, so I will comment. I too liked the original version and I generally agree with the comments by Beetstra above. I think the visual impact was good and now that is largely lost. I too think the entity column should be at the right. Headbomb's argument that this makes no sense is just wrong, as it is OK to reference a fact after stating it. I see no reason to have a column for Farenheit. Keep it simple. --Bduke (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * And, Headbomb, I am not the only user who likes the previous version better, as you can see above (before User:Bduke commented), User:Mbeychok, and user:Samw both also had a preference for the original table, and User:Itub and user:Kkmurray also say it had too many columns (of which you stripped a couple aready).
 * Re Headbombs '.. It wouldn't make much sense to list the properties first, then identify the material.' That is completely different.  There you are talking about the material, then about their properties, which is completely right (the table is about the resistivity of different materials, so you name the materials first, right?).  Here we are talking about the different standards pressures and temperatures, but they do not get named first.
 * There is nothing wrong with being bold in changing something that has been there for years without previous discussion, but if there is following discussion on the subject, and some editors do question the new format (all with about the same reasons), then it is time to revert, and discuss and achieve consensus here (or on a wikiproject), before reapplying the changes. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I really don't see any difference between naming materials, then listing their properties, and naming standards, then listing their "properties". All lists of standards on wikipedia are formatted in this way (see List of ISO standards, List of IEC standards, List of EN standards, European emission standards, and many others). Nor am I quite sure of what you're accusing me of by mentioning something about "re-applying" changes. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * There clearly are quite some who do see the difference (including me) between naming materials, and then their properties, and naming standards and then their 'properties' (the difference is, what is the table about). Even, while your argument is a non-argument, all 4 examples that you gave here, are lists of standards, they do not compare the standards, they simply list.  If the title of the article would have been 'list of standard conditions for temperature and pressure', then your table would be an appropriate format (and the article would not contain much more than only that info).  But it is not.
 * And you reverted Mbeychok's revert of your edits (diff), which is what I mean by 're-applying changes', while there is a clear opposition (at that time by only one person. I am going to revert to the old version of the table, which consensus here seems to prefer (and where there are quite a number of reasons for the old format).  I am inviting you to discuss your order of columns here, and when you get consensus that that is to be the order, then that can be applied.  But seen the 4-5 people who here state that the table in the old format was more clear, I don't think that will be the case.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I would even go one step further: some of these standards are defined in degrees Fahrenheit, not in Kelvin or in degrees Centigrade. Although these are converted in a mathematical way, depicting them in Fahrenheit when they are defined in degrees Centigrade removes a part of information from the table.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * So now one person disagreeing is "clear opposition"... *rollseyes*. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * And your argument that since the title of the page isn't "list of standards ...", it means the table isn't a list, and shouldn't be subject to common sense guidelines for lists is nothing more than powder in the eyes. The title of a page dictates neither content (other than topic) nor style. Take a look at the List of baryons which does a lot more than simply "list baryons and give some properties" or the List of wild mammal species of Florida, which does a lot more than simply than "list the wild mammals of Florida and give pictures of them". If you want a list that doesn't start with "list of", that still follows the standard "identifier/properties" order then take a look at Coefficient of thermal expansion or European emission standards.

 * And the reason the table needs more than one column for temperature and one column for pressure is that they are defined in more than one units and see what it means in other units. If we have more than one column, then we can bold or italicize the definition, making the table that much more usefull. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * 1) ".. The intent was for the table to make a strong, visual impact on readers with the fact that many organizations had various standard conditions so that the point was made that there is no universal set of standard conditions. That visual impact is now lost because the table now just looks like a table of conversions. .. " (User:Mbeychok)
 * 2) ".. I think Headbomb's version has too many columns. I would only include the units that were actually used for defining these standards, .. " (User:Itub)
 * Give the full quotes, not some misrepresentation. "IMO, the difference between the tables is not a big deal. However, I think Headbomb's version has too many columns. I would only include the units that were actually used for defining these standards, which would leave only deg C, deg F, atm, bar or kPa, and inHg.", or essentially the latest version of my table. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) ".. IMHO, the original table better achieved the purpose of illustrating the different standards.  Having all the values converted isn't helpful in this case. .. " (User:Samw)
 * 2) ".. The new table is way too big, and has many superfluous fields.  Having one temperature and one pressure in the list is enough, if the units have a link, recalculation can be done easily.  The new table is way too big, and as said, this does not illustrate the different standards, it is a recalculation table.  May I suggest reversion to the old table, and discussing things first (especially since there was already early in the process some comments on the new table)" (User:Beetstra)
 * 3) "I agree with Beetstra. Columns for temp, pressure, humidity and entity, in that order, with wikilinks instead of notes." (User:Kmurray)
 * 4) ".. I too liked the original version and I generally agree with the comments by Beetstra above. I think the visual impact was good and now that is largely lost. I too think the entity column should be at the right. Headbomb's argument that this makes no sense is just wrong, as it is OK to reference a fact after stating it. I see no reason to have a column for Farenheit. Keep it simple." (User:Bduke)

This whole argument started with one editor having objections, and now there are (in my counting) 6 (and certainly not one).

Also the three example tables that you now added to your list are exactly in the right way .. they are about the baryons, the animals and the thermal expansion coefficients of some common materials in the first place, respectively, and that is what is mentioned first in those tables. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Most of those comments were made before I chopped the Rankine, bar, and mmHg columns. And if you're going to argue that these table are well formated because they are about they start by listing the baryon names because it's about baryons, animal names because it's about animals, and coefficients names because it's about coefficients, then you'd also have to argue that this table should starts with standard names because it's about standards. I won't revert, but I certainly don't have to like this version. Nor do I have to like your accusations of "reverting against consensus" because people complained 'after I reverted. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I, and some others above, think that the table is about conditions. And at least 4 of the editors mention that only the defining or only one column for resp. temp, pressure and humidity is enough (in the remarks I cited in my last post). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Let's see: Bduke (an administrator), Beetstra (an administrator), Samw, Kkmurray and User:mbeychok have all said that the original version of the table was better than the revised version, and Itub thought that the revised version has too many columns. What does it take to convince someone that there is indeed a consensus? I agree completely with what Dirk Beetstra has done. GradEngineer (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * First, Bduke and Beetrstra could be the King and Queen of england for all I care, their opinions are not worth more than any other thinking person here. Second, I never claimed there wasn't consensus for switching back to the old version, nor to I dispute that switching back does not reflect consensus. I was accused of "reverting against consensus" by Beetstra and THAT is what I am disputing. At the time of my revert, only mbeychok opposed. One person being against does not constitute consensus, nor does me reverting to my version of things consitute reverting against consensus. As for these comments, most of them were made before I re-arranged the table, and it is rather presumptuous to suppose that disliking a previous version of things means disliking a newer version of things. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Does anyone have any idea what the most common use of this table is? Is it just as a demonstration of the many different standards there are?  Or is it common that someone would use it to look up STP for a given standard?  If it is primarily a demonstration of the many different standards then the table should use converted values (to SI units probably) so that apples can be compared to apples.   (If the same Pressures and Temperatures are used but in different units for all of these systems can we really say they are different.)  If on the other hand the table could be used by someone who is looking up a particular standard then the actual (nonconverted) values need to be given.  I don't know how to satisfy both use cases without adding 2 more columns though.  Finally, there is a cosmetic reason to keep the names of the standards at the end that may trump any practical reasons.  Having them at the end allows them to be closer to the values allowing them to be easier visually aligned with the corresponding values.  One could do the same for having the standard names as the first column only by right aligning the names which looks really bad IMO.  My $0.02 worth.  TStein (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Earlier, Dirk Beetstra (an administrator) deleted the "Expand" template and it was reverted by Headbomb. So I am going to remove it again as per Dirk Beetstra's wishes. GradEngineer (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * As for the "Clarify" template, I am also removing that. "For a great many years" is perfectly clear. Anyone understands that. It is bit over the top to ask for the exact number of years, is it not? GradEngineer (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * For a great many years is unclear. I'm not asking for specific dates, but what does "a great many years" entail? Does it means from 1850 to 1875? Does it means from the scientific revolution until the 1930s? When did the pratice change? Hence clarifyme. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hardly think it is worth a Clarify template, but "For a great many years" is the kind of sentence that begs the question. On one hand it is a small thing. On the other hand it is the type of thing that needs to be fixed to take a good article to great.  If your goal is merely good then leave it, if your goal is greatness then it would be helpful to fix this.  If this is the worst problem in the article then rejoice (and/or work a little harder to get it to the next level).   TStein (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How about a table with four columns for T and P? 1) T as defined in the standard (each cell will include the value with its unit); 2) P as defined (again with unit); 3) T in deg C, for ease of comparison and because it is an SI-compatible unit; 4) P in kPa or bar, for the same reason as 3). This setup serves both uses of the table and makes obvious why some standards chose odd-looking values, such as 101325 Pa. --Itub (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The link for SPE ref is broken
Anyone got a new link? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Clarify me" template now satisfied and removed
I changed "For a great many years.." to "For the past 5-6 decades..." and then removed the "Clarify me" template. I might add that the old values probably date back even further and some people (who are unaware of IUPAC's current value or simply disagree with it) still use the old values. GradEngr (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ANR
I had been looking for the meaning of the abbreviation ANR, which I see in the specs of pneumatic devices. I eventually found out it is an abbreviation for "conditions de l’atmosphère normale de rèfèrence' which is French for "standard reference atmospheric conditions" (see this document). That's about all I know, but if you can find a way to incorporate this into the article, I think it would be helpful to some people.  When I was searching for the meaning of this abbreviation, Google didn't give up the answer without a fight! ike9898 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

STP vs NTP
What is the difference between STP and NTP ? why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivaaprs (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a glaring omission. Half of the world uses NTP. 85.76.7.236 (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolved TomyDuby (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

EPA's STP
--George Kluney (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Propose the table be corrected to say 20 C instead of 25 C for EPA's standard temperature. Reference, cut ans pasted from CFR: "Title 40: Protection of Environment, PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES, Subpart A—General Provisions § 60.2  Definitions.  Standard conditions means a temperature of 293 K (68F) and a pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (29.92 in Hg)."

Molar volume of a gas
Should we use litres and kPa in the ideal gas equation, or m3 and Pa? I prefer the latter. R = 8.31 J mol-1 K-1 and it's much easier to see that J is related to m3 Pa than it is to L kPa. kPa and L are not base units either.

Ewen (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Frustration
Being a chem student, I was more than a little frustrated not to be able to find any information here that didn't require reading through lines and lines of useless junk speculation. I created an account just to put on a name to the adjustment to the article that I made that would make the information actually accessible to people like me; of whom, I assure you, there are many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emudd (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet another ISO standard
I have found (yet) another standard, ISO 6358 which defines standard reference conditions for air as 20°C and 100 kPa and 65% RH. It appears to be used in Germany. I don't have a copy of the standard but it is referenced in Pneumatic Drives: System Design, Modelling and Control By Peter Beater, page 42. Perhaps someone who has access to ISO standards can check this and add to the ever growing list. Turner chris1 (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

TPS Standard for american medical physics
I just added the 22C standard which is used in medical physics. Possibly too small a subdiscipline to be included here, but I don't see the harm. No idea why medical physics needs it's very own non-standard standard, but it fits with everything else I've learn about the field. jwandersTalk 22:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing criticism section
I'm not sure if this belongs here or in an article on Thermodynamics or possibly Thermodynamic Equilibrium, but there are problems with "standard conditions" because they assume other variables are fixed (or vary insignificantly). A couple of examples: Pressure, as used here, applies well to Ideal Gases and less well to real gases. It doesn't apply to liquids or solids, although it is commonly used for them. A thermodynamic system at 101 kPa and 25°C and 1 gravity bears little resemblance to the 'same' system at 101 kPa, 25° and 1 million gravities (ok, an extreme example, I admit). Similarly, a system at constant T & P but with a neutron flux of 10^6 times higher wouldn't necessarily have much similarity to one at "STP". Also, often a "standard atmosphere" assumes a composition ([N2], [O2], [H2O], etc.) Although this article has numerous cautions about the variation in meanings, I didn't see cautions about these dimensions of the meaning of "Standard".72.172.1.40 (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Standard conditions for temperature and pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071018212002/http://www.gassco.no/sw3138.asp to http://www.gassco.no/sw3138.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101006154629/http://www.nist.gov:80/pml/data/star/index.cfm to http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/star/index.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe this page is redirected in error
Common use of this term is STP in documentation, which means Standard Temperature and Pressure. Standard Conditions for Temperature and Pressure would be SCTP, which I do not believe is standard usage, please verify. The conditions portion of the title is more descriptive but should only be included in the definition. This page is probably viewed more than most of us would assume, so lets clean this mess up. The data is great. The presentation is confusing and sloppy. I see there was actually a student complaint on this issue. Considering the wide application and usage of STP, its variations per field of study, even among high ranking programs in particular fields, simplification and modification of this article is a priority. I will attempt to archive this article, and reverse the redirection. I will preserve individual credit for input whenever possible. Omegamultiverse (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, Omegamultiverse. I suggest you work on a few smaller tasks before tackling a complete clean-up of this article. There is much to learn. For example you did not give a header for your comments. I have done that. Also this page is not a redirect. Standard Temperature and Pressure is the redirect page. Changing this to preserve individual credit is not simple and you need an administrator to do it as you have to delete the redirect page first. This change should not be made until there is consensus to move the page. This talk page is the place to seek that consensus. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Nm3 incorrectly linked to this page
I've never come across the unit Nm-cubed before. I would like to know what it is. Newton-cubic meter - what? Why did you link it to this page and not have anything on the page that refers to it? 173.162.253.101 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree that it is surprising that normal cubic meter and its abbreviation nm3 are currently never mentioned in this article, since Wikipedia redirects both of those phrases to this article.
 * Similarly, I find it surprising that "standard cubic meter" is currently never mentioned in the actual body of this article, although it is mentioned several times in the "References" section of this article, and the sm disambiguation page mentions "standard cubic meter" and links to this article. (Perhaps standard cubic meters per second and sm3 should also lead indirectly to this article?).
 * The WP:R guideline suggests that Wikipedia articles should mention such inbound redirects in the first couple of paragraphs. So I added a brief mention of those phrases. Feel free to further clarify. --DavidCary (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

NTP changed?
The newest (2018) edition of Handbook 44 defines NTP as the following: "NTP. – Normal Temperature and Pressure of a cryogen at a temperature of 21 °C (70 °F) and a pressure of 101.325 kPa (14.696 lb/in2 absolute). [3.34]"

So if I'm correct, the article should be changed according to this new definition, from 20 °C to 21 °C. Or am I missing something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assaiki (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Show 60 °F as 15.56 °C not 16 °C
The petroleum industry usage of 60 °F is equal to 15.56 °C. The table shows 16 °C. Please correct the table to show the Celsius temperature to at least two decimal places.DLH (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Name change to "Standard Temperature and Pressure"?
I think this page should be renamed to "Standard Temperature and Pressure". That's what the common acronym STP stands for, and it seems to be the much more common phrase, e.g. in google hits. Is there a reason for the current name that I'm missing? Danstronger (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Mathematical relationship between standard temperature and standard pressure
Relationship between standard pressure and standard temperature 119.160.68.36 (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Standard temperature and pressure


text:
Pallid swift

The pallid swift (Apus pallidus) is a swift (order Apodiformes). Swifts have very short legs which they use only for clinging to vertical surfaces. The genus name Apus is Latin for a swift, thought by the ancients to be a type of swallow with no feet (from Ancient Greek α, a, "without", and πούς, pous, "foot"), and pallidus is Latin for "pale". They never settle voluntarily on the ground. Swifts spend most of their lives in the air, living on the insects they catch in their beaks. They drink on the wing.

Taxonomy
The pallid swift was first described by English naturalist George Ernest Shelley in 1870.

Description
This 16 – long species is very similar to the common swift, and separation is only possible with good views. Like its relative, it has a short forked tail and very long swept-back wings that resemble a crescent or a boomerang.

It is entirely dark except for a large white throat patch which is frequently visible from a distance. It is chunkier and browner than common swift, and the slightly paler flight feathers, underparts and rump give more contrast than that species. It also has a scalier looking belly and subtly different flight action. The call is a loud dry scream similar to that of its relative, though possibly more disyllabic.

Distribution and habitat
Pallid swifts breed on cliffs and eaves around the Mediterranean and on the Canary Islands and Madeira, laying two eggs.

They are rare north of their breeding areas, although they are likely to be under-recorded due to identification problems. Because of its more southerly range, pallid swift arrives earlier and leaves later than the closely related common swift, so particularly early or late swifts north of the normal range should be carefully observed.

Migration
Like swallows, they are migratory, wintering in southern Africa or southeast Asia.

Pallid swifts that breed in Gibraltar have been tracked using GPS technology, and has shown them to have multiple African wintering grounds south of the Sahara at specific times of the year. One bird, tracked over two consecutive winters, showed remarkable fidelity to the areas visited in Africa between years. The study also supports previous findings of an airborne existence in swifts outside the breeding season, with two pallid swifts giving no indication of coming to land.

title: Pallid swift


text:
Charles Townshend

Charles Townshend (27 August 1725 – 4 September 1767) was a British politician who held various titles in the Parliament of Great Britain. His establishment of the controversial Townshend Acts is considered one of the key causes of the American Revolution.

Townshend was born at Raynham Hall in Norfolk, England, as the second son of Charles Townshend, 3rd Viscount Townshend, and Audrey Harrison. A sickly child, he later graduated from Leiden University and served in various political roles, including as a member of the Board of Trade, Lord of the Admiralty, Paymaster of the Forces, and Chancellor of the Exchequer. He played a significant role in the taxation and control of American colonies, proposing the Townshend Acts, which imposed taxes on various exports to America. These acts were met with resistance and eventually led to the American Revolution. Townshend died in September 1767. He was married to Caroline Campbell, who later became the Baroness Greenwich, and his brother, George Townshend, became the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland.

Early life
He was born at his family's seat of Raynham Hall in Norfolk, England, the second son of Charles Townshend, 3rd Viscount Townshend, and Audrey (died 1788), daughter and heiress of Edward Harrison of Ball's Park, near Hertford. He was a sickly child, had epilepsy, and had a strained relationship with his parents. Townshend was a brash young man, whose "wonderful endowments [were] dashed with follies and indiscretions." Charles graduated from the Dutch Leiden University on 27 October 1745; while there he had associated with a small group of other English youth, who later became well known in various circles, including Dowdeswell, Wilkes, and Alexander Carlyle. The latter would chronicle their exploits in his Autobiography.

Following his return in 1746, he represented Great Yarmouth in Parliament until 1756, when he found a seat for the admiralty borough of Saltash, subsequently transferring in 1761 to Harwich, another borough where the seat was in the government's gift. Public attention was first drawn to his abilities in 1753, when he delivered a lively attack against Lord Hardwicke's marriage bill, although this measure passed into law.

Politics
From 1749 – April 1754, Townshend was a member of the Board of Trade. It was during this time that he first showed an interest in increasing British powers of taxation and control over the American colonies. In 1754 and 1755, he served as Lord of the Admiralty, but at the close of 1755, his passionate attack against the policy of the ministry caused his resignation. In the administration which was formed in November 1756, and which was ruled by William Pitt the Elder, the lucrative office of treasurer of the chamber was given to Townshend, but he retired the following Spring and George Grenville took over. The higher post of First Lord of the Admiralty then fell to Townshend's lot and his refusal to accept the nomination led to his exclusion from the new administration.

In the dying days of Grenville's cabinet, to retain the administration of Lord Rockingham, Townshend accepted the position of Paymaster of The Forces, though he questioned the stability of the administration, calling it a "mere Lute-string administration" and stating that it was "pretty 'summer wear', but it will never stand the winter."

Chancellor of the Exchequer
Under the ministry of William Pitt the Elder, Townshend accepted the role of Chancellor of the Exchequer in August 1766. A few weeks later his urgent appeals to the Prime Minister for increased power were favorably answered, and he was admitted to the inner circle of the cabinet. The new chancellor proposed the continuance of the land tax at four shillings in the pound, while he held out hopes that it might be reduced next year to three shillings, whereupon his predecessor, William Dowdeswell, by the aid of the landed gentlemen, carried a motion that the reduction should take effect at once. Townshend pledged to find revenue in America with which to meet the deficiency caused by the reduction.

Early in 1767, shortly after The Stamp Act was repealed owing to colonial protests and boycotts of British goods, Townshend proposed that the Parliament could procure revenue from the Americans without causing them offense via "external" import taxes instead of internal taxes. These were known as the Townshend Acts. The Acts passed resolutions for taxing several exports to America, such as glass, paint, paper and tea. The Townshend Acts established a Board of Commissioners in Boston to enforce them, which was seen as a threat to the American colonial tradition of self-government. He estimated these export taxes would produce a sum of £40,000 for the English treasury. He had the support of his cousin Thomas Townshend who was also a minister in the government. The Townshend Acts would be Townshend's last official act before his death.

Soon after that he died somewhat suddenly of a fever on September 4, 1767.

Private life
In August 1755 he had married Caroline Campbell (d. 1794), the eldest daughter of John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll and the widow of Francis Scott, Earl of Dalkeith, the eldest son of Francis Scott, 2nd Duke of Buccleuch. According to Burke's Peerage, he had two sons (who died young) and a daughter; one of the sons was called Charles, who was born circa 1755, was a talented (amateur) actor under 14 years of age but died unamarried.

Townshend's wife was created (August 1767) baroness Greenwich, and his elder brother George Townshend, 1st Marquess Townshend, was made Lord-lieutenant of Ireland.

Townshend conceived a great and dangerous passion for his step-daughter Frances Douglas, Lady Douglas, and her memorialist, Lady Louisa Stuart, wrote after his death of his character: "This was careless, gay, inconsiderate, volatile, seemingly foreign to every serious reflection or feeling. He had one of those happy tempers which nothing can ruffle, without a grain of pride, sternness or resentment in his nature. Ready to laugh with every body and at every thing, he poured out wit in torrents; and it was so much the worse for truth if ever truth stood in wit's way."

The American towns of Townsend, Massachusetts and Townshend, Vermont were founded and named after Charles Townshend in 1732 and 1753, respectively. Raynham, Massachusetts was also named after him.

title: Charles Townshend