[Mitch]

There is no confusion. Oxygen is O2 and Ozone is O3. Any percieved confusion comes from you. You can't call O3 oxygen, you have to call it ozone.

[fritnat]

There is no confusion. Oxygen is O2 and Ozone is O3. Any percieved confusion comes from you. You can't call O3 oxygen, you have to call it ozone.

You don't see any confusion! You say you can't call O3 oxygen but is O3 an oxygen molecule? Well according to this from The National Academies Press:

... The hydroxy radical can be formed in the troposphere by a number of reactions. ~ ~~ ~ A common process begins wltn dissociation of NCk by absorption of sunlight, which forms a highly reactive oxygen atom that combines quickly with a diatomic oxygen molecule to form the triatomic oxygen molecule, ozone (O3)

source

O3 is indeed an oxygen molecule. Now ozone is most commonly thought of as a gas but apparently despite it being an oxygen molecule it can never be an oxygen gas molecule!

I beg to differ. I think you yourself shows signs of confusion!

[Mitch]

Its like whining about, "is ditilled water water or is deionized water really water?" If a Chemist wants a specific "form" of water they'll specify, there is no confusion.

[mike]

fritnat: read your own quote! Your quote says "..triatomic oxygen molecule..." NOT "..oxygen molecule...".

I think you are very confused and it seems like you are just trying to confuse people yourself. If you did follow your logic by providing this quote (from a source I am not even sure of) then it would STILL not be called oxygen gas but triatomic oxygen gas. AND if this were the case the term "ozone" is still easier to say than "triatomic oxygen gas".

So, your quote/reference proves nothing (or at the very least confirms what you are being told on this forum). You asked the question, ans we told you that you are incorrect, if you are trying to find someone to validate your side of an argument then this is the wrong place.

Just to avoid any further confusion:

oxygen gas = O₂

ozone = O₃

It is completely logical and you are the only one that seems to be confused by the issue. Otherwise I am quite happy for you to continue using your own terminology, as long as you realise that you will be forever defending your opinion to chemists and scientists because it is not right.

[Donaldson Tan]

It all depends how technically anal a chemist want to be, with his words.

[mike]

technically anal

retentive?

*lol*

[fritnat]

fritnat: read your own quote! Your quote says "..triatomic oxygen molecule..." NOT "..oxygen molecule...".
...

OK, I understand: a triatomic oxygen molecule is not an oxygen molecule.

I've just tried it out on some non chemists and all thought it was an illogical and contradictory statement. Now permit me to believe that only a chemist would not find that a confusing statement!

[xiankai]

that wasnt what mike meant.

oxygen molecules refer to oxygen and ozone and probably other oxygen allotropes, yes we all agree on that.

but when u specify the kind of oxygen molecule "triatomic" in this case, u cannot make it mean another thing, it only can be ozone.

[fritnat]

..oxygen molecules refer to oxygen and ozone and probably other oxygen allotropes, yes we all agree on that. ..

We do? It doesn't sound like it to me but if you are right then presumably the sticking point is the gas part. So we can all agree that the statement that all oxygen molecules are composed of two atoms is wrong? Whereas adding the gas specification apparently makes it correct: all oxygen gas molecules are composed of two atoms.

To get back to your second reply where you state:

i think for a very broad and literal interpretation, oxygen gas can refer to any gas that composes entirely of oxygen atoms.

but we chemists prefer to keep things simple. we dont use a term to refer to everything, when it is already ingrained in the common public.

Would this mean the statement in question would be regarded as incorrect if made very generally to a broad public?

In reply to your second point, don't chemists use the term salt to refer to every ionic compound composed of an equal negative and positive charged ions, and isn't salt ingrained in the common public to mean only sodium chloride? Is this the exception of chemists complicating things? I think just the opposite applies. That in science ordinary words which are used, are defined much more rigourously and statements of fact are always taken very literally!

Anyway thanks a lot for your input. Now lets see if others agree with you!

[mike]

As far as the general public are concerned oxygen refers to O₂.

General public also uses the term epsom salt or bath salt not refering to NaCl (just an interesting fact).

Maybe if you were more specific with the way you want to use the term we could be of more help.

IMHO I think you are just taking the mick, as we have told you the answer and you just don't want to accept it.

[xiankai]

In reply to your second point, don't chemists use the term salt to refer to every ionic compound composed of an equal negative and positive charged ions, and isn't salt ingrained in the common public to mean only sodium chloride?

I wasn't trying to generalise. there are some exceptions like u mention.

So we can all agree that the statement that all oxygen molecules are composed of two atoms is wrong? Whereas adding the gas specification apparently makes it correct: all oxygen gas molecules are composed of two atoms.

I all agree that the first statement is wrong. Adding the gas specification does not make it correct. Its the specific terminology "oxygen gas" that implies O₂. Strictly speaking in scientific terms, oxygen gas can refer to ozone too. That i agree. However, i am more concerned about to communicate with people (general public), so i use "oxygen gas" to refer to O₂.

Okay, u have had a chemist's opinion ten times over already.

[fritnat]

... Strictly speaking in scientific terms, oxygen gas can refer to ozone too. That i agree. ...

Okay, u have had a chemist's opinion ten times over already.

This was really what I was putting to the test and it would appear that we are in a small minority on this (I didn't vote so its 2 chemists out of 9).

Yes, the opinion of chemists! But I couldn't resist probing a bit, now I'll let it lie...

Thanks again everyone.

[Mitch]

Apparently we are not the first to have this debate.
Naquet, A. De l'allotropie et de l'isomerism; Paris, 1860.

Also, if we wish to continue this discussion this recent article in JCHED should be read http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/2006/Jun/abs838.html