Tracking Down the First Oxygen Users

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tracking Down the First Oxygen Users

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday January 11, 2012 @06:45AM from the primordial-home-health-care dept.

sciencehabit writes "None of us would be here today if, billions of years ago, a tiny, single-celled organism hadn't started using oxygen to make a living. Researchers don't know exactly when this happened, or why, but a team of scientists has come closer than ever before to finding out. They've identified the earliest known example of aerobic metabolism, the process of using oxygen as fuel. The discovery may even provide clues as to where the oxygen came from in the first place."

85 of 109 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Where the oxygen came from... by jeffmeden · 2012-01-11 06:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

The discovery may even provide clues as to where the oxygen came from in the first place.
Shouldn't they be looking for the carbon dioxide eaters?
1. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by SJHillman · 2012-01-11 06:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  We already know the guys who produced the oxygen (or at least we have a good idea), we're interested in the ones who used it.
2. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by ralphdaugherty · 2012-01-11 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding from reading Oxygen by Nick Lane is that atmospheric oxygen at levels high enough to sustain oxygen based metabolism came from plants and trees being buried and not consumed which would have used the oxygen in the consumption. The buried plants and trees became our fossil fuels.
  disclaimer: I'm a programmer by profession, just a layman reader in molecular biology.
3. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by Marble68 · 2012-01-11 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
  process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.
  
  --
  /me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
4. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by Anne_Nonymous · 2012-01-11 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  Look hard enough and you'll find an ancient civilization who built forests of artificial CO2 sequestering trees.
5. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by turbidostato · 2012-01-11 07:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "My understanding ... is that atmospheric oxygen at levels high enough to sustain oxygen based metabolism came from plants and trees"
  Your understanding is quite wrong.
  By the time there were "plants and trees" the major part of the biosphere already was oxigen dependant.
  The change of the atmosphere from reductive to oxidative predates trees by about two billion years -the start of the proterozoic age is marked about 2.4 billion years ago (with a strong spike around the precambric which still predates trees by about 300 million years).
6. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-01-11 08:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "My understanding ... is that atmospheric oxygen at levels high enough to sustain oxygen based metabolism came from plants and trees"
  Your understanding is quite wrong.
  By the time there were "plants and trees" the major part of the biosphere already was oxigen dependant.
  The change of the atmosphere from reductive to oxidative predates trees by about two billion years -the start of the proterozoic age is marked about 2.4 billion years ago (with a strong spike around the precambric which still predates trees by about 300 million years).
  It's my understanding that cyanobacteria is responsible for initially creating earths oxygen. I can't say I know much about the historical aspect of it. But I used to keep saltwater reef/fish tanks, and it can become a big problem if you do something wrong. It's really nasty slimy algae looking stuff. I used to find in ironic how much many fish keepers despised the stuff, and yet we probably wouldn't be here without it.
7. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the heterotroph hypothesis theorizes that plants came second, after a ton of Carbon Dioxide was produced, and was opportunistically consumed by autotrophs, which are assumed to have emerged later due to the innate complexity of autotrophic metabolism. But was the carbon dioxide produced by anaerobic organisms like yeast? Meh... it's a hypothesis for a reason. Maybe aerobic heterotrophs pre-date oxygen producing autotrophs... ?
8. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 08:10 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Simple. The first oxygen users should have low ID's.
9. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by Opyros · 2012-01-11 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  It was long before there were any animals or trees. Google "oxygen catastrophe" or "great oxygenation event" for how it happened.
10. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by ralphdaugherty · 2012-01-11 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  correction: plants and trees.
  And yeah, I saw trees came way later, but whatever was buried and became fossil fuels, plants of some type.
11. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by na1led · 2012-01-11 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  It all happend about 6,000 years ago. God spit out Air, Plants, Animals, and Humans, all at once, and you can't convince me otherwise!
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
12. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by NatasRevol · 2012-01-11 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Like 8?
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
13. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by djl4570 · 2012-01-11 09:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Cyanobacteria changed the chemistry of the oceans as well. Before oxygen production the oceans contained large quantities of dissolved iron. When oxygen was produced the dissolved iron oxidized and precipitated out as rust. The banded iron formations are a relic of this epoch. It wasn't until the oceans reached equilibrium between oxygen and iron that surplus oxygen was released into the atmosphere.
14. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by ArcherB · 2012-01-11 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Unable to rename log file. File in use.
  Killed hbsend and tried again, worked fine.
  Nothing lived outside the oceans until the ozone layer formed. The ozone didn't form until there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere. This oxygen was produced by oceanic algae.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
15. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-01-11 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  I would guess that cyanobacteria also bound large quantities of iron, phosphorus and nitrogen as it metabolizes all three. I knew of several people who could not get rid of the stuff. In the end they used media that phosphates would bind to.
16. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by g0bshiTe · 2012-01-11 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  I thought stromatolites were the first.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
17. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by g0bshiTe · 2012-01-11 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Oxygen began in the oceans not the atmosphere.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
18. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by ralphdaugherty · 2012-01-11 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  I remember reading about this in Oxygen, thanks for the clarification, but as I understood it oxygen is consumed when the plant or bacteria or trees that generated the oxygen with photosynthesis is combusted, and it is primarily the buried plants that are now fossil fuels that established a significant atmospheric level of oxygen that sustains oxygen based metabolism. Other than the buried plants that weren't combusted (decayed, etc) oxygen and carbon dioxide are consumed in photosynthesis and decay and oxygen doesn't accumulate.
  Of course I am always learning about this stuff but I considered the the buried matter that is now our fossil fuels making all the oxygen we breathe available to be very interesting and something this hasn't been pointed out publically AFAIK.
19. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by ralphdaugherty · 2012-01-11 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  This was downmodded Overrated -1 when it hasn't even received a positive mod rating. What is that, an attempt to hide my comment from view? That's just censorship. If there's something wrong with the comment then say what it is. I don't sEe anything wrong with it other than a typo in last word which I followed up with a post correcting it.
  I notice in certain topics (GW, IPV6 for example) we have a lot of censorship going on with people downmodding what they don't like. Why don't we just be honest and call these people and their downmods censors and call it Censored -1.
20. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by djl4570 · 2012-01-11 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  Calcium carbonate or limestone is a much larger carbon repository than fossil fuels. I am working from memory here but IIRC photosynthesis fixes atmospheric carbon dioxide by using sunlight to hydrolyze water. The reactions take the hydrogen from the water to create hydrocarbons and free oxygen. A significant volume of the carbon consumed goes into skeletons and shells. Vast quantities of marine life formed shells made of calcium carbonate which eventually sank to sea floor to become limestone.
21. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by ralphdaugherty · 2012-01-11 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's interesting, but just to clarify, I mention the fossil fuels not as fixing carbon but as freeing up the oxygen that makes up atmospheric oxygen (about 21 percent of the atmosphere).
  This is never mentioned publically and interestingly neither acknowledged nor disputed in this thread.
22. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by LaruRidi · 2012-01-11 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  You can understand carbon storage as a shorthand for "freeing up the oxygen" (I've probably never seen this term used before). From this point of view fossil fuels don't really differ from limestone -- both are geological structures which contain a lot of carbon a store it "indefinitely". Of course the limestone will one day be recycled in the mantle and we burn the fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow.
23. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by RockDoctor · 2012-01-12 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't they be looking for the carbon dioxide eaters?
  Well, if you want to find the first organisms that produced oxygen from carbon dioxide, then that might be a useful route to take. But if it turns out that the first oxygen producers did it by consuming something other than carbon dioxide, then you'd be answering the wrong question.
  Indeed, if you'd read TFA, you'd realise that they were very specifically looking at molecular evidence for the origin of the ability to produce oxygen by digesting hydrogen peroxide in the environment. Which is ... interesting.
  It's interesting if it's true - I'm less than convinced, and I don't have access to the original paper to check it - because it suggests that some at least of the molecular tricks for handling one very toxic compound (oxygen) developed from techniques developed for handling one extremely toxic environmentally available compound (hydrogen peroxide). Developing a technique for turning an extremely toxic environmental pollutant into a merely very toxic environmental pollutant will have an energetic and evolutionary cost, but could give a net benefit to the organism. Then, as techniques develop to further detoxify that excreted pollutant, an energy source is found, in an organism that is "pre-adapted" to have appropriate biochemical tools to handle the nasty pollutant.
  Hmmm, interesting.
  But carbon dioxide fixation is not by any means the only way to produce oxygen.
  That's an interesting piece of work.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
24. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by RockDoctor · 2012-01-12 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  I thought oxygen was pretty scarce until photosynthesis was used widely by plants and animals.
  Photosynthesis was happening long long before plants or animals existed. A number of lines of bacteria (neither plant nor animal) had photosynthetic mechanisms, and one of these lines was co-opted by what became plants to provide them with a pre-packaged "black box" of energy and sugar production, given light and environmental CO2. Those bacteria raised the oxygen concentrations in the environment by some tens of thousands-fold, long before any plants or animals existed. Recently, plants came along, particularly on the surface of the land, and added a modest amount to the oxygen production of the surface. These days, plants are responsible for around a third to a half of oxygen production.
  
  I understand it that and incorporating mitochondria pretty much required for multi-cellular organisms.
  Mitochondria are essential parts of all (I think ; counter-examples welcome) eukaryotes. That's all plants, all animals, and around the same number of non-plant, non-animal other eukaryotes. Oh, and fungi too ; they're all eukaryotes, closely related to plants and animals, and more distantly related to all the rest of the eukaryotes. All obligately multicellular organisms are multicellular, though some non-eukaryotes can be opportunistically multicellular.
  Or to put it in short - biology is a lot more varied than the broad brush that you may have had painted in school. Much, much more varied.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
25. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by ralphdaugherty · 2012-01-12 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the info, but I didn't learn this in school, I am undertaking extensive readings in molecular biology. I learned this in Oxygen by Nick Lane, and I think the points I made about what established the oxygen levels to sustain multiicellular organisms is correct. It was buried undecayed plants that established sufficient oxygen (GT 15 percent) to sustain organisms according to what I read. I find that fossil fuel matter made breathing possible to be fascinating and it is not only not taught in schools, it is virtually unaddressed including all who replied to me in this thread.
26. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by RockDoctor · 2012-01-12 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  I've definitely read stuff by Nick Lane, and if I could access Amazon here, I'd be able to find if "Oxygen" is still on my wishlist, or if I'd actually read it. It's certainly been under consideration.
  I have a suspicion that you've been misunderstanding something, but since I don't recall reading Lane's book, I think I'd better wait until I have read it.
  Question (relevant) : are you familiar with Margulis' well-accepted theory of the origin of complex unicellular organisms by endosymbiosis between previously free-living organisms.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
27. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by ralphdaugherty · 2012-01-12 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Lane refers to it in all three of the books I have of his, but extensively in Power, Sex, Suicide, about mitochondria. Refers to her oxygen holocaust theory in Oxygen.
  I see that oxygen levels were as much as 18 percent prior to Cambrian, didn't realize they were that high so definitely misunderstood the specific effect on oxygen levels that fossil fuel matter had, but still Lane contends that oxygen levels are essentially the mismatch of uncombusted life due to being buried and protected from decay, otherwise would be used in the combustion process.
  I noted her passing recently, glad that she got to see her theories recognized as ground breaking. I am only slightly familiar with her work through quotations.
28. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by RockDoctor · 2012-01-13 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Margulis had the relatively rare pleasure of being proved right, in the teeth of pretty solid opposition, in her own life time. But she's also gone a bit OTT with the idea too, straining to wedge many other features of different taxons into other events of endosymbiosis, for which the evidence is much weaker. But she's definitely contributed more than the average room full of professors.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
29. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by turbidostato · 2012-01-13 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  "It's my understanding that cyanobacteria is responsible for initially creating earths oxygen."
  Which are neither plants nor trees.
30. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by turbidostato · 2012-01-13 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  "I find that fossil fuel matter made breathing possible to be fascinating and it is not only not taught in schools, it is virtually unaddressed including all who replied to me in this thread."
  Maybe it is because it's a f* obviety. ...were it not because it is not "fossil fuel" but "fossil (mainly) carbonated structures". You wouldn't consider the White Cliffs of Dover, to name a famous example, to be "fossil fuel matter", would you?
31. Re:Where the oxygen came from... by ralphdaugherty · 2012-01-13 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  no, I wouldn't, but I wasn't referring to the White Cliffs of Dover, I was referring to fossil fuel matter (I.e. plants buried that became coal and oil).
  In a later post I stated I overemphasized the impact of uncombusted fossil fuel matter to oxygen levels after revisiting it but it was part of the process.
Oxidizer, not fuel by Un+pobre+guey · 2012-01-11 06:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Oxygen is not the fuel. It is the oxidant to the fuel to release energy.
1. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Aguazul · 2012-01-11 06:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In a hydrocarbon atmosphere, you can burn oxygen. All our definitions are oriented around our oxygen-based atmosphere. I'm sure we'd call oxygen 'fuel' if we lived in a hydrocarbon atmosphere and oxygen was the scarcer material.
2. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Em+Adespoton · 2012-01-11 07:05 · Score: 2
  
  After all, no matter how you present it, it's just a chemical reaction: 2 molecules and some energy. "Fuel" and "fire" and "burn" are all just lies to children. Either that, or Iron is also a "fuel" with an end result of "rust" ash. Low "burning" temperature, and low heat output, as it doesn't take much for Iron to react with oxygen.
3. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-11 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  All our definitions are oriented around our nitrogen-based atmosphere.
  FTFY.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-01-11 07:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  In a hydrocarbon atmosphere, you can burn oxygen. All our definitions are oriented around our oxygen-based atmosphere. I'm sure we'd call oxygen 'fuel' if we lived in a hydrocarbon atmosphere and oxygen was the scarcer material.
  Which made a wonderful plot for Isaac Asimov's lovable The Dust of Death :) You can tell the guy was a chemist. ;-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by idontgno · 2012-01-11 07:16 · Score: 2
  
  Interesting point. On a geologic timescale, "rust" is a flash fire.
  Still, colloquial English words are based on current human experience of time and matter. Even an ember flashing to fire in a pure-oxygen atmosphere, the ember is considered fuel, even if it's outmassed by the oxygen available for the reaction.
  Also, from a chemical perspective, in most chemical reactions involving oxygen, oxygen is the oxidizing agent and the other element or compound is the reducing agent. (Maybe all? I can't think of any redox reactions with oxygen as the reducer, but chemistry was decades ago.)
  So, in summary: the distinction between fuel and oxygen can't be inverted.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
6. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Megahard · 2012-01-11 07:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  While "oxidation" is lexically derived from oxygen, there's a specific chemical definition for oxidation, namely the loss of electrons. LEO GER is the acronym beginning chemists learn. So while you can play around with the words the chemistry is well-defined. Oxygen is the oxidant because it transfers elections to the reductant or fuel or whatever you want to call it.
  
  --
  I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
7. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-01-11 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  What a wonderful new piece of knowledge! This vacuum-based Universe we're living in never ceases to amaze me!
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
8. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by khallow · 2012-01-11 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Either that, or Iron is also a "fuel" with an end result of "rust" ash. Low "burning" temperature, and low heat output, as it doesn't take much for Iron to react with oxygen.
  Iron is a fuel and you can burn it in the usual sense when temperatures get hot enough (along with good air circulation).
9. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by khallow · 2012-01-11 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  All our definitions are oriented around our oxygen-based atmosphere.
  FTFY.
  FTFY. One would not call a bottle of hydrochloric acid "water" merely because water is the largest by mass component.
10. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by nitehawk214 · 2012-01-11 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  And Iron is an amazingly reactive fuel if you get it hot enough in the right concentrations.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
11. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by mcgrew · 2012-01-11 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  In a hydrocarbon atmosphere, you can burn oxygen. All our definitions are oriented around our oxygen-based atmosphere. I'm sure we'd call oxygen 'fuel' if we lived in a hydrocarbon atmosphere and oxygen was the scarcer material.
  No, it would still be the hydrocarbons oxidising, not the oxygen hydrocarbonizing. Add oxygen and heat to any combustable material and it burns. What can you add hydrocarbons with to make it burn, except oxygen?
  Fire is the result of mixing oxygen with anything flammable. Nothing but oxygen makes fire afaik (if I'm wrong I hope a physicist or chemist here will correct me).
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
12. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-11 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about you, but I've actually lit "iron" on fire. Quite easy if you have the right kind. Go get some Steel Wool and use a battery pack attach positive to one side, and negative to another and start chanting "Burn Baby Burn" ...
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
13. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by jdgeorge · 2012-01-11 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  All our definitions are oriented around our oxygen-based atmosphere.
  FTFY.
  FTFY. One would not call a bottle of hydrochloric acid "water" merely because water is the largest by mass component.
  Quite right. One would instead call a bottle of a hydrochloric acid solution "water-based" because water is the solvent, and also probably the largest component by number of molecules, mass, and volume.
14. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by mcgrew · 2012-01-11 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  I could have sworn I'd read Asimov's Mysteries, but I don't remember that story. Guess I'll have to take a trip to the library Saturday. Too bad our corporate-bought copyright extensions have made it so a fifty year old story written by a dead man can't be published in the internet.
  And, Asimov got his PhD in biochemistry. He taught (a little) at Boston University, and also did cancer research there.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
15. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by mcgrew · 2012-01-11 08:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Fuel" and "fire" and "burn" are all just lies to children.
  Not lies to children, but the obvious. Of course, what may seem obvious often isn't ("the world is flat"). You and I know that if you combine a piece of wood and oxygen, both are converted, but you have to know how it works first. But at any rate, "fire" is a synonym of "oxidation". Fire is what you get when you combine a combustable material, oxygen, and heat. It's real, it's no lie. The combustable material is the fuel, oxygen is the oxident, and "burn" is the conversion of the fuel and oxygen to a different form. It's semantics, not lies.
  Either that, or Iron is also a "fuel" with an end result of "rust" ash.
  Actually, rust is steel's ashes, and you can make steel burn quite fast of you get it hot enough; ask any blacksmith. You can make sparklers out of pieces of wire coat hangers or bailing wire, coated with saltpeter mixed with flour or sugar. The sparkles on any sparkler you buy at a fireworks stand is the steel's flames, and that's exactly what you see if you put a thin piece of steel in a forge with the bellows going. Take the steel out of the fire and it sparkles like a sparkler, and leaves rust behind.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
16. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by rubycodez · 2012-01-11 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  battery sounds fun but a match will do.
17. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by NEDHead · 2012-01-11 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  It is called a flashbulb, for those under 40 years old.
18. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by rubycodez · 2012-01-11 08:12 · Score: 2
  
  no chemistry in you background, I take it. there are plenty of other gases that support combustion, fluorine is one. You could burn fluorine on your hydrocarbon atmosphere planet, or hydrocarbons on a fluorine atmosphere planet. You might be interested to know a rocket with highest specific impulse burns lithium and fluorine. You can make fire with many, many things and not have a molecule of oxygen in sight.
19. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-11 08:15 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Oxygen is the most aggressively electronegative element after Fluorine. (I think that Neon might be even more aggressive if you could ionize it usefully.) I had a colourful mnemonic for this in second-year organic chemistry that revolved around bitches and gimps, but the take-home message is that Chlorine robs Nitrogen, and Oxygen wipes out everything but good ol' Fluorine. For related reasons, fluorine becomes a source of face-melting death in hydrogen-bonded form.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
20. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by rubycodez · 2012-01-11 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  to clarify, that's of the *chemical* rockets
21. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-11 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  As someone points out, oxygen is the oxidant because it supplies the electrons for the reaction (the term "oxidant" is derived from the fact that oxygen was the first chemical that we understood to havethis function). The "fuel" is the chemical that releases energy in the reaction. Hydrocarbons release significantly more energy than oxygen molecules. So, even in a hydrocarbon atmosphere, hydrocarbons would be the fuel as the term is used in English. Of course, if we lived in a hydrocarbon atmosphere we might have a significantly different perspective on the reactions and not consider the source of energy to be all that significant at early stages of language formation.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
22. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Un+pobre+guey · 2012-01-11 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you!
  In a hydrocarbon atmosphere, you can burn oxygen. All our definitions are oriented around our oxygen-based atmosphere. I'm sure we'd call oxygen 'fuel' if we lived in a hydrocarbon atmosphere and oxygen was the scarcer material.
  Sheesh. Not many chemists here on slashdot, it seems.
23. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by thrich81 · 2012-01-11 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  The discussion here has the electron donors turned around. The "oxidant" such as oxygen takes the electrons from the reducing agent. Oxygen has 6 electrons in its outer shell and needs only 2 more to have a completely full outer shell, thus it has a strong attraction for those 2 more electrons and takes them from less electropositive elements such as metals. You sound like you know what you are talking about so this is probably just to point out a typo, but I post it to prevent confusion on the thread... I realize that covalent bonding such as in CO2 is a bit more complicated, but O is still considered the oxidizer there.
24. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by tom17 · 2012-01-11 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  That is Magnesium, my friend.
25. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Phaedrus420 · 2012-01-11 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, it's done every day.
  
  --
  And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
26. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by khallow · 2012-01-11 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  One would instead call a bottle of a hydrochloric acid solution "water-based" because water is the solvent, and also probably the largest component by number of molecules, mass, and volume.
  No. They might call it "solution of hydrogen chloride (HCl) in water", but they won't call it "water-based", which by definition means that the foundation of the thing is water, because it isn't.
  
  When I googled for "water-based", I got page upon page of hits for things like water-based stains and pigments. That is, substances that could be dissolved in a choice of fluids such as water, alcohol, and oils.
  
  For any life exposed to atmosphere, the key property of Earth's atmosphere is that it has large quantities of oxygen. Even if that life doesn't use oxygen (say it's a form of lichen), it still has to deal with this strongly oxidizing environment. The chemical reactivity of oxygen dominates any other chemical property of the atmosphere as far as biology is concerned. That's why we say the atmosphere is "oxygen-based" even though there's more nitrogen in it.
27. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by russotto · 2012-01-11 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  No. They might call it "solution of hydrogen chloride (HCl) in water", but they won't call it "water-based", which by definition means that the foundation of the thing is water, because it isn't.
  When I googled for "water-based", I got page upon page of hits for things like water-based stains and pigments. That is, substances that could be dissolved in a choice of fluids such as water, alcohol, and oils.
  And a hydrochloric acid solution is a substance (anhydrous hydrogen chloride, a gas) dissolved in water.
28. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Hatta · 2012-01-11 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Fire is what you get when you combine a combustable material, oxygen, and heat. It's real, it's no lie. The combustable material is the fuel, oxygen is the oxident, and "burn" is the conversion of the fuel and oxygen to a different form. It's semantics, not lies.
  I agree, it's not lies. But we also have to remember that it's still just semantics. There's no reason not to consider oxygen the fuel and carbohydrates the reducing agent.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
29. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by NEDHead · 2012-01-11 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but it was really the principle I was going for. Other metals have also been used to similar effect.
30. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by RockDoctor · 2012-01-12 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  For related reasons, fluorine becomes a source of face-melting death in hydrogen-bonded form.
  Meh.
  This blog may give you a warm and cuddly feeling about good ol' fluorine : Sand Won't Save You This Time
  For a taste :
  
  It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water - with which it reacts explosively.
  If you don't know what "hypergolic" means, you should. Well, you used "hydrogen-bonded" above in a reasonable place, so you probably know already.
  Put your coffee down before following the link.
  Really.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
31. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by RockDoctor · 2012-01-12 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Specifically, IIRC, zirconium.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
32. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by RockDoctor · 2012-01-12 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  there's a specific chemical definition for oxidation, namely the loss of electrons. LEO GER is the acronym beginning chemists learn.
  "OIL RIG" for me. Oxidation Is Loss ; Reduction Is Gain.
  What is a Ger, and why would Leo have one? (partial answer : a Mongolian felt hut)
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
33. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by CtownNighrider · 2012-01-12 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Would a rocket with fluorine and francium (the element in the bottom left hand corner) have a higher specific impulse?
34. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-12 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  A friend of mine was working in an organic chemistry lab with a particularly cavalier graduate student once who had the nerve to open a vial of triflic acid outside of the fume hood. It began protonating the air around it and gave them both nosebleeds. (Said graduate student was ejected shortly after he got his PhD, for an unrelated reason.)
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
35. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by RockDoctor · 2012-01-12 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  "Triflic" ... well, you've managed the uncommon by stumping me. That's one I've never heard of, at least by that name. [follows link] Trifluoromethanesulphonic acid. Ohh, sounds good already.
  "dangerously exothermic."
  Can you set that to music .... oh no, it's all right, I hear it's siren song.
  Yes, on a scale of zero to "no" ... well, it's not something I'd keep under the kitchen sink with children around. Or cats. Or most adults, to be honest. Me included.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
36. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-13 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  There aren't too many acids that make the air shimmer when you expose them to it. It's (about) as aggressive as these sorts of things can get.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
37. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by RockDoctor · 2012-01-13 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Stop tempting me!
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
38. Re:Oxidizer, not fuel by Em+Adespoton · 2012-01-13 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe I should have air-quoted "lies to children" -- this is a term commonly used to refer to the oversimplification of scientific processes to put them in terms that children can understand, but which aren't necessarily totally scientifically correct.
  As such, "Fuel," "fire," "burn," and "lies to children" are all semantics.
  Burning falls under the same category as, say jumping. We describe jumping as using our legs to push our bodies up and away from the ground to overcome the effects of the earth's gravity -- but what's really happening is we're using our legs to overcome the gravitational pull of the earth on our body AND our body on the earth, as well as the other gravitational and frictional forces in play. In both cases, the words and description are true as far as they go, but they are not fully describing the event taking place. This is fine, until you start making incorrect conclusions based on those simplifications (such as all matter containing "fire" which can be released when the object is warmed up and exposed to air)
Re:Suggested uses of the research by geekoid · 2012-01-11 07:09 · Score: 1

Would those recommendation be babboo and babboo1 to 64?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Doxygen? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 07:10 · Score: 2, Funny

I read "Tracking down the first doxygen users".
I'm glad someone is looking into this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 07:20 · Score: 1

We cannot afford to have all of the oxygen used.
To protect the oxygen, there should be a lock on the atmosphere with a good combination. Not some stupid combination that some idiot would use for their luggage.
1. Re:I'm glad someone is looking into this by rubycodez · 2012-01-11 08:15 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  especially since oxygen is a component of the most powerful greenhouse gas on earth, water. And we can't model long term water content, too variable and complicated. We don't really know the contribution of carbon dioxide to the total greenhouse effect (amazing fact), estimated to be 9 to 32%. but the "climatogists" of course wail about the easier one to model.
2. Re:I'm glad someone is looking into this by stevelinton · 2012-01-11 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  This is totally offtopic, but the thing about water is that it moves in and out of the atmosphere quickly. Water level in the atmosphere is pretty much determined by temperature and perhaps the distribution of exposed ocean area. The result is a massive positive feedback. If something else warms the atmosphere and oceans, the water vapour level rises, adding to the warming, and vice versa. Modern models take full account of this. Historically, water surface temperatures can be determined from the oxygen isotope ratios in snow.
At some levels... by forkfail · 2012-01-11 07:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

... the human race shares certain critical traits with these little guys.
Like them, we're creating a cataclysmic event in the biosphere that will probably wipe ourselves out, but allow the next generation of life to thrive.
Unlike them, we out to be able to mitigate the impact of our presence, but while we're smart enough to see what we are doing, we don't have the fortitude to change our ways.

--
Check your premises.
Wasn't it SGI? by ThorGod · 2012-01-11 07:29 · Score: 1

I could be wrong here, but I believe the Oxygen was an SGI box.
Anyone correct me? ...oh, wait.

--
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
First Oxygen users... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 08:11 · Score: 1

IMHO it was KDE.
or oXygen? by Creosote · 2012-01-11 08:28 · Score: 1

As some who wrangles XML on a daily basis, my first thought was the oXygen XML software program (http://www.oxygenxml.com/). Which I have in fact been using since one of the earliest releases.
Add 5 feet of string at night! by drainbramage · 2012-01-11 08:43 · Score: 1

Try this some evening or in a darkened room (not your room):
Put a little weight on the end of a string and attach 0000 steel wool to it.
Light the steel wool, grab the other end of the string and swing it in a circle.
The smoldering steel wool becomes much more interesting.

--
No brain, no pain.
Re:Suggested uses of the research by babboo65 · 2012-01-11 10:04 · Score: 1

Nah - they're okay (i think)
Why it happened? The answer is ... by Ihlosi · 2012-01-11 20:53 · Score: 1

... evolution. That wasn't all that hard, was it?
Small errors leads to metabolisms that weren't just more resistant to oxygen (remember that it's a nasty poison to anything that's not used to it), but that could acutally use it to generate energy (in fact, more efficiently than by anaerobic metabolism). That opened up whole new habitats. Exponential growth ensues.
Re:Absolute certainty in the unknown by RockDoctor · 2012-01-12 02:51 · Score: 1

Step by step,
1- Oxygen is used by some organisms now.
2- Time exists.
3- Either (molecular) oxygen has been used by organisms since the first moment of time, in which case there is a possible "dead heat" between two (or possibly more) individual organisms for the first one to have been carrying out a chemical reaction involving (molecular) oxygen. At which point you get into uninformative argumentation about how finely you can divide time, and the quality of your measurement. You can waste as much time on that debate as you like.
3a- OR, there was a time in the past when no organisms used molecular oxygen, and you can have a meaningful debate over which class of organism was the first to start using molecular oxygen.
To illuminate the choice in step 3, we have good evidence that the universe was formed without oxygen (atomic or molecular), so there was a time and a place where atomic oxygen first formed, and a time and place where molecular oxygen first formed. Equally (unless you're going to postulate that life has existed for the entire duration of the universe), there was a time and a place where life first originated. Since life and oxygen now co-exist in at least one part of the universe ( /self : inhales) then there must have been a time and a place where life and (molecular) oxygen first came into contact, and also a time and place where life first started to make significant use of reactions involving molecular oxygen.
I think I've just given a solid reason for the first (molecular) oxygen-using organisms to have had a time and place of existence, using logic, not dogma.
Are you some sort of god-squaddie idiot? You have the stink of one.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Offtopic - contact me by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-17 03:05 · Score: 1

Psst, send me an email, I've learned of a good solution for an affordable and strong transaxle that can work in a mid-longitudinal configuration - much better than a Porsche box.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel