Talk:Gallium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Talk

Discovery of the chemical elements says discovered in 1871. This article says 1875. -- Tarquin 10:23 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

1875 is the date given for the LANL, Elements database and Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary links above. Mendeleev predicted that this element exists in 1871. The discovery article is in error. I will fix it. --mav

Is the Most Stable Isotopes part correct? 31 and 39 do not make 71...

Yeah - it is. They're not supposed to. Nippoo 13:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

diffusion

"Gallium also attacks most other metals by diffusing into their metal lattice — another reason why it is important to keep gallium away from metal containers such as steel or aluminum"

What was the first reason?

At what temperature does this occur - not at room temperature surely?87.102.33.144 12:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the other reason is, but for some metals these processes can occur at room temperature (depending on thermodynamic stabilities of the alloys and the metals, some alloys have a reason to 'expell' a metal from the alloy (nickel from jewelry, e.g.), other alloys can be made by simply molding metals together at room temperature (Na/K-alloy, e.g). But sorry, no references available at this moment, I think a physical chemistry book would make a good reference for these processes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another good example is dental amalgam.74.134.234.31 04:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I should make the comparison with zinc (as well as indium and aluminium) next to gallium in the periodic table - molten zinc doesn't seem corrosive at all to ferrous metals, and I can't think of a reason why gallium would be substantially different.87.102.33.144 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Gallium has a way lower melting point, and I am not sure whether in this case comparison to neighbouring elements will be true. We'll have to dig up some references for this. You could try raising the matter in wikiproject elements (see top of this talkpage, gives you a better chance of reaching people). See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I put in a referenc, it say something about diffusion!-Stone 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference is about an aluminium zinc alloy - what about steel?87.102.2.226 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[[1]] for the plutonium alloys —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stone (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

I've changed the text to match what is actually stated in the reference-not some bullshit hot air from a wanker science student.87.102.2.226 12:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A simple google-search already easily yields quite some examples, I've added another one. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Gallium probably not 1.5% of coal ash

The article says that some coal ash contains 1.5% gallium. I suspect that this information is bogus.

That number came from a brief mention in LANL's periodic table on the web. That's part of their "kids site", not a research result.

But sources that talk about commercial recovery of gallium from fly ash have far lower numbers. See U.S. Patent #4,686,031, "Beneficiation of gallium in fly ash", which talks about starting from concentrations in the 100ppm (0.01%) range. The state of West Virginia says that the mean concentration of gallium in West Virginia coals [2] is 6.45 ppm. Fly ash is more concentrated than coal, of course, because burning removes the carbon but leaves the non burnable minerals.

If fly ash, which is cheap and easily available from any coal-fired power plant, contained 1.5% gallium, that would be the major commercial source, and nobody would be bothering with extracting it from bauxite. But it's not. --John Nagle 17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As I described here, there was a paper published around 1938 that indicated a figure of around 1.5% obtained from flue dusts from Northumbrian coal. If you can't find this article, let me know and I'll drive to another college to locate it for you. I spent several months looking at this problem - precisely because I could see the commercial potential (GaAs was just getting popular in 1982, when I did this work) - but I couldn't reproduce their numbers. (Then again, I was 22, and had virtually no experience of this type of chemistry.) Maybe I was misguided, but I didn't make up the numbers, and I got them from the original literature, and 1.5% matches exactly with what I remember. I also recall that other coalfields have very low levels of Ga and Ge. I didn't add the number into this article, so someone else must have used the same source I had. As I mentioned, germanium was isolated in huge amounts from this source around the 1950s, so the 1938 paper can't be all wrong. Please let me know if you find the paper, or if you need help with getting hold of it. Walkerma 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article currently gives a 1.5% figure for fly ash generally, which is far too high, since the citations we have show far lower numbers. There may be a deposit somewhere with a higher concentration of gallium, and that should be cited as an unusual occurrence. --John Nagle 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I suspect this coal seam may be unique. Walkerma 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Add the bulk/Young's modulus

Young's modulus can be calculated from the speed of sound in thin rods 2740 m/s by E = v^2*rho which gives 44.4 GPa.

The speed of sound should be determined from the pure deformation in one dimension - the longitudinal wave - and not with the eventual contraction of the material perpendicular to the wave motion as the Young's module derivation implies because that is not sound motion. It is a different kind of motion. This protest should also apply to the page on speed of sound.

Unless anyone protests I will add Young's modulus K=44.4 GPa.

What I really need is the bulk modulus. This is an important parameter because we are going to do pressure-volume work on solidifying expanding Gallium which means the bulk modulus is needed. Young's modulus can not be used.

I found this http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v165/i3/p751_1 talking about the longitudinal sound speed to be 4070 m/s (at 1.3 K) giving a bulk modulus of K = v^2*rho=(4070^2)*5910 * = 97 898 559 000 Pa = 97.9 GPa. Worth adding? Density is probably different at that temperature too.

Maybe someone can find B.W. Magnum and D.D. Thornton, Metrologia 15 (1979), p. 201. That is an article on Gallium.

Davidjonsson 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong in applications, cooling, comparison to water

This "4.184/2.187 = 1.9 times more" is wrong. It should be "4.184/2.187 = 1.9 times less".

Another very important factor in cooling is the thermal conductivity which is much higher i Gallium compared to water. Gallium 40.6  W/m/K Water 0.6155 W/m/K

Gallium is a factor 66 better.

Davidjonsson 22:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I thought till I did some maths on it. There's several problem with metals for cooling purposes. One subtle one is that to cool something you need to carry the heat away. With a liquid metal, if you flow metal past something, the heat tends to flow upstream which evens out temperature and reduces the heat flow into the metal. That and some other effects meant that the equations say that there isn't a big gain over water- and it wasn't as good as some oils. Basically that heat conductivity is not telling the whole story, you also need to consider viscosity, flow, heat capacity, and the thicknesses of one or two different boundary layers etc. etc. A factor of 66 better than water is simply untrue.WolfKeeper 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• "4.184/2.187 = 1.9 times less".

The phrase "1.9 times less" is nearly meaningless. It is 2.187/4.184 = 0.5227 = 52% as much. Yes, the thermal conductivity should be taken into account. But all of this is NOR. We need a cite for it. SBHarris 04:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR? Cite? All of it can be calculated. I adjust the obvious error. Davidjonsson 20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR as in WP:NOR, standing for No Original Research. --Van helsing 20:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning WP:CITE: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source". Was once part of WP:OR#What is not original research?, somebody found it to be a wise idea to delete it though. --Van helsing 21:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not in calculating simple ratios, as above. The problem is in using a ratio of thermal conductivities as a simple all-purpose "figure of merit" for a cooling fluid, assuming that a substance which has 66 times the thermal conductivity (a fact which is not original) is "66 times better" therefore, for a given application (an assertion which IS original). It's the last which isn't obvious. No engineering application is THAT straightforward. A better conductivity is one indicator only of performance, and it's not a perfectly quantitative one. SBHarris 04:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen

Someone should add the application of Ga and Al for creating H for H power... When Gallium comes in contact with a metal it diffuses its chem lat. Al oxidizes extremely easy, but develops a protective film to make sure it doesn't erode. so adding Ga to Al disrupts the ability to develop film. if H20 is added the O oxidizes mit the Al and the H is left by itself... This H can then be used for H power... I'm to tired to write this better, Purdue U is where this process was developed so if you want to write it into the article find more info there... -Val Vaine Von Sarie

Not usefull

Hg does the same. This method is not usefull, because the production of Al is more energy consuming than that of H2. To include this in the article would lead people to think that this method has a future use or is applied already.--Stone 08:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Storing energy in the alloy

Well, that's entropy; of course you can't get more energy out of the reaction than you put into it. That's only possible in nuclear reactions: fusion , theoretically, if we can ever get it to work, gives off far, far more energy than it takes to split water to get the hydrogen fuel to use in the fusion reaction.

The point is to use aluminum-gallium alloy as a way to store potential energy. You carry around pellets of the alloy in your car's fuel tank to react with water to liberate hydrogen from a tank of water on-the-go to use in a hydrogen fuel cell to generate electricity to power the electric motors in your car. The energy to refine the resulting aluminum oxide back into aluminum to use as a "battery" over again will, of course, need to come from elsewhere. This is useful to do because storing hydrogen is a pain. It seeps through any material over time and damages some metals as it does so: Hydrogen embrittlement. You can store pellets of aluminum metal alloy and water indefinitely--better than gasoline, as far as that goes. TheDragoon (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Running out?

Just added the comment about running out of gallium. Checked the Indium element article where someone dismissed the same prediction for it as "scaremongering." I'm just including a scholarly reference here, not predicting!  :) Maybe the same disclaimer can be found for gallium. Student7 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of price

I found the article with the following line:

 The cost for 37.5 grams of gallium is 71.99.

I deleted this line for the following reasons:

The mass was not normalized.  One gram or one pound would be preferred.
The price lacked units.  Is this dollars, pounds, yen or quatloos?
There was no date.  Prices change.
There was no citation.

I think this is useful information, or rather it would be useful if brushed up a bit.Lon of Oakdale (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of gallium melting in a gloved hand

Such a photograph appears in many high-school chemistry textbook entries on gallium. Is there a free one we could include here? I'm inspired by whoever turned the plain text entry in Oxygen#Compounds "Water is the most familiar compound of oxygen." into a caption for an excellent photograph illustrating that article. --arkuat (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have some gallium metal. I could take a picture.--DMKTirpitz (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference

• . doi:10.1002/jctb.5010011202. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) --Stone (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused tag

Hi, a confused tag was added to this article saying "not to confused with gadolinium". Is this really necessary? The two names are different, the only similarity is the start with "ga" and end with "ium". Fine if they were the same word but pronounced differently or with only a minor difference. But Gallium does not sound the same as Gadolinium. I can't see how anyone could confuse the two elements. Polyamorph (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed these tags as unecessary per action taken on other rare earth articles.Polyamorph (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Boiling temperature disagreements

I am reading different values for the boiling temperature of gallium from different sources and I am wondering which is right?

In this page we have 2477 K, 2204 °C. What is the source for this value?

The Chemical Elements website states 2676.15 K 2403.0 °C which corresponds to the value in my Penguin Dictionary of Chemistry book published in 1990. On the other hand another text book "Chemistry, Molecules, Matter and Change" states the boiling point of Gallium is 2070 °C. Come on people, the published values are all over the place with the boiling point of gallium! There can only really be one right answer!

Peter Dow (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

See Chemical elements data references. I wouldn't trust the penguin. Give it away and instead get yourself a rubber book. Polyamorph (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jdrewitt. From the page you referenced I found Boiling points of the elements (data page) and I have added content to the associated talk page - Talk:Boiling points of the elements (data page).

I am a scientist so I do not trust, ever, but neither shall I give my books away. So you recommend the CRC handbook? Why do you call it a "rubber book"?

If you can read the CRC handbook at source can you quote please the value the CRC handbook gives for the boiling point of gallium? I can read that the Boiling points of the elements (data page) purports to quote the CRC value in its table, claiming it is "2204 °C", but although I do not have immediate access to the book myself nevertheless I have heard from another source that the CRC handbook actually quotes a value for the boiling point of gallium of "2403°C". In other words, according to that chap the value in the CRC handbook would be the same as the value I quoted from the Penguin Dictionary of Chemisty, namely "2403.0 °C", again the same value as Chemical Elements website.

Peter Dow (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The part about giving the book away was meant as a joke. See CRC_Press#History for an explanation re: the "rubber book" (basically its printed by the Chemical Rubber Company (CRC)). I've looked in the CRC handbook of Chemistry and Physics 89th edition which gives 2204 degrees C (2477 K). The same value is given by webelements: http://www.webelements.com/gallium/physics.html . Polyamorph (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Could it be possible that there are two tables in the CRC handbook each of which give a different value for the boiling point of gallium? Perhaps there is a "Chemistry" values table and a "Physics" values table?

Kaye & Laby give two slightly different values for the boiling point of gallium which can be read online.

(1) Properties of the elements 3.1.2 - the value is 2200°C

(2) Standard molar heat capacities and properties of melting and evaporation of the elements 3.10.1 - the value for Tvap is 2480K. By my calculation 2480K = (2480 - 273)°C = 2207°C. Peter Dow (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you might want to mention the thread you started on talk:Boiling points of the elements (data page) to the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements because it's more likely to get a response that way. Polyamorph (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rubber books 47, 53 and 66 all give 2403°C. There's no more detail given (conditions etc). ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Boiling points of the elements (data page) takes its values from the 84th edition. The value from the 89th (2009) edition of 2204 degrees C (2477 K) is the normal boiling point (i.e. taken at 101.325 kPa) and is the same as quoted in the 84th. It is quite likely the discrepancy comes from a historical innaccuracy and possibly in some cases a difference in the formalism used to define the boling point. Polyamorph (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

quality scale assessment

B-Class Review

• Biology section is too short with one sentence.
• Chemistry section is a little bit crowded an needs some work to get it straight.
• There must be something in the history since discovery.

Overall B-Class with only minor problems. --Stone (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Low melting point reason

I think one of the question asked most frequently is the reason of its low melting point. Is it something concerning quantum mechanics? and is it the same reason with Hg? --Busukxuan (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Density of gallium

Currently states 5.91. This needs correction. See: NIST 5.904 g/cm3DLH (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

see Densities of the elements (data page). The density is taken from WEL (webelements), LNG (Lange's Handbook of Chemistry (15th Edition)) and CRC (CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 84th Edition). The CRC reference value is preferred, presumably because it's the most recent. Polyamorph (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

interesting demonstrative picture to add

Hey, this picture found on reddit/imgur would be great for this article. Demonstrates Gallium melting in the hand. http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/ocep7/gallium/ http://i.imgur.com/cHfoG.jpg 38.99.136.166 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Liquid elements

It is said here that gallium is liquid at room temperatures, like caesium, francium and mercury. In the "Rubidium" page it reads: "Rubidium is the second most electropositive of the stable alkaline elements and can be a liquid at room temperature". So, must it be added, or are there any missings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.55.116.210 (talk • contribs) .

The Rb melt temp is 102.8 F = 39.3 C. Room temperature is not well-defined scientifically, but I think just about anyone would object to 103 F as room temperature. It's a good hot tub temperature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sbharris (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the precision; as you say, "room temperature" is a rather ambiguous term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.55.116.210 (talk • contribs) .

Note also that some articles which mention liquid elements only refer to "near" room temperature, not "at" room temperature, to complicate things further. Femto 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For the Record, room temperature should be around 68-70 degrees. Most houses I've been in are set for that, and it's generally the automatic, or at least median setting for thermostats. Joesolo13 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wetting property

Liquid metal states:

However, this observation of "wetting by rubbing into glass surface" has created a widely spread misconception that the gallium-based liquid metals wet glass surfaces, as if the liquid breaks free of the oxide skin and wets the glass surface. The reality is the opposite; the oxide makes the liquid wet the glass. In more details: as the liquid is rubbed into and spread onto the glass surface, the liquid oxidizes and coats the glass with a thin layer of oxide (solid) residues, on which the liquid metal wets. In other words, the commonly seen was a gallium-based liquid metal wetting its solid oxide, not glass. Apparently, the above misconception was caused by the super-fast oxidation of the liquid gallium in even a trace amount of oxygen, i.e., nobody observed the true behavior of a liquid gallium on glass, until CJ Kim's group at UCLA debunked the above myth by testing Gallinstan, a gallium-based alloy that is liquid at room temperature, in a completely oxygen-free environment

This article reads:

When the wetting action of gallium-alloys is not desired (as in Galinstan glass thermometers), the glass must be protected with a transparent layer of gallium(III) oxide.

That seems to contradict the previous statement? Can anyone enlighten me? Ssscienccce (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Triple point

A triple point is a temperature and pressure. The article only lists the temperature. Without the pressure it's either meaningless or irrelevant. Fatphil (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The triple point temperature and pressure are constants (and are not meaningless at all). I guess most readers don't need the pressure value (though I would specify it). Materialscientist (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I calculate that its triple point pressure based on the Clausius–Clapeyron relation is as low as around 10⁻³⁵ Pa, which is about 24 magnitudes lower than even in outer space. Do you agree with that value, Materialscientist? PlanetStar 17:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Increasing Ga melting point

Some discussion on ways to increase Ga melting point should be added, or its impossibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.55.30 (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

One possible way is to expose to much higher pressures, unless it decreases the melting point. If so, no possible way. PlanetStar 21:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The article says "Many stable and metastable phases are found as [a] function of temperature and pressure." These sound like the allotropes of carbon and sulfur which have various melting points.

If you were to separate the two isotopes, they should have slightly different melting points, much as heavy water has different melting and boiling points from ordinary water.

A non-eutectic alloy could have a higher melting point. So could a compound. Of course those aren't pure gallium. —rybec 21:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gallium. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div836/836.05/papers/magnum90ITS90guide.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div836/836.05/papers/Strouse99GaTP.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing word in 'other uses' section.

It currently reads "This experiment showed that the solar neutrino flux is 40% than had been predicted by theory." Presumably there should be a 'lower' or 'higher' in there. 80.176.229.143 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup, my goof. Should be "40% less". Thanks. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gallium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Very relevant to the subject.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article deserves to be passed, despite the absence of the nominator.

A suggestion would be to include a few more photos, but it is not a must. Gug01 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I added a few pictures. There aren't many pictures of Ga compounds on WP, I suspect because they tend to be colourless. Double sharp (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Double sharp:

2005 comments

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:20, 1 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 17:27, 14 June 2005).

Normal human body temperature?

Hey Wikipedians!

I'd like to pose a question to the more experienced among you: should the following sentence from the Gallium summary be revised?

Elemental gallium is a liquid at temperatures greater than 29.76 °C (85.57 °F), and will melt in a person's hands at normal human body temperature of 37.0 °C (98.6 °F).

The reason I ask is because I was listening to an episode of Radiolab two days ago titled "Kleptotherms" (published May 5, 2021), and one of the primary things that was talked about was the fact that it is essentially a myth that the normal healthy human body temperature is 37.0°C or 98.6°F. I'm wondering, is it worth revising that line in the Gallium summary? Its inclusion seems quite inconsequential in this context, but the information is still technically inaccurate (from what I have heard/read), and allowing it to remain as-is may contribute to the perpetuation of this myth. That's why I'd like to defer to someone more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and standards so they can make a determination on what, if anything, should be done. Thanks! :)

(I only have a little experience when it comes to editing Wikipedia, and I'm still pretty new to the way things work. If I'm doing anything wrong here, please let me know. Constructive criticism is always welcome and greatly appreciated!)

--TheWizardG (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheWizardG, it would be fine to change to read "temperature of around 37 °C" instead (see Human body temperature). Regardless of the precise value of body temperature, it is still always going to be much higher than the melting temperature of Ga. Polyamorph (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

2016

The GaN radio frequency device market alone was estimated at $370 million in 2016 and $420 million in 2016.[63]

Two 2016...what is the real year? --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)