Talk:Noble gas

POTD

Picture of the day

The noble gases are a group of chemical elements with similar properties in the periodic table. The six noble gases that occur naturally are helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and the radioactive radon. Under standard conditions, the gases are all colorless, odorless, tasteless and nonflammable. The noble gases show extremely low chemical reactivity, and only a few hundred noble gas compounds have been formed.

This picture shows a gas discharge tube containing krypton.

See images of other noble gases: Helium · Neon · ArgonPhotograph: Alchemist-hp

Hindenburg and helium

There are two references on the page implying that helium was only used as a replacement for hydrogen after the Hindenburg disaster. This is false. The US operated helium-filled airships contemporary with the Hindenburg, including the USS Akron (ZRS-4) and USS Macon (ZRS-5). The Hindenburg used hydrogen because they didn't have access to helium, a resource extracted from natural gas deposits available only to the US and Russia. Neither were willing to sell this strategic military resource to Nazi Germany for obvious reasons. The Hindenburg's use of hydrogen was a political issue, not an engineering/science issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.138.101 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(Please use the Add Topic button in future)

If you have a reliable source, please let us know. See WP:FULLCITE Johnjbarton (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Radon discharge color

What color does radon glow in an electric discharge tube? Did someone get rid of it, or am I mistaken? 2600:1008:B11F:5DF9:2099:8782:E2A8:765E (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Nobody ever tried it experimentally, I think. Probably it glows violet-blue. Double sharp (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I've seen sources conflicting on this matter. Some say it glows green, others say it glows red. Its use is very limited by its radioactivity, making it impractical for commercial purposes. I suppose it has only been experimental. 174.103.211.175 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Rutherford and Royds wrote in 1908: Pure emanation, corresponding to the equilibrium amount from 130 mg. of radium, was condensed by liquid air in an exhausted spectrum tube of about 50 cubic millimetres capacity, provided with thin platinum electrodes. Two photographs were immediately taken, one giving about thirty of the more intense lines, and the other, with much longer exposure, showing more than one hundred lines. For a comparison spectrum a helium tube was used. The colour of the discharge in the tube was bluish. So I guess it really is blue. Double sharp (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Volcanology Wikipedia class module

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 14 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mtili Karim (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mtili Karim (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Sampling and measurement is WP:UNDUE

@Mtili Karim The section "Sampling and measurement" is far too long given that it is only about the geochemical application. It's too much detail for "Noble gases".

Overall the extensive coverage of geochemical applications unbalances the article as you can see by looking at the table of contents. In my opinion the best solution would be to create a new article with the current content and place a WP:Summary in this article. The new article should be summarized in other places as well. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Johnjbarton, I appreciate your edits and feedback for this addition. I agree, the geochemical application seems to unbalance the entire article. I will move back the added section to the sandbox and formulate a summary of noble gas application with overarching message that readers will benefit from. Mtili Karim (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mtili Karim If you choose to submit an Wikipedia:Articles for creation, WP:ping me and I will help with the review. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Johnjbarton, I just posted a new version of the summary on the article. Please let me know what you think. Thank you again! Mtili Karim (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Sourced paragraph removed.

In this edit @Mtili Karim removed a paragraph that had a source. Is there a problem with the source? Maybe the article content does not verify with that source? Another source that contradicts it? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)