Talk:Noble gas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Naming of the noble gases

That origin of the term noble gas seems rather far-fetched to me. Far more logical is that they're named analagously to noble metals, which were so named because they were expensive/rare/pretty. --fvw* 13:56, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Whereas the gases are not rare, expensive or especially pretty (colourless?) :)... To be honest I'm not sure where the name come from, however it seems to be a natural progression from inert (meaning totaly unreactive) to noble (which, to me at least, implies unlikely to react). --NeilTarrant 18:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Noble → unlikely to react leaves a few millenia of wars unexplained…

The link I was suggesting was more of a "noble metals" are so called because of their rarity, expensiveness, and prettiness → Noble metals are reasonably inert → Noble stuff is reasonably inert → hence noble gasses are the ones that are reasonably inert.

It may not be incredibly obvious, but it's a lot more credible to me than "Nobles don't do anything", which has never been true of idealised western nobility. --fvw* 18:51, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a little reseach in the Online Oxford English Dictionary:

Noble: Originally, of stones or metal: * precious (obs.); (also) * not destroyed by fire (obs.). Later, of a metal such as gold, silver, or platinum: resisting corrosion, as by oxidation or the action of acids; relatively unreactive; (of any chemical element) low in the electrochemical series. Also fig.

So it looks like you were right and I was wrong... fair enough :-) --Neo 13:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

The nobles gases were originally called inert gases because they were believed to be completely unreactive. After realizing they could form compounds, the name was changed to noble gases, implying that reactivity amongst them is very rare. Just as people of the nobility did not associate with lower classes, the noble gases did not readily react with any of the other elements. --Mjp797 14:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The article used to have a sentence stating this, which was the cause for the discussion above. As no source could be found, the sentence was removed. --Neo 15:53, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

---

On the same topic as above, the article implies that the term rare gas isn't used anymore. Many chemists still say rare gases or RG for short. Like the Rare Earth Metals, this originates from an from a mistaken preception that they weren't that common. However, the use of the term rare gas can be justified today by the definition of "rare" as "marked by unusual quality or appeal". Afn 11:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Was looking for the origin of the term noble. Enjoyed the discussion. Could we put a consensus best guess back in the main article ? e.g. the term "noble" was probably used to mirror the previous use of the adjective in relation to unreactive precious metals (e.g. gold). (Diggers2004 02:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC))

I've added the following paragraph; I hope it is acceptable to all concerned:

It seems likely that the name 'noble gases' is a reference to the unreactive noble metals, so called due to their preciousness, resistance to corrosion and long association with the aristocracy.

Someone who has a reference source ought to note the origins of the name on the noble metals page as well. --Neo 15:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I'd have to say that noble gasses are called such because they have a full outer shell, thus being essentially "happy". And seeing as atoms want to aquire a full shell and become noble. Doesn't everyone want to become noble? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.29.58.69 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

explanation line.

this box seems a bit over the top considering that the periodic table peice in question covers only noble gasses and only one undiscovered atom. I'd say remove it and just add a note with the image that UUO isn't discovered yet. What do others think? Plugwash 00:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Element Number	118
Element Name	Ununoctium
Normal Density	N/A
Atomic Mass	(314)
Boiling Pt. (°C)	(-22.6)
Melting Pt. (°C)	(-30.3)

• It seems that these data are just extrapolations of properties of other noble gases. They were apparently taken from www.apsidium.com. I have removed them and placed them here, as unproven information (element 118 most likely wasn't discovered yet). - Mike Rosoft 13:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah all that exists is a placeholder systematic name for the hypothetical element, should it ever be synthesized. Putting all those property guesstimates in place like they were real facts is daft.

I wonder if Uuo will turn out to be a semi-metal or noble gas, or both, if they would be able to find out.Antononio 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reactivity

Obviously the Noble Gases are pretty much unreactive but I've read about some experiments done in which the nobles did react. has anyone seen this?
the two examples i have of these experiments are here and here.

--Aslaveofaudio 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah, and your point is...? :) --feline1 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's old news. See Category:Xenon compounds. Krypton and argon make stable compounds as well. The only element that really doesn't form stable compounds at all is helium. —Keenan Pepper 21:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

and neon /yawns/ --feline1 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Discovery

At the moment the article suggests that the noble gases were discovered first twice : as argon in the air and helium in the sun. Which one is it? Cheers, --Plumbago 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Monatomic

There are non-Noble monatomic gases. For example most gases at high temperatures and some exist as monatomic gases at lower temperatures albeit temporarily.

OK, I have removed the merge tags and added something to that article. Please sign your comments. --Bduke 03:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

History of the periodic table

(Copied questions from Talk:Helium)

One form of Mendeleev's periodic table, from the 1st English edition of his textbook (1891, based on the Russian 5th edition)

• When was helium identified as the element with atomic number 2 in the periodic table of elements?

This periodic table from 1891 (Image:Mendeleev Table 5th II.jpg) does not list helium, nor does it leave an empty slot for element number 2. The result is that all elements beyond hydrogen are given an "atomic number" one less than the number of protons. -- Petri Krohn 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact the table is missing all noble gases, so there are other gaps in the table. Question number #2 is thus:

• When were the noble gases added to the periodic table?

-- Petri Krohn 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Moving discussion to Talk:History of the periodic table)

Unecessary line in introduction

From the introduction:

A thorough explanation requires an understanding of electronic configuration, with references to quantum mechanics.

Is that line really necessary/appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.158.198 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Long duplicate content in this article

The entire introductory § occurs once more in the § "Etymology" (except for bold type words and wiki links) - may-be this stuff was copied from the 2nd place to the intro with the intention to delete it at the orig. place to result in a move, and the deletion was forgotten. Does someone object this deletion?--UKe-CH 18:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, after looking at older versions, it seems to be the other way round - with the idea that the intro § is too long ?--UKe-CH 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

noble

Find at least one significant characteristic of each gas. Why do the noble gases emit light when stimulated by electricity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.117.74 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Most gases emit radiation when stimulated by electricity, but they corrode the electrodes. --Bduke (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition of noble gas

I suggest to change the first sentence of the introduction (definition of a noble gas) from

>The noble gases are the elements in group 18 (also sometimes Group 0 IUPAC Style, or Group 8) of the periodic table.

to

>The noble gases are the non-metal, chemically inert elements in group 18 of the periodic table.

and thus to change the status of Ununoctium from "noble gas" to "possibly a noble gas".

Reason: The present version defines Ununoctium to be a noble gas independent of its chemical properties(!). This collides with the statements made in the rest of the article, if Uuo turns out to have different chemical properties from the other six "period 18" elements. What if it turns out to be a solid, easily corroding metal, for example?

IMO "noble gas" should be a term for describing elements with similar chemical properties (that happen to be in the same group) rather than a synonym for "group 18 element" (though at our present state of knowledge, the two terms may indeed coincide). (Cf. the definition of Halogen as a non-metal element from group 17.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Note, for example, that IUPAC's provisional recommendations for the nomenclature of inorganic chemistry[1] define the halogens as "F, Cl, Br, I, At" and the noble gases as "He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn" without making reference to the periodic table group. That way they are safe in case element 118 turns out not to be like the noble gases. (I doubt we'll ever know that experimentally, but that's a different story...) --Itub (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

One more reason to change it. (I'll do it then.) Don't be too pessimistic about finding out 118's status - they already determined element 112's status based on about a dozen atoms.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

lol yeah right --feline1 (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

the Legend link

The legend link doesn't go anywhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.72.56 (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

OLD review!

The article does not meet the Good Article criteria at this time, and will not be listed. There are some significant issues with the completeness (broad) criterion, as well as some manual of style issues. Quite simply, there's just too many short sections, and the material than there looks like it was 'cherry picked' from some of the articles on individual noble gases as random samples, so I would call the comprehensiveness of the article into question.

• The 'physical properties' section is just a single table, with no introductory text, and no prose whatsoever.
• The 'noble gas notation' section, first of all, should be changed to simply 'notation', since the article title should not be used in the name of article sections (see WP:MOS). Secondly, I'm not sure why this information is in its own main section? It is true and correct, but maybe it should be incorporated into a discussion on the chemistry and/or physical properties.

• I wouldn't call the 'history' section by that title; in this case, we're talking about the 'discovery' of the noble gases, so the title of the section should be changed accordingly.

• For more suggestions on improving the article, I would strongly encourage looking at the comments in the recent peer review. Most of the suggestions provided were not actually incorporated into the article prior to nomination for GA, so I think this nomination is a bit premature. Once the issues here, as well as those in the peer review, have been addressed thoroughly, and the article is more complete, it can be renominated for GA. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)