Talk:Noble gas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Applications

Para 3 begins: "Helium has a low solubility in fluids, leading to its use, along with oxygen, for breathing by deep-sea divers because helium does not dissolve in blood and therefore does not form bubbles upon decompression."

Unfortunately helium does dissolve in blood and other body tissues under the increased ambient pressures experienced by divers. In fact, He dissolves and comes out of solution much faster than nitrogen and can cause bubbles (hence decompression sickness) in the same way. See, for example, [1] and the article Decompression_sickness#Helium.

The actual purpose of using He in divers' breathing gas mixtures is to reduce the effects of narcosis. The narcotic potential of most gases is well-correlated with their lipid solubility while He appears to have no observable narcotic effect. This is outlined in the article on trimix and discussed more fully in nitrogen narcosis - the references there would be good to support a better wording on this page.

As an aside, a small cylinder of argon is sometimes used by divers to inflate their drysuits as it has a much lower thermal conductivity than breathing mixtures - this might be worth a mention in this section.

I know that this article is being considered for GA, so I'm loathe to boldy edit it as a fresh editor. Perhaps someone involved in the GA effort could summarise what I've pointed to and do some corrections? If not, would you be happy for me to change that paragraph? --RexxS (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it, but please add references and format them according to WP:CITE/ES, preferably with {{cite web}}. Gary King (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Hope it meets your standards; some of the cites are journal with an online summary link. Cheers! --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the references. Gary King (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out those refs, I'll remember |publisher in future! One small point, you changed the last sentence in the para I edited to say "because (argon) is suitable as a drysuit inflation gas" - just about any gas is "suitable", but argon has the best thermal-resistance/cost ratio, which is why I wrote "good choice". I guess I meant "best choice". Anyway, have a think, you may decide a stronger phrase than "suitable" is better (or not). Cheers and best of luck for the GA, you've clearly worked hard on it - --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence to better clarify it. Thanks for pointing that out; the way it was before, though, it seemed a bit colloquial. I think "option" makes more sense, too; once you go through the Featured Article process, then every word will have to hold its own weight. Gary King (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference 39

The reference 39 cites "Orion's Arm" (for frequency of gas occurrence in the universe) which is a fictional game centuries in the future. Is this valid?--Almstmnntyrs (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used as a reference, but please leave it there unless you can find a replacement for it. If not, then I will replace it myself soon. Gary King (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

I've been asked to copyedit this page by Itub but I see that it is well advanced and looking quite tidy. I've made some minor changes, some notes or questions about some of these are below out of courtesy to all those that are thrashing away toward GA for this. Revert away if others don't agree!

• "Respective" helps disambiguate the point about mps and bps
• Does "Edelgas" need to be capitalised? I've left it as is for now

My German is a little rusty, but I believe it should stay capitalized. It's a proper noun according to the German language. Gary King (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• "included these noble gases as group 0 in" gets rid of two "in"s close together
• Chemical in chemical compounds is redundant

It depends on the context, since "compound" has several meanings. I think it's used appropriately here. Gary King (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• "It was not until 1962 that Neil Bartlett discovered" requires that instead of when unless there is another statement with that later in the sentence, such as in "It was not until 1962 when Jack discovered beer that he married Jill". Bless the man. Or beer.
• The neon picture's caption reads awkwardly with the two sets of brackets but I don't really have a suggestion

I did have a suggestion for that. Franamax (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Which picture are we talking about? Gary King (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the one I was thinking of, first one below Noble_gas#Chemical_properties. I'm a little bummed about not having figured out the table alignment thing first, but now I know where to look to see how to do it in future :) Franamax (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Lack of reactivity among the noble gases is caused by a full valence shell, resulting in little tendency to gain or lose electrons." in Compounds seems redundant as it has been covered earlier in the article.

Resolved Gary King (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• The properties table would be nicer with the left column "left justified" but I'm not that tech-savvy yet. Note that abundance is not a physical property- this comment was previously placed (hidden) in the text.

Resolved Gary King (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've made a few minor changes to sentences to make them sound more "encylcopaedic"

Best of luck with the GA nomination! Freestyle-69 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all done. Please take another look. Thanks! :) Gary King (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, some have been busy over the weekend (you do get weekends about the same time as the southern hemisphere don't you? :) One minor point- the neon caption now seems to state that helium doesn't have a full valence shell: Neon, like all noble gases except helium, has a full valence shell, meaning it has eight electrons in the outermost orbital

It may require two sentences to get this caption right, I've given it my sugggestion:

Neon, like all noble gases, has a full valence shell. Noble gases have eight electrons in this outermost shell, except in the case of helium, which has two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freestyle-69 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Abundances

They need to be there just not under a table called physical properties. I would think that adding a sentence about production and abundances and then having a minitable should do the work. Nergaal (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it. I will convert it to prose later, because I don't think it has too much information; two sentences can easily contain the information in the table. Gary King (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag - compounds

I've been looking for sources to verify specifically that "argon, krypton, and xenon can form clathrates with hydroquinone, but helium and neon cannot fit because they are too small." I've found a patent here that describes the preparation and potential use of hydroquine/xenon (#20 on the list on that site) and hydroquine/argon (#21), so I can validate the first part of the statement (show the existence of, and demonstrate the usefulness of the clathrate) for Xe & Ar - but I'm struggling to find a reliable source that specifically says He & Ne are too small to form clathrates with hydroquinone. There's a good discussion of hydroquinone clathrate structures in Encyclopedia of Supramolecular Chemistry By Jerry L. Atwood, Jonathan W. Steed, pp 679-686. It might be possible to deduce from there that He & Ne are too small to form a stable clathrate, but that would be original research, so not much use to the article.

However, reference #19 to the Supramolecular Chemistry article points to research on hydroquine/neon interactions (Hermansson K. Host-guest interactions in an organic crystal ...), so we can demonstrate what the article claims to exist - but that still doesn't give us evidence of what doesn't exist :(

I dunno - can anyone find something more concrete or might it be better to drop the unsourced part of the statement until something is found? --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Drop it if it's not essential and we can't source it. Gary King (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a good statement. Don't delete it yet, but instead add the 2 refs for the first part.Nergaal (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I spent a few hours on that pesky subject this morning. It's awful hard to prove a negative. I asked for a copy of this earlier today but I think my email didn't go through. I'll ask again, but if anyone here has subscription access, shoot me (or all of us) a copy for a look-through. It is a bit important, since noble gases form very few compounds and when they do, stabilization from Van der Waals bonding can sometimes play a part. Franamax (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference to Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.. --Itub (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. Now can you think of a better wording? "too small to fit" isn't quite right, unless you also explain the lock-and-key concept. Maybe something more like "too small for Van der Waals bonding to stabilize the noble gas atom within the structure"? Or even better, whatever the textbook says! Franamax (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The textbook says "Probably the most famous of all clathrates are those formed by Ar, Kr and Xe with quinol. [...] Similar clathrates are obtained with numerous other gases of similar size, such as O2, N2, CO, and SO2 but not He or Ne, which are too small or insufficiently polarized to be retained. [...] Noble gas hydrates [...] again are formed by Ar, Kr and Xe but not He or Ne." --Itub (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was going over to fix "or insufficiently polarized to be retained" which is inapplicable to a) monoatomic and b) filled valence shell atoms. That bit can come out without any fear of OR or synthesis. But at the same time, I see you've added formation of "with water" aka clathrate hydrates, and a quick google for "helium clathrate" shows that hydration bonds are quite feasible. The difference here is that hydroquinone is the "classic" example of a clathrate, it has a fixed cage structure where the cavity size comes into play (and I believe was among the very first noble gas compounds discovered); whereas water of hydration can form a stable clathrate structure in almost any range of cage diameters, because H2O can form extended networks of hydrogen bonds. Anyway, the water (or clathrate hydrate), and the hydroquinone clathrate statements will need to be split up to properly address which noble gases can form which clathrates. I would suggest "too small to be retained within the clathrate structure" for hydroquinone, or some other appropriate modifier after "retained". Franamax (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And to Agesworth's edit while I was slowly typing this out: you've changed a directly referenced statement while not adjusting the reference. If you think that large noble gas atoms are somehow polarized in a clathrate structure, can you provide an additional reference? Franamax (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The book says that the same noble gases (Ar, Kr, Xe) form both types of clathrates. Of course, it could be wrong. I don't understand the objection to the idea that noble gas atoms are polarized when forming part of a clathrate. --Itub (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But wait, I see that I mistyped the quote. The book indeed says "polarizable". --Itub (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You beat my temporary strikeout by seconds (longer now - e/c) on my comment on Agesworth's edit and on polarizability, I need to investigate that some more. The original problem I noted is that the current wording says that helium cannot form a clathrate, whereas a google search shows quite clearly that it can - the "too small" limitation applies only to the hydroquinone structure. And just to think about it - the particular clathrate structure is the cage-type, which surrounds the atom, so in which direction do you propose the noble gas atom is polarized? But I do need to better investigate the text, only one of the either/or's should be true in the particular case. Franamax (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) It depends on the geometry of the clathrate. Perhaps it will be too symmetric to induce a dipole on the noble gas atom, but it should be able to induce a higher moment such as a quadrupole or octapole. --Itub (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link for (binary) helium clathrate hydrate [2]. It's of interest in that it does state helium cannot form a water hydrate, it can form a binary hydrate, and it states "too small" and does not mention polarizability. However it is a primary source. If you can give me the page numbers of the text you are working from, I think I can get them sent to me from the library, just so I can have a better grasp of the subject for my own benefit. Franamax (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is page 893. I can send you a PDF if you give me an email address. Now, this book is from 1997 and doesn't go too deeply into clathrates (it devotes about two paragraphs to the topic), so it would not be surprising if the information is outdated. However, after a quick look at the article you linked to, it seems to me that helium hydrate has not been made yet without adding something else, such as THF, into the mix. Greenwood and Earnshaw don't say that helium clathrates in general do not exist; they just say that the hydroquinone clathrate and the hydrate do not exist (or did not exist to the best of their knowledge as of 1997). --Itub (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the lead

The lead needs to be expanded. I have already broken it up into three paragraphs, each with a different topic, which I think makes more sense than what it was before. The three paragraphs need some more information added to them so they form a better summary of the entire article. The third paragraph in the lead especially needs to be expanded and include information on how noble gases are obtained, and some applications of noble gases. Gary King (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable references

I have added {{rs}} (which shows "[unreliable source?]") to references that are unreliable. If more reliable references, such as scientific journals or books, can be found, then please replace them. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm only able to comment on the reliability of the two diving-related sources (Anttila, Matti. Narcotic factors of gases. Tech Diver / Maiken, Eric. Why Argon?).

I'm tempted to agree that the Techdiver website has no reputation for reliability, but the table as presented there is taken from "The Physiology and Medicine of Diving" by Peter Bennett and David Elliott (4th edition p 176) - which is pretty much the Bible for diving medicine (or at least the number 1 starting point). However, AFAIK it's not available for free on the web while the table of relative narcotic potentials immediately illustrates the point about using helium to reduce narcosis. Now, I guess we could replace the Techdiver reference with a ref to Bennett & Elliott - or even have both? What's best?

Eric Maiken's essay is another matter altogether. WP:RS states "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I would agree that a website is scarcely a "reliable publication process", but Eric Maiken has a huge reputation as an authority in diving physics and physiology. His essay was taken from a seminar on "Thermal Protection" at a tech diving conference and I seriously doubt that you'll find a better analysis than his to support the use of argon for drysuit inflation. I'm happy to look for other sources which may appear to have a more scholarly pedigree, but I still think the one you've got is the best there is. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain the references. I will go ahead and make appropriate changes so that the references point to more scholarly sources like the ones you mentioned. Gary King (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think in cases like this it is often useful two include both references, the "scholarly" and the "accessible". While only the latter is formally needed for verification, the latter is a service to most readers who don't have easy access to the scholarly sources. Of course, all of this is assuming that the "accessible" source agrees with the "scholarly" one. --Itub (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Only the scholarly reference should be included, per WP:RS, especially if we ever plan to take this article to WP:FAC. Gary King (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Webelements is not actiually a reliable reference. See here. Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely definitive; however, if a more reliable source can be found, please add it. I would also prefer another reference be used. Also, I'm not sure if having WebElements listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Guidelines#Previous_data_sources means the project uses it or not? Gary King (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is useful to have it for various unreferrenced facts, or for quick-checks, and was probably used in the first stages of the profect. But I am sure it is not intended for FACs. ps: when is this GAN going to end? Nergaal (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO this article met the GA requirements a while ago. All that remains are some minor refinements and improvement in sourcing and it should be ready for FA. --Itub (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where these cosmic abundances came from, but we should be careful. I've been searching, and most sources don't talk about abundances "in the universe" (except perhaps for helium), but in a much more restricted context, such as in the solar system. For the solar system, the most authoritative reference seems to be E. Anders, N. Grevesse, Abundances of the elements: Meteoritic and solar, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197-214, (1989) doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X. This article has been cited a whopping 4870 times. --Itub (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bonding section

I see the tech help note. In the context of the article, is this section really necessary? It'd be pretty hard to "dumb it down" without giving a lesson in orbital theory and the like, which may just detract from the article. The articles on hypervalency, orbitals and 3C4E bonds are fairly good at explaining this. Perhaps some of the text can be merged into the Compounds section, with links to the appropriate pages? Freestyle-69 (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Care to do the honors? I'm pooped today and would rather not spend more time with this article until tomorrow :) Gary King (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really keen to stick to proofreading, I have a list already and it ain't getting done real fast. This was just a suggestion- those diagrams and the like that a well-meaning editor(s) put in are worthy, but probably a bit heavy going, esp in terms of the GA aims here. Perhaps that editor(s) might want to do it? If there's nothing tidied by tomorrow (Aussie time) I'll give it a crack, but it'll mean dumping some of it, which I'm loath to do. Btw Gary this page is on my watchlist so I'll see any comments here. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I added that section, so as you might imagine I'm a bit fond of it. That level of discussion is found in any college-level inorganic chemistry textbook. The question is, what are we aiming for here? I think it is normal that not everything in a scientific article will be easily comprehensible to everyone--the norm is to start with the basics and fill in the gory details later in the article. That was my aim here. I could expand it a bit to try to make things more explicit, but I can also agree with reducing and merging as long as the key concepts are mentioned and linked. --Itub (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I'll get to it tomorrow. Gary King (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping I'd get a bite from someone. I would have been a bit brutal I fear :) Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Order of physical properties vs chemical properties

Would there be any objection against moving the physical properties section before the chemical properties section? I believe that's the more common practice in chemistry books (perhaps in physics books it's the other way around?...) --Itub (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I went through the article in detail yesterday and I had the same impression. How is now? Ps: I also moved a sentence from the compounds into the physical section. Nergaal (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing seemingly reliable refs?

Why do good refs get deleted such as in [this edit]? Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My question is, why do we have so many references for some statements that are only a sentence long? Although, I was working hastily; some of them can be re-added, which I will do now. Gary King (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

At least for one of the referenceyou deleted in that edit was useful! The sentence was somewhat long and it included two different statements, EACH with a reference. Somebody moved the first reference at the end of the sentence, but the references were not overlapping. And EVEN if they were stating the same thing, what is wrong with doubling a statement that might seem iffy? PLEASE, at least check the references you remove. Nergaal (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also the references you add. I see you added the Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta paper for the abundances in the universe. Like I said, that paper doesn't talk about the "universe", and I'm not even sure that the numerical values given there are the same as in Webelements. The values they report are even on a different scale. --Itub (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, alright. I will hold off on the references – I am working on another article at the moment. Please feel free to revert the changes I made. Also, I would appreciate that edit summaries are used, especially for many edits in a row, as it makes it easier to verify what new references have been added for verification purposes. Gary King (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bolding

Why are "group 18" and "group 0" in boldface in the first line? seresin (public computer) 21:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I did that; it's not a major thing, but I did it because they are aliases for Noble gas. This is common among articles, but is not by any means required. I will remove the bold since I can see why some people might not like it. Gary King (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen

• After hydrogen was found to be combustible, it was replaced with helium in blimps and balloons.

Hydrogen was known to be combustible a long time before its use in blimps and balloons. Perhaps you might consider mentioning the LZ 129 Hindenburg disaster. GrahamColm^Talk 07:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Applications section, "However, as the LZ 129 Hindenburg disaster demonstrated when the hydrogen in the envelope " Gary King (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Radon radius

Why doesn't Radon have an atomic radius listed in the table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepheng3 (talk • contribs)

It wasn't available in the source we used. Perhaps no one has measured it because radon is highly radioactive. If you know of a source for the radius that we could use, please let us know. --Itub (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Calculated as 120 pm according to Radon, which matches the cited value in the Atomic radius#Calculated atomic radius table. Some of the Atomic radius values differ from those in the elements' own pages, and also differ from the Noble gas#Physical and atomic properties table. At least we have cites, so "the sources disagree" instead of "Wikipedia editors are morons and/or vandalism makes WP useless." DMacks (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Standard conditions

The introductory paragraph refers to the properties of noble gases "under standard conditions" without explanation. Is this a reference to standard temperature and pressure? If so it should be made a wikilink to Standard conditions for temperature and pressure.--DJIndica (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of texts I've seen merely say "Helium is an odourless colorless ... gas" ; and so does with the other noble gases' definitions. Without any further information provided, an article reader, with little knowledge in chemistry like me, could assume from use of present simple tense that the standard conditions mean the common "Room Temperature" and "1 ATM." Still, I'm not certain about the accurate fact.Eakka (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

History

This is an interesting article: One or Several Pioneers? The Discovery of Noble-Gas Compounds doi:10.1002/anie.198804791 It turns out that Rudolf Hoppe discovered XeF₂ nearly at the same time as Bartlett discovered xenon hexafluoroplatinate, but his publication was a few weeks later, and now relatively few people remember his contribution. --Itub (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Clathrate hydrates

Neon (radius:38pm) is only slightly larger than helium (radius:31pm) atom, and much smaller than heavier noble gas atoms like argon (radius:71pm). It may not be able to form a clathrate with ice. Anoop.m (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reference cited makes quite an specific claim that such a clathrate exists, doesn't it? --Itub (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No clathrates have been found for helium and neon is aref for it while doi:10.1039/X9909209 says there is a high pressure clathrate.--Stone (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that a journal article specifically reporting the existence of the clathrate beats a general, introductory textbook. --Itub (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First noble gas discovered?

The "History" section claims:

Pierre Janssen and Joseph Norman Lockyer were the first to discover a noble gas on August 18, 1868 while looking at the chromosphere of the Sun, and named it helium after the Greek word for the Sun.

Were they able to show that helium was actually a noble gas? If not, I would not call them the "first to discover a noble gas". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They discovered helium. Helium is a noble gas. Therefore, they discovered a noble gas (even if the concept of "noble gas" didn't exist yet). --Itub (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Formally, yes. But I would reword the sentence to avoid confusion. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Group 18 elements

I converted the link to this redirect to bold, with a disclaimer on the merit of that change; I know little about this topic, that is why I am here. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead section seems off, more insistent than factual: "For the first six periods of the periodic table, the noble gases are exactly the members of group 18 of the periodic table". cygnis insignis 14:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edelgas coined in 1898

Was the word Edelgas coined in 1898 or in 1896 like this article suggests doi:10.1002/cber.189602902105 --Stone (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Electron configuration

Should we not use Molecular Orbital diagrams to show the bonding and anti-bonding orbitals cancel out, rather than showing the outdated Bohr model? ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 03:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Where? The article seems to use MO diagrams for molecules and Bohr model for atoms. Materialscientist (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about molecular electron configuration?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Glowing noble gases.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Glowing noble gases.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 7, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-05-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 04:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Vials of electric glow discharge of five of the six naturally occurring noble gases (left to right: helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon—radon is not pictured). Under standard conditions, the noble gases are odorless, colorless, monatomic gases, with very low chemical reactivity. They have several important applications in industries such as lighting, welding, and space exploration.Photos: Jurii

These are not the true colours of the glowing noble gases. The pictures are most likely contaminated. Note the difference between these and Alchemist-hp's version. Double sharp (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Only helium is noticeably different to my eye (but I did not compare to published emission-spectrum data). DMacks (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Mendeleev's Reaction to the News of the Argon Discovery

When Mendeleev first heard of the discovery of a proposed new element (Argon) his reaction was that this was probably a form on Nitrogen, N3, analagous to Ozone, O3. Presumably it would have been called Trinitrogen. Later, however, he abandoned this idea and accepted that Argon was indeed a previously unknown element.86.14.199.56 (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

neon occurrence

Hello! I noticed that there's nothing about neon occurrence on earth's atmosfere in the proper section. Since this is a featured article and neon's article don't have sources about this I made a research and found this article useful to improvements. Is anyone able to help me include this here? Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Noble gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.phys.ualberta.ca/~therman/lowtemp/projects1.htm

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} 06:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Atomic Numbers

2, 10, 18, 36, 54, 86, 118, [172], [226], then how do I go after that? Is there a formula or something? Note: I got 226 because each gap seems to be repeated: 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32, [54], [54] Is there a formula for this either? 32ieww (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC) 32ieww (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It does not go on after 172. The periodic table ends at Z = 173, when the 1s shell dives into the negative continuum. Note that the electron configurations and chemistry of the elements beyond Z = 122 are very tentative because there have so far not been complete predictions – normally already problematic, but here even more so because of the massive competition between 5g, 6f, 7d, and 8p orbitals (and later 9s and 9p). Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

109 110 111

Meitnerium, Darmstadtium, Roentgenium, Are In Fact Noble Gases. 72.135.20.126 (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No, they are not. Are you just confused by how their chemistry has not yet been determined? If you can find a reliable source for your assertion (hint: you won't), you can put it here. Double sharp (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Noble gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220090755/http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/lectures/TexasA%26M/TexasA%26M.pdf to http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/lectures/TexasA%26M/TexasA%26M.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are they called 'Noble'?

Why are theses gases called 'Noble'? What makes them so noble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.179.134 (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the gases are referred to as noble gases as they rarely form compunds and the compounds that they form are rare. They are considered more stable compared to other elements and hence have claimed the title of noble gases. Suryamp (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In 1962 a scientist prepared the first chemical compound of xenon. so scientist thought that they are no longer inert. they are by reactive.so they are given the name "noble gas". which means less reactive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.240.88.70 (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

They are called noble due to their highly unreactive nature. Noble being good and fair meaning they are being fair to other elements. Heapofmud (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the name of the study of inert gases and what degrees will you need to study them?

Please help with the above. Heapofmud (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Both chemists and physicists study inert gases in different ways, but anyone can study them with or without any degree. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing units

Property	Helium	Neon	Argon	Krypton	Xenon	Radon
Density (g/dm3)	0.1786	0.9002	1.7818	3.708	5.851	9.97
Boiling point (K)	4.4	27.3	87.4	121.5	166.6	211.5
Melting point (K)	0.95 (at 25 bar)	24.7	83.6	115.8	161.7	202.2
Enthalpy of vaporization (kJ/mol)	0.08	1.74	6.52	9.05	12.65	18.1
Solubility in water at 20 °C (cm3/kg)	8.61	10.5	33.6	59.4	108.1	230
Atomic number	2	10	18	36	54	86
Atomic radius (calculated) (pm)	31	38	71	88	108	120
Ionization energy (kJ/mol)	2372	2080	1520	1351	1170	1037
Allen electronegativity	4.16	4.79	3.24	2.97	2.58	2.60

The labelling in this table is awful. Missing units:

• Density: temperature and pressure
• Boiling point: pressure
• Melting point: pressure
• Enthalpy of vaporization: temperature and pressure
• Solubility: gas pressure
• Electronegativity??

Ionization energy: Only first one is shown. The second etc. are relevant to the existence of compounds. Petergans (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Any measured or calculated data for Oganesson?

References

Noble gas vs group 18 correspondence in lede

The second paragraph says:

For the first six periods of the periodic table, the noble gases are exactly the members of group 18 of the periodic table.

That leaves open the question of whether beyond group 18 there might be noble gasses in other groups vs group 18 not being noble gasses. A few sentences earlier, we had learned:

Oganesson (Og) is predicted to be a noble gas as well, but its chemistry has not yet been investigated.

but now later we still don't know how that fits into the group-18 vs periods-1-to-6 pattern. And even earlier:

The six noble gases that occur naturally are helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and the radioactive radon (Rn).

but there are no non-naturally occuring ones (that are definite), but the list intro wording suggests there are. How about:

The elements known to be noble gasses are the group 18 elements in the first six periods of the periodic table: helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and the radioactive radon (Rn). They are all naturally occurring. Oganesson (Og), the group-18 element in period 7, is predicted to be a noble gas as well, but its chemistry has not yet been investigated.

DMacks (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds perfect to me (well, except that the plural of gas is gases ^_-☆). Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

But everyone knows they are nonmetals.Shouldn't you change that? Porygon-Z 14:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Because oganesson might not be a nonmetal, so such a statement is really about "noble gas" the category (which is usually defined to include He through Rn) rather than group 18 (which extends to Og). Double sharp (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Radon gas

Why can't we make signs out of radon gas? We can make signs of all the other noble gases except Oganesson. Why not Radon? Porygon-Z 14:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Because the radon would decay too quickly. Not only would you not have radon in the tube after a while, but if you had enough radon in the tube to do this I suspect you've created a radiation hazard to everyone around. (Not only that, but so much radioactive heat would be produced that I suspect that the major source of light from the sign would not be from radon's emission spectrum, though I haven't calculated this.) Double sharp (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there any isotope that would last to be able to do that?Porygon-Z 15:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)  

Grammar

Shouldn't the word of the elements only have a link and the symbol shouldn't? And you need to capitalize the elements, too. Porygon-Z 14:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alkali metal which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Voices

Isn't it true that when you inhale a certain amount of each of the noble gases, your voice changes getting deeper the heavier the element? Porygon-Z 19:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Would that really be relevant to the page though?-Thanks!Ooh Saad (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ooh Saad: Well you can see the similarities. There are so many videos and papers about it so I would put it in here if you have enough info. UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Not only the noble gases. It also works for SF₆. This is about molar mass and not the noble gases alone, though obviously you do not want to try this stunt with reactive gases. Double sharp (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Besides helium and argon, the noble gases are pretty expensive to try it on. I think many hydrocarbons and halogenated hydrocarbons should work, though not applicable to this article. Gah4 (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We could put them all in a list of voice changing molecules. I thought only the Noble Gases were the only ones that could do that. You know, since there are videos about it. UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose a list of non-poisonous gases, and not too water soluble. I think hydrogen is safe, as long as you are not near sparks. Methane should be fine, too, and not expensive. OK, what is the heaviest gas that is safe to breathe? (Not counting loss of oxygen.) I will guess that it is a halocarbon of some kind. Halon 1301 is about the same mass as SF6. I think there are some heavier ones. Gah4 (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The health and safety concerns make me unwilling to actually make a statement, sorry. ;) Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Do the videos not count or something? I don't want to sound childish but I've seen countless videos about them. They just had to take a lot of deep breathes in between. UB Blacephalon (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no doubt there are lots of videos, and they may even be authentic of what they claim is happening:) But as an encyclopedia, we need better referencing than that. It's also kinda funny that we might say "sure, heavy noble gasses would all work, and those gases are all inert" and have videos of it "just take some deep breaths to clear the inert gas out". But it turns out xenon is biochemically active and has even been used an an inhalational anesthetic. Krypton also has some anesthetic effects. That's why we need actual reliable sources about it rather than just what "seems like it should be safe to breathe" from casual thinking.

And as others have mentioned, it's not specific to noble gases. I don't know if there's enough to justify writing a stand-alone article about this effect of gas-density. But as a start, we do have Category:Science demonstrations and some good content at Helium#Effects. DMacks (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they did say it's extremely dangerous thing to do and we could possibly do some theoretical research, too. As for reliability, what would count because I could possibly help as for getting info, although I'm not that knowledgeable about the Wikitext, so. UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that xenon is about $10/L. That might be one big breath or two small ones. It seems, though, that there are systems for recycling it, so you can breath it longer when it is used for anesthesia. Gah4 (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Great! So can we start a list or something? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2020 (UT

Electron configuration of Oganesson

Why can't I add the electron configuration of Oganesson? It says that not only is it not "empirically" known but we don't know if it even is a noble gas. We know both of those. Can't I add that then? UB Blacephalon (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit [3], editsummary: "Undid revision 995588763 by Blacephalon (talk) you correctly went to the talkpage. let's see what that produces". I am curious for that outcome; properties of oganession are largely unknown, so is its classification.

Asking @Blacephalon, Double sharp, ComplexRational, and YBG: -DePiep (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The heaviest element whose electron configuration has been experimentally determined is hassium. After that, we only have predictions (and in the case of Cn, Nh, and Fl, some preliminary studies, but even those don't include electron configuration). We don't actually know either of those, and anything implying we do would fail verification and be considered original research. Therefore, any mentions of it must clearly indicate that it is a predictions, or it will be removed along these lines. ComplexRational (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

So why is Oganesson the 118th element if its electron configuration not 118 also? It just doesn't make sense. If thats the case how do we know that ogannesson has 118 protons if we don't actually know that, ya know? UB Blacephalon (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

But we do know it has 118 protons and 118 electrons. We just don't know for sure how its 118 electrons are arranged. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Per ComplexRational's suggestion, I added Og, but with "predicted". Double sharp (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

So we dont know anything of Oganesson? Then why dont we keep researching it and stop reaching for higher elements? UB Blacephalon (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, all of that is already answered by the article oganesson. We know how to make one isotope of Og (294), how long it lasts, and what it decays into. We know nothing else. And since the isotope of Og we can make lives less than a millisecond, we can't find out anything else. So we need to make a new isotope that lives longer. There are some planned attempts. Note also that these long-lived isotopes can conceivably be made as decay products of higher elements, so it's not an either-or. Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well what's research doing now? It seems like nothing major has happened since the last 4 were named. Shouldn't we figure out oganesson first just to get more info? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Some plans are around and some experiments have been done. I haven't heard of positive results for any yet, though. Double sharp (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

So what experiments have been done then? UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Just read the article on oganesson. It mentions the experiments with the heavier Cf target and Cm+Ti at JINR and Riken, so far without success. Please, also remember that the groups have recently upgraded their facilities, so naturally the past years have been a bit quiet. Maybe, we will have less of a drought in the next years. Or maybe not. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope they give more info because I would love to know more about oganesson. By the way, when's the last time the article has had info added to it. UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty recently actually, when predictions of Og melting and boiling points were added. But only predicted by theory, no experiments. So in terms of experimental knowledge we have not advanced since the last Og atom was made a few years ago. ;) Double sharp (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see predicted melting and boiling points for Og in the section Physical and atomic properties. The only predicted value for Og in the table now is for ionization energy. Dirac66 (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

My bad, was only at oganesson, not here. Added.

P.S. Predicted density for Og is very high for the group because the m.p. and b.p. should rise above room temperature. Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of which, a lot of table and paragraphs don't include radon or oganesson. Is there a reason for this? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Because they are radioactive with short half-lives and thus hard to investigate? Double sharp (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

But don't predictions count? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You have a point. Added some chemistry of Rn (experimentally known) and Og (predicted). Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! So what about other elements in the pnictogens or halogens? Are they going to be similar to this? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope they do. Also I've noticed that the group 6 and 7 pages looked a bit empty. I'm not sure how to fill those in. UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

I am reviewing this (old or very old) FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. The article has MOS:SANDWICHing throughout (between images, tables, and infobox) that should be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)