Talk:Xenon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 16:00, 5 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 10:55, 11 June 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Xenon. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Xenon, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

---

Talk

---

I'm surprised that this article makes no mention of Xe-135 poisoning in fission reactors. Xe-135, one of the transient products of U-235 fission, does an extremely good job of absorbing the neutrons needed to sustain a fission reaction. Working around this is an important factor in reactor design and operation.

But my nuclear engineering knowledge is a little too rusty for me to be a really definitive source here... The effect is mentioned in: http://www.physicstoday.com/vol-55/iss-10/p42.html

____________________________

Probably because it is too specific a nuclear reactor issue.

Fission discussion

I am not sure why the section on fission was written in that way. I just had to change it - first, the article mentioned Xe-131, and other isotopes are produced from fission of U-238 and Pu-244. While that is true, they are produced, the "important" fissile materials are really U-235 and Pu-239, and the "important" xenons produced are the radioactive Xe-131m, Xe-133, Xe-133m, and Xe-135. wait what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.80.242 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyperpolarized Xe

Actually, hyperpolarized xenon can be used for NMR spectroscopy as well as MRI. Literature abounds.

Hanging upside down

A complicating danger is that xenon is heavier than air, and in fact too heavy for the lungs to expel unassisted.

I encountered this chastisement several times when reading about xenon inhalation. I believe it is a myth with no proof behind it. To quote Steven B. Harris, M.D. on sci.physics :

Sorry, but this is incorrect. The forces of mixing caused by gas inhalation and exhalation in normal lungs are HUGE. More than enough to stir up any mix of mere gases, even when one is 5 times heavier than air, as in SF6. Heck, I've done fluoroscopy of living dogs being ventilated with oxygen while their lungs were full of *liquid fluorocarbon,* which has twice the density of water, and several thousand times the density of air. The mixing is still excellent, and the bubble jets get all the way to the ends of the airways with every breath (and the dogs are fine). An inert gas like xenon will simply be mixed up and purged in a breath or two (xenon has been successfully used as a gas anaesthetic). If it has enough concentration to produce an anaesthetic effect before then, you'll feel it. And you can always asphyxiate yourself with it. But on the whole, xenon is no more, and no less dangerous than nitrous oxide.

If you think about it, our lungs would pool with heavier CO2, and much heavier water vapour, if they were that weak. I think the advice about bending over should be reworded to indicate it is a common misbelief. A problem arises though. Do we strive for accuracy, or to keep people ignorantly safe? Splarka 09:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy. --Andrew 09:37, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Water vapor is not heavier than oxygen or nitrogen (MW 18 versus 32 and 28 respectively). CO2 (MW 44) is heavier than O2 and N2, but not by a huge amount. Xe is considerably heavier than any of these at MW 131, however, as has been stated by others, the mixing in the lungs is good enough to expel it. Xe is similar to the other noble gases in that it is a simple asphyxiant. Xe and the other noble gases are not similar to Nitrous Oxide.Badocter 17:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Xenon is not just a simple asphyxiant. It is a more powerful anesthetic than N2O (MAC of 0.6 to 0.7 vs 1.0 for N20: see [1]) and would certainly behave that way if you inhaled it-- i.e., would cause immediate dizzyness and narcosis at 30% concentration at sea level, whereas other inert gases like argon at 50% would merely reduce oxygen concentration to that at 9,000 ft, which most people not doing exertion would tolerate without any symptoms at all. SBHarris 00:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think a message in a Usenet archive provides a suitable reference for this myth. I'm not 100% sure, but I think an article such as this might (by way of analogy with inhaling sulfur hexafluoride.) If the lungs couldn't expel the SF6, then surely they would fill up and exclude the O2? Unfortunately I can't read medical jargon. — RJH (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find sources to prove that the myth is wrong. But are there any "reliable sources" that show that the myth is worth mentioning in the first place? I don't think we need to discuss every myth that circulates in Usenet, mailing lists, or in web forums. Is there any secondary secondary source discussing the myth itself? (Such as an educational journal, popular magazine, or snopes.com article at least?) --Itub 07:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. That at least one person believes the myth is apparent in the final paragraph here: http://sciencemole.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/why-does-helium-make-your-voice-squeaky/ But it doesn't appear to have any widespread notability that I could find. — RJH (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Depletion

Deleted concern about depleting Xenon. The total atmosphere mass is 5.1480 x 10¹⁸ kg. If Xenon is one part per 20 million (by weight?), then there is 250 billion kilograms of Xenon in the air. More if the concentration is by volume. pstudier 23:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Metallic Xenon

From the current article: "Using tens of gigapascals of pressure, metallic xenon has been made" I can not find a source for metallic xenon. I have found several citable sources for xenon-metal cmplexes with gold and mercury -- perhaps that was what was meant in the article. I have not found information for synthesis methods of these compoundsBadocter 08:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference, and slightly reworded the sentence. The reference is in relation to using high pressure diamond anvils to force xenon into metallic crystalline phases. They were actually hoping that it would form a compound with iron they also had in the press, but, it didn't. Phidauex 17:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

Some things I think are wrong with this article:

• The lead section is far too short. According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the topic (see WP:LEAD).
• The fourth reference just says "Link".
• The History and Occurance sections could do with expansion.
• Applications could be expanded considerably, replacing bullet points with subsections. Unless there are wikipedia articles already concerning those applications, that is. This won't stop it becoming a GA but it will stand in the way of FA status.
• The article definitely needs more references for everything.

 -- Run!  09:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Failed

This is very near GA, but it's terribly undercited, and needs at least one reference (that covers all information therein) for every paragraph. It's not a bad fail, though - everything else is fine - so poke me on my talk page when you've fixed it up. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Information on Xenon as an anesthetic

As an anesthetic, Xenon is said to be an almost ideal agent. Xenon is a colorless, odorless gas that causes no irritation to the user. It is non-toxic, and has proven to be hypoallergenic. By having low blood-gas coefficients, which is the gaseous equivalent of solubility, the effects of xenon are rather rapid. It can produce unconsciousness, analgesia (pain-kill), and muscle relaxation. It does not cause any profound respiratory depression, and is cardiac stable. "Xenon anesthesia produces the highest regional blood flow in the brain, liver, kidney and intestine." This means that the heart and brain are not put under any excessive strain. Since it is a noble gas, and as such requires extreme conditions to react with other elements, it is not metabolized in the body. This means that it is not changed when used and is thus reusable – it can be used to achieve the initial effect. The xenon one inhales is identical to the xenon which one exhales, and it is easy to store since it is stable and nonflammable.

information can be readily found on google. thoughts on adding this as a section? Anonymous

Over 80 compounds

Hi. Is there an original reference for the statement that "However, xenon can be oxidized by powerful oxidizing agents, and at least 80 compounds of this noble gas have been synthesized"? It seems to be a frequently repeated fact, but I can't locate the original source. The online CRC Handbook only showed 17 compounds, but perhaps more have since been added. Possibly a well-referenced "List of xenon compounds" page is the only way to satisfactorily provide the citation? — RJH (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This article from 1974 already has a table with over 80 compounds: Moody, G. J., A Decade of Xenon Chemistry. J. Chem. Ed. 1974, 51, 628-630.PDF (subscription required). A recent review doesn't give an exact number for Xe compounds, but it mentions that "close to a hundred organoxenon, Xe–N and Xe–Cl compounds are known up to date" and that "about half a thousand compounds of Ng's have been synthesized since 1962". (Wojciech Grochala. Atypical compounds of gases, which have been called noble. Chem. Soc. Rev., 2007, 36, 1632-1655, doi:10.1039/b702109g). Finally, a quick search on SciFinder Scholar for structures containing Xe yields over 2000 results! This number can be considered an overestimation, but I don't know by how much, because it can include "extras" such as isotopologues and compounds that haven't been characterized experimentally. --Itub 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Endings of inert gases, from the Greek

Okay, time for the ancient Greek lesson. The ending -ος (os) in Greek is used for nomnative masculine singular adjectives, which are used to modify masculine singular nouns, such as a man. Thus, argos, neos, kyptos, and xenos would refer to a lazy (or slow or inactive) man, a new man, a hidden man, and a stange man, respectively. When the ending of such an adjective is changed to -oν, that signifies the advective is now singular neuter, to be used to modify neuter nouns, like things [2]. In Greek, as in any well-inflected language (Spanish, say), if you talk about "the new, the lazy, the hidden, and the strange" without specifying the noun, it is inferred from the adjectival ending, and in which (as in English) an adjective used like a noun where the noun isn't given, becomes a noun (the noun is implied). In English you can't tell if men, women, or things, are being referred to in adjectival nouns, but in Spanish or Greek, it's clear from the ending what class of noun is meant or implied.

Now, in the original paper on the discovery of argon in 1895, the discoverers are at pains to note that they have used the ending -oν and thereby intend that "argon" refer to the laziness of a THING (of course, it's a chemical, not a person). And άργόν(argon) is a perfectly good Greek word (though an article, like "the" as in τόν άργόν, would usually be included when it is used as a noun). But argon is no more "from" argos than señorita is "from" señor. Yes, I know that dictionaries commonly suggest that non masculine words are derived "from" the masculine form (which in this case refers to a person, not a chemical), but that is a mere dictionary convention for listing the masculine gender first, in lists of endings of adjectives and nouns in a declension. If you want to know what foreign word used for a new thing really refers to, and is intended to refer to, you need to see the authors and discoverers as the last authority. In all these cases of inert gases, following the discussion of argon in the original scientific paper (which is available on JSTOR), the όν ending should be used as the primary Greek reference, not -ος. I don't care what the dictionaries say: the dictionaries didn't discover the gases. The people who did discover them, don't give same derivation the dictionaries give. They simply use the adjectives properly and automatically, as the better Greek scholars that (in those days) they were. SBHarris 00:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you say which paper exactly (and in which page) shows that "discoverers are at pains to note that they have used the ending -oν"? I've been looking at Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. A, Vol. 186. (1895), pp. 187-241, but I haven't been able to find what you refer to (I haven't read the whole article yet). Is this the article you refer to? --Itub 08:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the discoverers of argon: Lord Rayleigh; William Ramsay (1894 - 1895). "Argon, a New Constituent of the Atmosphere.". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 57 (1): 265-287. Xenon, neon, and kypton are named by analogy, by the same Ramsay, and his new research partner Travers. SBHarris 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1904 edition of "The New International Encyclopædia" on Google books lists: XENON (Gk. ξένον, neu. sg. of ξένος, xenos, foreign, strange, host). I guess "neu. sg." means "neuter singular"? Would an extended explanation like this be satisfactory? "from the Greek ξένον, neuter singular of ξένος, xenos, meaning foreign, strange, host".

• Anonymous (1904). Daniel Coit Gilman, Harry Thurston Peck, Frank Moore Colby (ed.). The New International Encyclopædia. Dodd, Mead and Company. pp. p. 906. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

Good Article Nominee

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 16, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written: Some editions need here to be boarded by the manual of the style.

This enigmatic statement leaves me wondering what to do. I have tried to follow the MoS as I understand it, so perhaps you could clarify with details? — RJH (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

in comparison to hydrogen and uranium, this article will be a GA soon.

2. Broad in coverage: The article is well broad in coverage.

I regard this article as satisfying your issue here. The expansion was meant to address the previous GA review, and I'm unclear why you consider the content to be insufficiently brief. (Please compare to the FA status articles hydrogen and uranium.) Perhaps you could clarify? — RJH (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral point of view: The article counts on a very good neutral point of view.

4. Stability of the article? Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.

5. Images: The deficiency of images is not a step/criteria of fall. Anyway, the images have a very good quality.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note below showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Macys123 21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. Macys123 18:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

veropedia

Just wanted to say: This is a really good article, so I uploaded it over on Veropedia - basically, a Wikipedia mirror that attempts to collect the best-researched Wikipedia articles, and then get experts to review them. Great work on it =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Radioxenon releases compared to radon-222

The article contained a statement that the concentration of radioxenon releases by nuclear reactors is small compared to naturally occurring radon-222. This statement was justified with the following footnote (reformatted here):

A typical boiling-water nuclear reactor releases about 13,000 Ci of ¹³³Xe per year. (Stein, L. (1973). "Removal of Xenon and Radon from Contaminated Atmospheres with Dioxygenyl Hexafluoroantimonate, O₂SbF₆". Nature. 243: 30–32. Retrieved 2007-10-13.) In a typical indoor environment, radon concentration is about 200 pCi/L. (Staff (June 16, 2005). "Radon in Buildings". Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety. Retrieved 2007-10-13.) Thus an equivalent level of radioactivity from radon-222 would occupy:

${\begin{smallmatrix}{\frac {1.3\times 10^{4}{\text{Ci}}}{2.0\times 10^{-10}{\text{Ci/L}}}}=6.5\times 10^{14}L\end{smallmatrix}}$

or only 650 km³. Compare, for example, to the surface area of the Earth, 5×10⁸ km², while looking at the first kilometer thickness of the atmosphere.

I have removed the statement as its purported justification is unacceptable, for a number of reasons:

1. The figure of 13,000 curies per year, taken from the Nature paper, is a 1970s estimate from the U.S. Public Health Service for a typical boiling water reactor. It says nothing about emissions from other reactor designs, or emissions outside the United States.

   True, but I only wanted a ball-park figure. -RJH (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

2. The figure of 200 pCi/L of radon is not a typical indoor concentration, but is merely a re-expression of the Working Level (WL), a reference point for radon and radon daughter levels. Normal concentrations are much lower. The CCOHS web page cited, for example, states that in a 1980 survey, most (>88%) of Canadian private houses checked had radon levels of 0.02 WL (approximately equivalent to 4 pCi/L of radon) or below. A quoted average for single-family homes in the United States is 1.3 pCi/L [3].
3. Most importantly, the computation itself is meaningless.

(a) The emission rate of 13,000 Ci/yr is multiplied by 1 yr to obtain a total of 13,000 Ci. As the choice of 1 year was arbitrary, this figure is meaningless. The total amount of any radioisotope released by a reactor present in the environment will depend on the half-life of the radioisotope and the length of time the reactor has been operating, as well as the release rate.

Fine, use 100 years. -RJH (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming a constant release rate and a long period of operation, you should use the mean lifetime, τ, of the radioisotope, since $\int _{0}^{\infty }e^{-t/\tau }dt=\tau .$ Spacepotato 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's so. For an isotope with a ~9h half-life it's not going to stick around too long. — RJH (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(b) Released effluent gases will not instantaneously diffuse themselves throughout the Earth's atmosphere. Rather, theywill mix with the local ambient atmosphere more or less rapidly, depending on local winds, weather conditions, etc. Therefore, comparing radioxenon release to the volume of the Earth's atmosphere as a whole is likewise meaningless.

Spacepotato 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The original quote was comparing average densities across the planet. It was not attempting to compare localized densities. Your objection is too tactical. -RJH (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The natural reading of the statement is that it's talking about local concentrations, especially since it immediately followed a statement talking about high concentrations of radioxenon emanating from nuclear reactors. Spacepotato 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The original statement about radon-222 was provided uncited. I was attempting to provide a sufficient citation, and had a difficult time doing so as you can tell. -RJH (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's better to use existing measurements of radioxenon levels. For sample measurements, see e.g. Low-level radioxenon measurements for Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty verification purposes, talk by Paul Saey, 15 May 2007, Automated radioxenon monitoring for the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty in two distinctive locations: Ottawa and Tahiti, T. J. Stocki, et al., Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 80, #3 (2005), pp. 305–326. By the way, the statement was added in this edit by an anonymous IP address at the U.S. Department of Energy. Spacepotato 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs information on spectral properties

Much of this article's content refers to the emission of light by ionized xenon, yet the article contains no information on the actual emission spectrum, other than saying xenon's emissions approximate a blackbody curve similar to sunlight. No mention of the fact that xenon also emits in the ultraviolet and broadband infrared.

It would be useful to see a blackbody curve superimposed over the xenon emission curve, and it would also be useful to see the emissions beyond the visible spectrum. I'm surprised that a featured article lacks key information like this. -Amatulic (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

CRC lists about 300 emission lines for Xe with intensities along with annotations to indicate if a line is wide or nebulous or shaded and so on. Putting this into graphical form with, say, 6000K blackbody emission superimposed would be not only a lot of work, but also difficult. This is because it is not just the intensity of each line that is significant, but also the density of the lines along the wavelength axis. To be able to compare the Xe's emission spectrum to the blackbody spectrum, the preparer of the graphic would have to integrate the intensity of the lines with their density to resolve an average intensity in each wavelength region. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 14:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be useful to have emission/absorption line images for all the elements, such as the selection shown here. I'm not sure how we could obtain them, however, unless there's a free app. we could use or if somebody has a lab with a spectroscope and a camera handy. — RJH (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of Xenon in Double and Triple Glazing

Replacing the air in the spaces between the sheets of glass in sealed multiple glazing units with a heavier gas increases the thermal insulation. Argon is the cheapest and the most common replacement gas but the heavier the gas the better and a small number of units are sold filled with Xenon. The insulation is measured by its U value (w/m²K), the lower the better. A plain glass, air filled, double glazing will have a U value of about 3. A Xenon filled triple unit with coated glass can have a U value as low as 0.4. At this level, averaged over the year a building is likely to gain more thermal energy through the window via the greenhouse effect than is lost through the window. Nick Rouse (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that could be cited?—RJH (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And (for my own information), why in the world would anybody use Xe when they could be using sulfur hexafluoride, which is 11% heavier in molecular weight, and in practice about 6% denser? That use isn't listed on the SF6 wiki, but probably should be, since it has been done.SBHarris 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

According to p. 56 of Solar Energy: The State of the Art: ISES Position Papers (ISBN 1902916239), conduction accounts for the bulk of heat transfer through double-glazed windows, and according to the Air Liquide website, SF₆ has a thermal conductivity of 12.058 mW/(m K) at 1 atm and 0 °C, as opposed to 5.192 mW/(m K) for xenon. So, SF₆ appears to be worse than xenon as a window fill gas. Spacepotato (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Amount of electricity to produce doesn't sound reasonable

The article claims: "Extraction of a liter of xenon from the atmosphere requires 220 watt-hours of energy." (footnote 38).

I think this should be kilowatt-hours, not watt-hours. 220 watt-hours would cost only about US$ 0.01. If that were true, it would be an insignificant part of the cost, and so not worth talking about. 220 KWH would cost about US$10, matching the purchase costs cited a few sentences later. Does anyone have any better sources than footnote 38?

PatMcGee (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point, and the source doesn't seem to be the most reliable for this type of data. The best I've been able to find is 540 kwh per liter of xenon. This is just from the tiny text extract from a Google scholar result, because I can't access the original article to read all the context. --Itub (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The following paper also lists 200 watt-hours:

Goto, Takahisa (2003). "Will Xenon Be a Stranger or a Friend?: The Cost, Benefit, and Future of Xenon Anesthesia". Anesthesiology. 98 (1): 1–2. Retrieved 2008-02-07. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

It is citing:

Schucht F: Production of anaesthetic gases and environment. Appl Cardiopulm Pathophysiol 2000; 9: 154-5

as the source, but unfortunately I don't have access to the latter. Perhaps this is an oft-repeated error?—RJH (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Colorless gas" image

I propose removing the current image:Xe,54.jpg from the infobox. It adds nothing to convey a "colorless" attribute; the predominant color in that image is of the container and the background. Vials.jpg File:Vials.jpg would do a much better job of showing that xenon gas is as colorless as ordinary air. Wdfarmer (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I came here to say the same thing. --Doradus (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ziros (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Aren't those vials unstoppered? So that would make them full of ordinary air. =)—RJH (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Electrons....

Whilst it might be correct to say that the outer valence shell contains 8 electrons, this:

"It is inert to most common chemical reactions (such as combustion, for example) because the outer valence shell is completely filled with eight electrons."

is definitely not correct. I've replaced the words "completely filled" with "contains", as the n=5 shell can contain 32 electrons. Chris (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, forgot to put an edit summary in the article Chris (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This just shows the irrelevance of "shells". Certainly by n=5, the sub-shells have such different energies that it only makes sense to talk about 5p as valence electrons. As this sub-shell is full, Xe is inert irrespective of whether the "shell" is formally complete. IMHO the "shell diagrams" are an abomination... 84.92.241.186 (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

XENU

i'm italian..but i dont think that the start of this article :

"Xenu (pronounced /ˈzɛnɒn/ in the United Kingdom, /ˈziːnɒn/ in the US) is the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy that has the symbol Xe and atomic number 54. A colorless, heavy, odorless noble gas, xenon occurs in the earth's atmosphere in trace amounts.[2] Although generally unrepentant, Xenu can banish souls to volcanos, where they undergo a few chemical reactions such as the formation of thetans. Humans which learn to control their thetans can attain the state of operating thetan.[3][4][5]"

is very about Xenon. i think that someone should do something about it, maybe a rollback? in the meantime i'll try to free xenu from hish magnetic cage.., 83.184.26.230 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just vandalism from the article being featured on the Main Page. It's gone now. Brutannica (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Molecular Xenon

Xe2 should have a section in this article. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Xe2 may be a reference to singly-ionized Xenon.—RJH (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It could also be an excimer. Or in fact, a dimer. Helium dimerizes and has exactly one vibrational bound state. I don't know about xenon, but it seems likely that it can dimerize as well. --Itub (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay yes; that's mentioned in the Xenon#Lasers section.—RJH (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to this, I'd like to propose adding a paragraph such as the following to the "Compounds" section:

While xenon atoms are at their ground energy state, they repel each other and will not form a bond. When xenon atoms becomes energized, however, they can form an excited dimer (excimer) until the electrons return to the ground state. This entity is formed because the xenon atom tends to fill its outermost electronic shell, and can briefly do this by adding an electron from a neighboring xenon atom. The typical lifetime of a xenon excimer is 1–5 ns, and the decay releases photons with wavlengths of about 150 and 173 nm. Xenon can also form dimers with other elements, such as the halogens bromine, chlorine and flourine.

I'm posting here first because I'm no expert and I thought it could use some review and improvement (within the context and guidelines of wikipedia, of course =). Any thoughts? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an excimer expert either, but the text looks reasonable. The only thing I suggest adding are a couple of examples of heteroatomic excimers/exciplexes, such as with halogens. (A xenon dimer is arguably not a compound, after all!) --Itub (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The following line was tagged as needing a reference:

(/ˈzɛnɒn/ in the United Kingdom, /ˈziːnɒn/ in the US)

As it is not essential to the article, I'm moving it here until a suitable reference is found. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of English gives the pronunciation as /ˈzɛnɒn, ˈziː-/, but makes no US-UK distinction.

Ben (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Radon fluoride

I know this isn't essential to the article, but in the history part, it is mentioned some noble gas compounds, among them radon fluoride. The link leads to radon difluoride. For the other compounds the formula is also given. I would not change anything, since the reference is named "radon fluoride". I know this isn't essential to the article, just asking... Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The link is pointing to the correct location. Unfortunately, an editor performed a move to radon difluoride. The correction would need to be made to the redirect, rather than here. I.e. somebody would need to write an article on radon fluoride. There also exists xenon tetra- and hexafluoride, so perhaps there needs to be a more general article on the subject?—RJH (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was really helpful. I'll see what could be done to the redirect. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference say they make a radon fluoride, of unknown composition. It may well have been the difluoride; I'd have to check if it was identified it in a subsequent publication. --Itub (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics statement is incorrect.

The statement that the purplish color of xenon in a neon-light being caused by high amounts of blue, I believe, is false. According to these references, https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/5654/1/V71N06_343.pdf , and A Comparison of Rare-Gas Flashlamps – J. R. Oliver and F. S. Barnes I.E.E.E. Journal of Quantum Electronics, at very low current densities, like those in a neon light, most of xenon's energy is focused in the near infrared, withthe strongest peaks being from 800 to 1000 nanometers, against a background of rather evenly distributed continuum radiation, (white light), that gets fainter as it approaches the blue. The purplish color is caused by the eye's ability, (albeit, just barely), to image the very heavy near-IR output between 750 and 800nm. As quoted from the Oliver/Barnes study: "light from a xenon lamp has an irregular but continuous spectrum. [] The spectral distribution curves of xenon-lamp radiation at lower current densities usually show a considerable amount of energy in the near-infrared region. An increase in the current density may favor the visible and the ultraviolet regions at the expense of the near-infrared radiation." So higher current densities, like those found in flashlamps and arc lamps, produce greybody radiation that is centered in the green, (producing white light), and even higher densities produce blackbody radiation that is centered in the blue. As current densities increase, xenon's spectrum will settle on that of a blackbody radiator with a color temperature of 9800 degrees kelvin, (sort of sky-blue), as referenced in this source: http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/RelatedLinks/CAT_flash.pdf .Zaereth (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a photo of one of my flashlamps. The camera is behind a green welding filter. Current density is extremely high, and the flash appeared quite blue to the naked eye. Through a welding filter it appeard very green. But through a camera behind a green welding lens it appears purplish? (Violet, actually. Another indicator of a color on the far side of red.) It really puzzled me, since my current density was very high, until a flashlamp expert explained to me that a camera with plastic lenses, combined with a plastic welding lens, would allow the camera to image these colors very well, (much better than they eye), even though my current density was not low enough to produce it in any great quantity. Very low density currents direct alomst all of the energy into the spectral lines with longer wavelengths.Zaereth (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So perhaps it would be better then to describe the color as simply violet (which the wording 'lavenderish' implies) to white, rather than blue? Per Violet (color), that hue is used to describe a color with a wavelength of 380–450 nm; on the longish wavelength side of the visible spectrum.—RJH (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be more accurate. There is a difference between percieved color and spectral output. Like musical notes, the colors are found all throughout the spectrum, with the visual spectrum being only one 'octave' of light. The perception of violet is from red transitioning into the 'blue' end of the near IR spectrumZaereth (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Violet is at the short wavelength end of the visible spectrum, hence the term ultra-violet. --John (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading the article on violet, linked above, I think the best description is magenta. The photo of the flash has been filtered of nearly all radiation shorter than 500nm. What was imaged by the camera was large amounts of green and large amounts of near-IR, (around 800nm), which the camera, and to a far far lesser extent, our eyes, percieve as a magenta hue. But, other than my own OR, (talking to gas discharge lamp manufacturers), the only real evidence provided by the references I've listed is that at very low current densities, xenon produces very little blue, and huge amounts of near-IR.Zaereth (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

One concern may be that human eyes are not especially sensitive to the red part of the spectrum. So even if there are energy peaks there, a flat spectral output may appear more blue. (The Sun peaks in the green and then drops off toward the blue.) But I'm just speculating.—RJH (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, fuzzy thinking on my part. But that is the color I'm seeing in that image above.—RJH (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, once again, original research on my part, but flash lamp manufactureres have told me that the colors repeat themselves throughout the EM Spectrum, much like musical notes on a piano. For instance, the 1064nm radiation of Nd:YAG lasers is a purple we can not see, two 'octaves' lower than the visible spectrum. It can easily transmit through purple or white colored plastic, but is absorbed more by yellow or black colored plastic. The IR beam produced by Tm:YAG is an invisible shade of green, one 'octave' lower than visible, and therefore has an absorbtion spectrum in optical red. Since the colors in IR that we can not see are arranged in the same order as the visible spectrum, this leaves an almost invisible shade of violet at the far red end of the visual spectrum. These colors can be seen in any lamp when looking through a narrow band filter, but are otherwise drowned out by colors to which the eye is more sensitive. (White light is made of equal amounts of all colors, but the eye percieves white as being 50% green, because we are most sensitive to 550nm.) Xenon puts off enough of this 800nm violet-IR radiation that it actually overpowers the visible. This is also coupled with the fact that at extremely low current densities, xenon produces only spectral lines, and virtually no continuum radiation.Zaereth (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha! Found one. Here is a site that may help explain the concept further. http://www.beyondvisible.com/BV3-FS3P.html . This site shows photos of "reddish" colored UV and "bluish" colored IR, with the photo of 800nm looking very much like xenon's low-current output, and explains the concept in much greater detail. I notice that reference 56 is from 1904, and may be a little outdated. I think the references I have provided show that the second half of the last sentence is indeed incorrect, as xenon's spectral line output is in fact not higher in the blue, but is in fact highest in the near infrared. I think this can be simply corrected by replacing the words "blue light" with "near infrared light", and replacing the outdated reference with the ones I have cited here. Does anyone disagree?Zaereth (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do disagree. The idea that the perceived color of xenon lamps is due to their radiation in the near-infrared is implausible.

Human visual sensitivity falls off rapidly outside the central area of 450-650 nm. At 800 nm for example the eye is only ~0.1% as sensitive as it is at 700 nm (J. Optical Society of America 37, 546-553, Table V.) So, it's unlikely that the near IR output of xenon lamps has anything to do with their colors. Also, what is found experimentally is that after reaching a point of maximum redness at around 700 nm, the perceived color of longer-wavelength light moves slightly towards the yellow, so that for example light of wavelength 887 nm is perceived to have a color similar to that of light of wavelength 641 nm (Brindley, J. Physiology 130, 35-44.) The color does not become blue however as the short-wavelength cones in the retina are not responsive at this wavelength (Lamb, Vision Research 35, 3083-3091, at 3084, 3089.)

For short, intense pulses of laser light, there have been reports of infrared light of wavelength λ being perceived as light of wavelength λ/2, but this effect, thought to be due to nonlinear processes in the eye, requires very high light intensities (Zaidi and Pokorny, Applied Optics 27, 1064-1068) and so is unlikely to significantly change the perceived color of a xenon lamp.

Spacepotato (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox bloat

Is it just me, or does this article's infobox seem to keep getting wider and wider (without much to show for it)? The lead text is getting squeezed out on my browser.—RJH (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Only 80 compounds??

According to xenon compounds, recent discoveries have bumped the number of xenon compounds into the thousands. A search on Google for recent research papers also show a huge variety of compounds, featuring compounds with Xe-N bonds, Xe-B bonds, even Xe-Au bonds, definitely more than merely 80. The reference given is quite dated: one is from 1974, and the other appears to be merely citing the first. A more recent book, Advances in Inorganic Chemistry by A. G. Sykes (1998), devotes a whopping 30 pages to the description of xenon chemistry, covering everything from the basic fluorine/oxygen compounds (probably what the 1974 source was referring to), to exotic cations like Xe⁺
₂ and anions like Xe²⁻
₈ (stable up to 400°C), and organoxenon compounds with Xe-C bonds. So while I certainly can't say how many compounds there are, it's definitely more, way more, than merely 80 or so.—Tetracube (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD --Vuo (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A 2003 source said there are over 100, but I couldn't find anything more definitive. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the length of the chemistry descriptions or the number of articles definitively says that the total is "way more" than 80. Possibly the latest CRC handbook has a more authoritative total? We need a good source to update the number concisely.—RJH (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

According to xenon compounds, the number of compounds is "running into the thousands". But since I couldn't verify that claim, I decided to just change the wording to indicate the date of the ~80 figure, and indicate that more compounds have been discovered since.—Tetracube (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I found this reference from noble gas: doi:10.1039/b702109g.—Tetracube (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S., I found this reference stating that over 30 transition metal complexes with XeF
₂ have been characterized: Melita Tramšek; Boris Žemva (5 December 2006). "Synthesis, Properties and Chemistry of Xenon(II) Fluoride" (PDF). Acta Chim. Slov. 53 (2): 105–116. Since the figure in 1974 was about 80 and these complexes are recent discoveries, this does bump the number past the 100 mark. I know this is still short of "thousands", but it does show that the scope of xenon chemistry is by no means narrow. :-)—Tetracube (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Colour of metallic xenon?

"When metalized, xenon looks sky blue because an indirect bandgap transition (in the electronic structure) allows it to absorb red light as had been previously calculated. Metallic xenon is also transparent to visible light."

Is metallic xenon sky blue, or transparent? It's not clear to a lay-person like myself how these two statements can be reconciled. Pburka (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I could understand it if the metallic xenon formed a tinted crystalline structure. But aren't most metals opaque to visible light, (if not reflective)? Yes I agree it needs clarification. Thanks.—RJH (talk)

The fact that it is blue seems solid (prl paper) and as I understand, it is due to the narrow electron bands in metallic xenon - narrow enough for selective absorption of red light, transmitting visible, thus blue color. I changed the article to reflect that. Another possible reason could be small thickness of high-pressure samples (as color of thin gold). Materialscientist (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Metallic xenon and iron

The following text has been tagged as unsourced since May. Since it does not comply with the FA requirements, I'm moving it here from the Characteristics section.

The possibility that metallic xenon could react with iron under pressure deep in the earth was considered a possible reason for xenon's rarity in the atmosphere. However, experimental data and calculations have disproved this possibility.

Sorry.—RJH (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Xe can't possibly be a greenhouse gas, why does this need a citation?

Xe is an atomic gas. It doesn't HAVE any molecular bonds to absorb in the IR. Just like every other atomic gas, it can't possibly be a greenhouse gas, does this really need a citation? It's a simple scientific fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.123.27 (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, non-specialist might think monoatomic gas can absorb IR via electronic transitions and request a reference even for basic facts. I added a ref, though it is not about physics of the light absorption. Materialscientist (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly it's a simple scientific fact, so that should make it easy to cite. In my experience, unsourced material is much harder to defend against dubious edits, so it's better to have a reliable source and keep the information in good condition. Especially in an FA'd article. Otherwise you end up with steady increases in unsourced entries and an eventual FAR.—RJH (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy

There are redundant descriptions of how xenon isotopes are produced at the end of the "Occurrence and production" section and the first paragraph of the "Isotopes" section. I'd like to merge these to save space. Where do you think the information should be consolidated?—RJH (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find that much redundancy, except for the statement about nuclear fission production of Xe-135. However, it seemed better flow to move anything that mentioned specific nuclides of Xe into the isotopes section. And since that section has a lot on astrophysical stuff, I put the stellar production bit in there too, to head it. That leaves commerical production in the non-isotope section, and stellar production in the isotope section. See what you think. SBHarris 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Isotope error?

How can Xe-136 decay to Ba-136 by beta decay when the atomic number of barium is 2 higher? Should that be double beta decay or something similar? Ken Arromdee 03:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I cant' find a source to verify what it is as all the sources I can find say Xe136 is a stable isotope.[4] With a half life of 200000000000000000000 years that is stated in the current version of this article, less than 1 part per billion of this stuff would have disappeared from a sample in the time that has elapsed since the big bang happened.Badocter 17:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The sources at talk:isotopes of xenon all set a lower limit, at some 10^21 a. Femto 13:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The isotope EE54Xe136 is unusual with regard to the number of extra neutrons (N-Z value) contained within the stable atom. It has 28 extra neutrons, and after it in the periodic table, the number of extra neutrons per maximum stable isotope declines to 26 for 56Ba, 24 for 58Ce, and finally to 23 for 59Pr. Since the decay modes for extra isotopes amounts in excess to these extra neutron values is that of Beta- emission and the conversion of an extra neutron to a proton, this data indicates the 54Xe136 to be an unusually stable nucleus in order to be able to maintain its stability with this number of excess neutrons. After this area of the periodic table, the extra neutron values of the elements in the progression then return to their usual custom of having an imcremental increase in extra neutrons of 1 additional extra neutron per element.WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that of the 9 reported stable isotopes of 54Xe Xenon, 7 of them are EE's with even numbers of both protons and neutrons and the other 2 are EO's in the center of the order with even protons (54) and odd neutrons (75 and 77). These 2 odd proton isotopes of 54XEe are also noted to be adjacent to the prevalent stability trend line which runs through this area of the nuclide chart and has the formula A = 3Z- 30. Also the 3Z - 30 isotope 54Xe130 is within the stability trend line between the adjacent monisotopic elements OE53I (A=127) and OE55Cs (A=133), which are both strong isotope stability trend line indicators.WFPM (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Also since the atom is considered to be made up of the accumulated but independently spinning nucleons, this data provides an argument for the existence of some kind of a structural concept which results in the allowing of a dynamically balanced addition of the extra neutrons, such as is shown in my image at Talk:nuclear model.WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mixing Chemistry and Physics

The article on Xenon is typical of the element articles in that it mixes the chemical information with the physical information in a chronological and otherwise mixed together manner such that each inquirer has to study the whole thing to hopefully sort out any information that might be useful to him personally. That's more like Newspaper information than encyclopedia information and is probably due to the dynamic nature if the information supplying process. However I think that the information is so dominated by the cronicological and other chemical information that it requires a more organized physical information source such as the CRC handbook in order hopefully organize and better try to understand the basics of the physical information data.WFPM (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WFPM: I usually have difficulty attempting to fully understand what you are trying to communicate, and this is no exception. About all I can say for now is that the article has been read and reviewed by many people, and the presentation order didn't seem to be a significant issue. But there is always room for improvement.—RJH (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess the problem is mine in trying in trying to understand the physical information about the elements without being particularly concerned about their chemistry, and therefor I can disregard most of the chemistry in the CRC handbook and get most of what I want in the Physical properties section. Whereas in your article you jump from chemistry to physics more or less at random, and I lose my train of thought. But I've got a lot of information from Wiki, for which I am appreciative, And some of which I disagree with. And I appreciate your editorial maintenence problems. So keep up the good work.WFPM (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see chemistry-related material here:

• For the History, mention of the chemistry seems quite appropriate. This should be in chronological order.
• The Characteristics section has a paragraph on chemistry. Should this section be purely physics? The paragraph on compounds can be moved down to serve as a summary in the Compounds section.
• The Isotope section discusses dissolving xenon in blood, but otherwise appears free of chemistry.
• The Compounds section seems to be entirely chemistry.
• The Applications section inevitably mixes chemistry and physics. I don't see how this can be avoided.

Where are you finding the randomness?—RJH (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems is that chemistry is branch of physics, so why not discuss "chemical topics" in the midst of physics? The only requirement is that chemistry facts should be grouped and kept together, when mentioned near each other. But multiple little chemistry "islands" are fine if the chemistry of xenon comes up without a topical organizatin which is on some other basis, such as it is in many of these articles. You can either cram every chemical fact together in a CHEMISTRY heading, or you can have other headings and discuss relevent chemistry within them (such as "Applications" as noted above). BTW, chemists just nod when you say chemistry is a branch of physics. Their blood pressure only rises when you say chemistry is JUST a branch of physics. SBHarris 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're doing fine! It's just that you're an editor trying to keep a majority of your interested readers informed and at the same time accommodate a lesser number who want to know what is going on on a much more fundamental level. Evidently most of your interested readers are interested in chemistry and application physics as I guess they should be. But a few are interested in how the elements were (and probably still are) being created by accumulation processes going on in say in the Whirlpool Galaxy, where the processes are more physical and fundamental, but still deal with things like the constituency of atoms like those of 54Xenon and the other elements. And with the Wiki system of organization of subject matter, it seams more logical to talk about Xenon in the Xenon section than in the Whirlpool Galaxy section; even though the subject matter details may seem extraneous to the majority of the Xenon section readers.WFPM (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like we don't have an issue then. The "Occurance and production" section of this article already discusses (in a general sense) how Xenon is created by stars. The Stellar nucleosynthesis article covers the process of creating the elements (although that article is in need of expansion). I think the more general topic of element abundance belongs in the Abundance of the chemical elements article (also in need of expansion), rather than here.—RJH (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think that it is significant to note that 7 of the 9 stable 54He isotopes are EE's and that the 2 EO's are in the center of the range of extra neutron content. But that information is probably appropriate to some other nuclear physics article that I don't know about. The abundance article is informative, but parochial, and your lead section didn't say much about the 9 stable isotopes and lead me to believe that further information about them might be informative. You might be interesting in knowing the 50Sn, with 10 stable isotopes, also has 7 stable EE's plus 3 EO's in the center of the Extra neutron range.WFPM (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC

So after the 10 isotope stable segment of 50Sn nuclides have each accumulated 4 additional deuterons + 4 more extra neutrons they are larger and slightly less stable, and so the lowest of the EO isotopes is able to capture an associated electron and change to the OE isotope OE49I127, which is the only stable isotope of 49Iodine do I make myself clear? Ah! the recipes of Mother nature. Maybe these details would fit into your article on Stellar nucleosynthesis, but it's more of a reference article and I don't know the buzz words of that subject matter.WFPM (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This page is for the discussion of improvements to the Xenon article. You appear to have wandered off topic, so I will leave off here.—RJH (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay but let's just say that Norman Holden's section in the 87th (2006-2007) CRC handbook only discusses 46 Xe isotopes (between Xe110 and Xe147), with the excess being mostly due to IT (internal transition) gamma emission and which didn't change the atomic number or constituency. So we're in the dreamworld of trying to trying to have an organized discussion of what can best be described as a vast condition of Chaos and I appreciate your efforts to allow and maintain a reasonable discussion of the subject matter. WFPM66.139.109.246 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an isotopes of xenon wiki. It's a main article for the section here, which only discusses the notable ones, which have some common use in geophysics, astrophysics, and nuclear power related applications. Here is not the place to discuss your nuclear structure theories, WFPM (even the isotopes of xenon wiki isn't). SBHarris 19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes! I knew it had to be in there somewhere! And not even referred to in the article! Well I'm glad to know the subject matter has been completely covered, and of course appreciate the additional information.WFPM (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Size of the xenon flash image

The download size of the Xenon flash image is 496 Kb, by far the largest on this article. The next largest is the XeF₄ crystals at 95 Kb. The text itself is only 80 Kb. Thus the flash image is probably a big reason this page takes the amount of time it does to download.—RJH (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia software sends entire file for animated GIFs no matter the thumb size. Cropped and slowed down. 246kb now. Converted "crystals" to JPG - another 70k or so. Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That seemed to help.—RJH (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New medical application

Does this perhaps deserve a mention? First baby given xenon gas to prevent brain injury Fmpi (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a medical specialist, so I don't know if this treatment differs than the statement, "Thus it can be used in concentrations with oxygen that have a lower risk of hypoxia." Otherwise I'd say yes to mentioning the treatment; I'm not sure that a mention of the infant is necessary. Here are what appear to be related (but more technical) cites: [5][6] Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional Picture

I believe that this picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XeTube.jpg from Pslawinski would fit well in this arcticle, as it is one of a series of similar pictures shown in every other previous noble gas arcticle. Lloyd James 03:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyd.james0615 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately we already have two images in the article that illustrate the same concept. (See Wikipedia:Layout#Images for example.) But it might be worthwhile to set up a gallery on the commons.—RJH (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Location of pronunciation info

I noticed my edit was reverted. Other webpages on individual elements include the pronunciation immediately after the word if the element's pronunciation is not straight forward. Refer Aluminum, Cerium ,Scandium, Manganese, Gallium and many others(List of elements). As a result people expect the pronunciation information to be there. I, like many others did not/do not, know to look in the info box. This page should use the convention that has been agreed upon throughout all of Wikipedia. Given that the pronunciation of Xenon is particularly tricky, this element in particular should have it at the very beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.112.65 (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Putting the pronunciation in the first sentence is (to me at least) an unpleasant, if not annoying, interruption in the flow. (The pronunciation being perhaps the least important aspect of the topic.) There is already a slot for it in the infobox. The issue of this approach was raised on the element infobox talk page, but no objection was raised so I see no problem with the approach. It works fine on articles like hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and neon.—RJH (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like moving it either, as it may seem to be low-importance interuptive info for people who know how to say it already, but not for anybody else. I think that the chemists who already know how to say xenon, copernicium, periodic acid and 1-buten-3-yne, have forgotten both their roots and the people who these WP articles are supposed to be written for.SBHarris 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this topic needs to be hashed out in a general discussion. There appears to be a small but highly motivated group who believe pronunciation information is remarkably important; another group like me who just want it out of the damn way, and the majority who don't seem to care. I thought that putting the pronunciation in the infobox would be a happy middle ground, but I guess that isn't the case. Maybe with a general discussion we can get it moved over to the wictionary, where I think it belongs. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Template_talk:Infobox_element#Pronunciation for discussion. Refer to here for MOS discussion. Dave3457(talk) 21:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Other Illumination Use

Why is there nothing in this article regarding the use of xenon gas in the bulbs of automobiles equipped with High-Intensity-Discharge headlamps? Initially beginning in the early to mid '90s certain cars (typically expensive European variety) began to use HID lighting and since then the use of HID lights has become much more prolific. Troverman (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Because we were all waiting for you to show up and add it in, along with the necessary citations. :-) Seriously, if you have a useful addition to make, please do so. See WP:BEBOLD. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note per the "Gas-discharge lamps" section

I removed the following sentence from the article because it had been tagged as unsourced since March. It looks like it is probably true, but I couldn't find a suitable source after a brief search. Given a suitable references, it can always be added back in.

Xenon is the largest and heaviest non-radioactive noble gas and so its rate of diffusion and leakage through a glass or other envelope is minimal relative to alternative inert gases.

Regards, RJH (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2011

While Xenon was discovered in England it was discovered by the Scottish Nobel laureate. Could this be changed.

187.56.2.233 (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly needs to be changed? It was discovered in London, by a Scottish and a British chemists. Materialscientist (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added nationalities and professions to the names listed in that section. The 1904 Nobel prize in Chemistry was for inert gases in general, rather than Xenon in particular. Lord Rayleigh also received a 1904 Nobel prize for discovering Argon, so he also deserves some credit. Personally I think that should be covered elsewhere. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

update on double beta decay

I don't seem to be able to edit the main page but $^136$Xe has been shown to decay via double beta decay

If I might make a suggestion: that might be something worth adding to the Isotopes of xenon article. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of stable isotopes

This edit change the listed number of stable isotopes from nine to eight. This matches the total on the "Isotopes of xenon" article, but it disagrees with the total in the infobox. This USGS web page lists nine stable isotopes. One of these totals would seem to be incorrect Regards, RJH (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is because on This USGS web page they have ¹³⁶Xe as stable. However the EXO-200 experiment has shown this not to be the case.Dja1979 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It looks like the infobox will need to be updated then. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Is a half-life many orders of magnitude longer than the age of the observable universe really "unstable"? Aren't protons themselves eventually unstable? --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Protons are stable in the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SM). In some extensions to the SM predicts that the proton is unstable but this has not been observed, so the proton is considered stable. As for the ¹³⁶Xe halflife being long therefore being stable, yes if you have one atom then it is unlikely to decay while you watch it, but you normally have many mols of atoms, so a certain number of these will decay on human time scales. Enriched Xenon Observatory observed >1000 decays.Dja1979 (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Update External Link

I am the program coordinator of the ACS-National Historic Chemical Landmarks program. I have updated the references to ACS-NHCL web content, as that page have been replaced by (http://portal.acs.org/portal/PublicWebSite/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/progesteronesynthesis/index.htm). KLindblom (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Small Xe lamps not short-arc

The article describes short arc lamps with the following sentence:

"They are employed in typical 35mm, IMAX and the new digital projectors film projection systems, automotive HID headlights, high-end "tactical" flashlights and other specialized uses."

This is not correct. While xenon arc lights certainly are employed in theatrical projection, small xenon-filled lamps in the tens-of-watts range, including car headlights and flashlights, are not short arc lamps. Rather, they are metal halide lamps that happen to use xenon as a gas fill, which is importantly different technology. Witness the fact that they are available in a range of colour temperatures, from a warmish white similar to tungsten lighting all the way up to almost cyan. This is achieved by altering the composition of the metal halide mixture inside the envelope. Xenon arc lamps do not have this option as their output is based entirely on the emission spectra of Xe.

This is complicated by the fact that one manufacturer called their small Xe lamp range "solarc" when they were not arc lamps at all.

This should be corrected.91.85.40.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Obviously Xenon is a word that needs the pronunciation. I recommend it be restored next to the word. It is fine to also have it in the info box, but if I am reading an article and come to an odd word I expect either a wikilink to that subject or the pronunciation of that word right there if it is the subject of the article. I see no reason for fixing something that is not broken. Apteva (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously? You can sound it out just by looking at it. Anyone w access to WP can look it up, say at dict.com. Anyone with the most elementary paperback dictionary can look it up. Per WP:NOTADICTIONARY it shouldn't be there, but we don't bother much with that with articles that are poorly developed. But this article is FA, and has it in the info box. The duplicate violates WP:CONTENTFORK. This is a problem because soon the two transcriptions will diverge. Which should the reader follow then? — kwami (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This is such an obvious case that it barely needs commenting, but content fork refers to building a second article xenon 54 and changing the content. Should the article stop after the first sentence it would be a dictionary entry. "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." When the article was promoted to FA it included pronunciation[7], because no matter how obvious an xe is pronounced to some people obviously xenon was felt to warrant including pronunciation. The article Campbell's Soup Cans, also an FA, did not feel the need to offer pronunciation guidance. WP is very egocentric. If we use a word that is not very common, we never link to wiktionary, but if there is a wikipedia article on the subject we link to it, instead of expecting readers to google it or look it up in a dictionary. Apteva (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Medical neuroprotection

More research result suggesting that inhaling Xeon helps to prevent brain damage.

Someone with more medical expertise could check the results and maybe update the medical usage part http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2503174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.122.41 (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Xenon. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090923143345/http://chemistry.berkeley.edu:80/publications/news/2006/bio_bartlett.php to http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/publications/news/2006/bio_bartlett.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070718115616/http://web.physik.rwth-aachen.de:80/~harm/aixphysik/atom/discharge/index1.html to http://web.physik.rwth-aachen.de/~harm/aixphysik/atom/discharge/index1.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071015160452/http://plasmatvscience.org:80/theinnerworkings.html to http://www.plasmatvscience.org/theinnerworkings.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111030085213/http://www.swan.ac.uk:80/medicine/newsandevents/ilsnewsbulletinhiddenpages/drjohndingley-babyriley/ to http://www.swan.ac.uk/medicine/newsandevents/ilsnewsbulletinhiddenpages/drjohndingley-babyriley/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070915023928/http://www.nasa.gov:80/centers/glenn/about/fs08grc.html to http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs08grc.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929003314/http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/from-donald-duck-to-barry-white-how-gases-change-your-voice to http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/from-donald-duck-to-barry-white-how-gases-change-your-voice

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Xenon arc lamp, isn't the technology that used in automotive HID headlights

The user Plantsurfer undone my edit about removing the automotive HID headlights, as one of the applications of xenon arc lamps. This is false. The technology that used in automotive HID headlights, is metal halide lamp, with the xenon only used instead of argon as a starting gas and as the initial light source when the lamp hasn't been warmed up yet. After reaching operating temperature, all of the light produced by mercury and metal halides and the xenon don't play role anymore in light production. The term "Xenon" is often used as a generic name for automotive HID lights, like "LED" is for LED backlit LCD display and "Circline" is for circular fluorescent lamps, so that the mention of automotive HID headlight as one of the application of xenon arc lamp, is false and it have no room for it in this article, so I redoing my edit again. זור987 (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Speed of sound in xenon gas

Where does the infobox value of 169 m·s⁻¹ come from? It's not in Speeds of sound of the elements (data page), though the quoted value for liquid xenon (1090 m·s⁻¹) is. Double sharp (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It does look about right though, as calculating using the formula at Ideal gas#Speed of sound gives me a value of 175 m·s⁻¹, assuming I haven't made any stupid careless mistakes. Double sharp (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful. A. J. Zuckerwar's Handbook of the Speed of Sound in Real Gases (Academic Press, 2002) gives 178 m·s⁻¹, proving that I have not, in fact, messed up my calculations. Changed. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This would suggest a very approximate value of 140 m/s for Rn gas, since the ratio of the speed of sounds in Xe and Rn should be proportional to the square root of the quotient of the relative atomic masses of the two gases. But I do not dare to add that, even as a prediction, since it is OR at its finest. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The article needs some corrections

Hello: Regarding to the mentioning of the automotive HID lamps as one of the application of xenon arc lamp: This is false. I've several sources and I also know generally, that the real technology that are used in automotive HID lamps, isn't a xenon arc lamp like in the case of cinema and IMAX projectors, but a metal halide lamp, as the light comes mainly from mercury sodium and scandium halides, with the xenon being only used as a starter gas to provide the initial light during lamp ignition. Source: 1, 2, 3, 4. Other source and yet other source. Also, in the articles xenon arc lamp and metal halide lamp are written that the "Xenon headlamps" are actually metal halide lamps and genreally what I'm trying to explain and users refuses to get and hence undone my changes non-stop, and the reason why it is needed to remove or at least modify the mentioning of the automotive HID lamps in this article. זור987 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

chlorides and bromides

Xenon dichloride, tetrachloride, and tetrabromide have been reported from the exotic radiochemical route of beta decay of the analogous iodine-129 interhalogen anions, according to Greenwood and Earnshaw. (The decay energy of iodine-129 is but a paltry 0.194 MeV, which is so low that even the fantastically weak Xe–Cl and Xe–Br bonds that result are not broken.) Double sharp (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)