![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Discovery of the chemical elements says discovered in 1871. This article says 1875. -- Tarquin 10:23 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)
Is the Most Stable Isotopes part correct? 31 and 39 do not make 71...
"Gallium also attacks most other metals by diffusing into their metal lattice — another reason why it is important to keep gallium away from metal containers such as steel or aluminum" citation needed
What was the first reason?
At what temperature does this occur - not at room temperature surely? 87.102.33.144 12:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the text to match what is actually stated in the reference-not some bullshit hot air from a wanker science student. 87.102.2.226 12:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The article says that some coal ash contains 1.5% gallium. I suspect that this information is bogus.
That number came from a brief mention in LANL's periodic table on the web. That's part of their "kids site", not a research result.
But sources that talk about commercial recovery of gallium from fly ash have far lower numbers. See U.S. Patent #4,686,031, "Beneficiation of gallium in fly ash", which talks about starting from concentrations in the 100ppm (0.01%) range. The state of West Virginia says that the mean concentration of gallium in West Virginia coals [2] is 6.45 ppm. Fly ash is more concentrated than coal, of course, because burning removes the carbon but leaves the non burnable minerals.
If fly ash, which is cheap and easily available from any coal-fired power plant, contained 1.5% gallium, that would be the major commercial source, and nobody would be bothering with extracting it from bauxite. But it's not. -- John Nagle 17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Young's modulus can be calculated from the speed of sound in thin rods 2740 m/s by E = v^2*rho which gives 44.4 GPa.
The speed of sound should be determined from the pure deformation in one dimension - the longitudinal wave - and not with the eventual contraction of the material perpendicular to the wave motion as the Young's module derivation implies because that is not sound motion. It is a different kind of motion. This protest should also apply to the page on speed of sound.
Unless anyone protests I will add Young's modulus K=44.4 GPa.
What I really need is the bulk modulus. This is an important parameter because we are going to do pressure-volume work on solidifying expanding Gallium which means the bulk modulus is needed. Young's modulus can not be used.
I found this http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v165/i3/p751_1 talking about the longitudinal sound speed to be 4070 m/s (at 1.3 K) giving a bulk modulus of K = v^2*rho=(4070^2)*5910 * = 97 898 559 000 Pa = 97.9 GPa. Worth adding? Density is probably different at that temperature too.
Maybe someone can find B.W. Magnum and D.D. Thornton, Metrologia 15 (1979), p. 201. That is an article on Gallium.
Davidjonsson 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This "4.184/2.187 = 1.9 times more" is wrong. It should be "4.184/2.187 = 1.9 times less".
Another very important factor in cooling is the thermal conductivity which is much higher i Gallium compared to water. Gallium 40.6 W/m/K Water 0.6155 W/m/K
Gallium is a factor 66 better.
Davidjonsson 22:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "1.9 times less" is nearly meaningless. It is 2.187/4.184 = 0.5227 = 52% as much. Yes, the thermal conductivity should be taken into account. But all of this is NOR. We need a cite for it. S B H arris 04:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
NOR? Cite? All of it can be calculated. I adjust the obvious error. Davidjonsson 20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone should add the application of Ga and Al for creating H for H power... When Gallium comes in contact with a metal it diffuses its chem lat. Al oxidizes extremely easy, but develops a protective film to make sure it doesn't erode. so adding Ga to Al disrupts the ability to develop film. if H20 is added the O oxidizes mit the Al and the H is left by itself... This H can then be used for H power... I'm to tired to write this better, Purdue U is where this process was developed so if you want to write it into the article find more info there... -Val Vaine Von Sarie
Just added the comment about running out of gallium. Checked the Indium element article where someone dismissed the same prediction for it as "scaremongering." I'm just including a scholarly reference here, not predicting! :) Maybe the same disclaimer can be found for gallium. Student7 ( talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I found the article with the following line:
The cost for 37.5 grams of gallium is 71.99.
I deleted this line for the following reasons:
The mass was not normalized. One gram or one pound would be preferred. The price lacked units. Is this dollars, pounds, yen or quatloos? There was no date. Prices change. There was no citation.
I think this is useful information, or rather it would be useful if brushed up a bit. Lon of Oakdale ( talk) 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Such a photograph appears in many high-school chemistry textbook entries on gallium. Is there a free one we could include here? I'm inspired by whoever turned the plain text entry in Oxygen#Compounds "Water is the most familiar compound of oxygen." into a caption for an excellent photograph illustrating that article. -- arkuat (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have some gallium metal. I could take a picture.-- DMKTirpitz ( talk) 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) --
Stone (
talk) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Hi, a confused tag was added to this article saying "not to confused with gadolinium". Is this really necessary? The two names are different, the only similarity is the start with "ga" and end with "ium". Fine if they were the same word but pronounced differently or with only a minor difference. But Gallium does not sound the same as Gadolinium. I can't see how anyone could confuse the two elements. Polyamorph ( talk) 07:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I am reading different values for the boiling temperature of gallium from different sources and I am wondering which is right?
In this page we have 2477 K, 2204 °C. What is the source for this value?
The Chemical Elements website states 2676.15 K 2403.0 °C which corresponds to the value in my Penguin Dictionary of Chemistry book published in 1990. On the other hand another text book "Chemistry, Molecules, Matter and Change" states the boiling point of Gallium is 2070 °C. Come on people, the published values are all over the place with the boiling point of gallium! There can only really be one right answer!
Peter Dow ( talk) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Jdrewitt. From the page you referenced I found Boiling points of the elements (data page) and I have added content to the associated talk page - Talk:Boiling points of the elements (data page).
I am a scientist so I do not trust, ever, but neither shall I give my books away. So you recommend the CRC handbook? Why do you call it a "rubber book"?
If you can read the CRC handbook at source can you quote please the value the CRC handbook gives for the boiling point of gallium? I can read that the Boiling points of the elements (data page) purports to quote the CRC value in its table, claiming it is "2204 °C", but although I do not have immediate access to the book myself nevertheless I have heard from another source that the CRC handbook actually quotes a value for the boiling point of gallium of "2403°C". In other words, according to that chap the value in the CRC handbook would be the same as the value I quoted from the Penguin Dictionary of Chemisty, namely "2403.0 °C", again the same value as Chemical Elements website.
Peter Dow ( talk) 21:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Could it be possible that there are two tables in the CRC handbook each of which give a different value for the boiling point of gallium? Perhaps there is a "Chemistry" values table and a "Physics" values table?
Kaye & Laby give two slightly different values for the boiling point of gallium which can be read online.
(1) Properties of the elements 3.1.2 - the value is 2200°C
(2) Standard molar heat capacities and properties of melting and evaporation of the elements 3.10.1 - the value for Tvap is 2480K. By my calculation 2480K = (2480 - 273)°C = 2207°C. Peter Dow ( talk) 22:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
B-Class Review
Overall B-Class with only minor problems. -- Stone ( talk) 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think one of the question asked most frequently is the reason of its low melting point. Is it something concerning quantum mechanics? and is it the same reason with Hg? -- Busukxuan ( talk) 11:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently states 5.91. This needs correction. See: NIST 5.904 g/cm3 DLH ( talk) 13:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, this picture found on reddit/imgur would be great for this article. Demonstrates Gallium melting in the hand. http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/ocep7/gallium/ http://i.imgur.com/cHfoG.jpg 38.99.136.166 ( talk) 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It is said here that gallium is liquid at room temperatures, like caesium, francium and mercury. In the "Rubidium" page it reads: "Rubidium is the second most electropositive of the stable alkaline elements and can be a liquid at room temperature". So, must it be added, or are there any missings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.55.116.210 ( talk • contribs) .
Liquid metal states:
This article reads:
That seems to contradict the previous statement? Can anyone enlighten me? Ssscienccce ( talk) 19:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
A triple point is a temperature and pressure. The article only lists the temperature. Without the pressure it's either meaningless or irrelevant. Fatphil ( talk) 13:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I calculate that its triple point pressure based on the Clausius–Clapeyron relation is as low as around 10−35 Pa, which is about 24 magnitudes lower than even in outer space. Do you agree with that value, Materialscientist? Planet Star 17:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Some discussion on ways to increase Ga melting point should be added, or its impossibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.55.30 ( talk) 16:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Gallium. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It currently reads "This experiment showed that the solar neutrino flux is 40% than had been predicted by theory." Presumably there should be a 'lower' or 'higher' in there. 80.176.229.143 ( talk) 21:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Gug01 ( talk · contribs) 21:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Very relevant to the subject. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | This article deserves to be passed, despite the absence of the nominator. |
A suggestion would be to include a few more photos, but it is not a must. Gug01 ( talk) 21:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Double sharp:
Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:20, 1 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 17:27, 14 June 2005).
Hey Wikipedians!
I'd like to pose a question to the more experienced among you: should the following sentence from the Gallium summary be revised?
The reason I ask is because I was listening to an episode of Radiolab two days ago titled "Kleptotherms" (published May 5, 2021), and one of the primary things that was talked about was the fact that it is essentially a myth that the normal healthy human body temperature is 37.0°C or 98.6°F. I'm wondering, is it worth revising that line in the Gallium summary? Its inclusion seems quite inconsequential in this context, but the information is still technically inaccurate (from what I have heard/read), and allowing it to remain as-is may contribute to the perpetuation of this myth. That's why I'd like to defer to someone more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and standards so they can make a determination on what, if anything, should be done. Thanks! :)
(I only have a little experience when it comes to editing Wikipedia, and I'm still pretty new to the way things work. If I'm doing anything wrong here, please let me know. Constructive criticism is always welcome and greatly appreciated!)
--
TheWizardG (
talk) 04:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Two 2016...what is the real year? -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 15:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)