Talk:Gallium: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Missing word in 'other uses' section.: new section |
Alexeyevitch (talk | contribs) Added {{Talk header}} and remove duplicate archive box |
||
| (32 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{V0.5|category = Natsci}} |
|||
{{GA|22:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)|page=1|topic=biology|oldid=741659960}} |
|||
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=B|subpage=Physics}} |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Elements|importance=High}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
| algo = old(365d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Gallium/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{tmbox|text='''Information Sources:''' Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from [http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/31.html Los Alamos National Laboratory - Gallium]. Additional text was taken directly from [http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gallium/ USGS Gallium Statistics and Information], the Elements database 20001107 (via [http://www.dict.org dict.org]), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via [http://www.dict.org dict.org]) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via [http://www.dict.org 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. |
|||
------ }} |
|||
== Gallium rotting other metals == |
|||
==2005 comments== |
|||
Article changed over to new [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements]] format by [[user:maveric149|maveric149]]. Elementbox converted 12:20, 1 July 2005 by [[User:Femto|Femto]] (previous revision was that of [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gallium&oldid=15909942 17:27, 14 June 2005]). |
|||
== Information Sources == |
|||
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from [http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/31.html Los Alamos National Laboratory - Gallium]. |
|||
Additional text was taken directly from [http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gallium/ USGS Gallium Statistics and Information], the Elements database 20001107 (via [http://www.dict.org dict.org]), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via [http://www.dict.org dict.org]) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via [http://www.dict.org 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 == |
|||
There's various YouTube demonstrations ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP_NvmRAllw e.g.]) of liquid Ga soaking into other metals and weakening them till they fall apart - particularly aluminium, but others also. Is there anything we could use to source and mention this? I was surprised not to see it in the article - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 15:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
[[Discovery of the chemical elements]] says discovered in 1871. This article says 1875. -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 10:23 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC) |
|||
:I have seen those videos, too. Maybe if we could find and article or something online that would work. [[User:Helloheart|𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝]] ([[User talk:Helloheart|𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔]]) 01:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:1875 is the date given for the LANL, Elements database and Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary links above. Mendeleev '' predicted'' that this element exists in 1871. The discovery article is in error. I will fix it. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] |
|||
::It's discussed in the second paragraph of [[Gallium#Physical_properties]] and has some references. I just added a link to [[liquid metal embrittlement]] as well. Hope that answers your suggestion. –[[User:MadeOfAtoms|MadeOfAtoms]] ([[User talk:MadeOfAtoms#top|talk]]) 04:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Is the Most Stable Isotopes part correct? 31 and 39 do not make 71... |
|||
:::{{ping|MadeOfAtoms}} They are looking for a freely licensed image or video of this reaction, or else a YouTube video that can be added as an external link. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 11:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah - it is. They're not supposed to. [[User:Nippoo|Nippoo]] 13:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Liquid elements == |
|||
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? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:200.55.116.210|200.55.116.210]] ([[User talk:200.55.116.210|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/200.55.116.210|contribs]]) .</small> |
|||
:The Rb melt temp is 102.8 F = 39.3 C. Room temperature is not well-defined scientifically, but I think just about anyone would object to 103 F as room temperature. It's a good hot tub temperature. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] ([[User talk:Sbharris|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sbharris|contribs]]) .</small> |
|||
::Thanks for the precision; as you say, "room temperature" is a rather ambiguous term. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:200.55.116.210|200.55.116.210]] ([[User talk:200.55.116.210|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/200.55.116.210|contribs]]) .</small> |
|||
:::Note also that some articles which mention liquid elements only refer to "near" room temperature, not "at" room temperature, to complicate things further. [[User:Femto|Femto]] 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::: For the Record, room temperature should be around 68-70 degrees. Most houses I've been in are set for that, and it's generally the automatic, or at least median setting for thermostats. [[User:Joesolo13|Joesolo13]] ([[User talk:Joesolo13|talk]]) 17:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==diffusion== |
|||
"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"{{Talkfact}} |
|||
What was the first reason? |
|||
At what temperature does this occur - not at room temperature surely?[[User:87.102.33.144|87.102.33.144]] 12:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't know what the other reason is, but for some metals these processes can occur at room temperature (depending on thermodynamic stabilities of the alloys and the metals, some alloys have a reason to 'expell' a metal from the alloy (nickel from jewelry, e.g.), other alloys can be made by simply molding metals together at room temperature (Na/K-alloy, e.g). But sorry, no references available at this moment, I think a physical chemistry book would make a good reference for these processes. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 12:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, another good example is [[Amalgam | dental amalgam]].[[User:74.134.234.31|74.134.234.31]] 04:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I should make the comparison with zinc (as well as indium and aluminium) next to gallium in the periodic table - molten zinc doesn't seem corrosive at all to ferrous metals, and I can't think of a reason why gallium would be substantially different.[[User:87.102.33.144|87.102.33.144]] 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Gallium has a way lower melting point, and I am not sure whether in this case comparison to neighbouring elements will be true. We'll have to dig up some references for this. You could try raising the matter in wikiproject elements (see top of this talkpage, gives you a better chance of reaching people). See you around! --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I put in a referenc, it say something about diffusion!-[[User:Stone|Stone]] 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The reference is about an aluminium zinc alloy - what about steel?[[User:87.102.2.226|87.102.2.226]] 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[[http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00285891.pdf]] for the plutonium alloys <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Stone|contribs]]) 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
I've changed the text to match what is actually stated in the reference-not some bullshit hot air from a wanker science student.[[User:87.102.2.226|87.102.2.226]] 12:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:A simple google-search already easily yields quite some examples, I've added another one. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 12:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Hydrogen== |
|||
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 |
|||
===Not usefull=== |
|||
:Hg does the same. This method is not usefull, because the production of Al is more energy consuming than that of H2. To include this in the article would lead people to think that this method has a future use or is applied already.--[[User:Stone|Stone]] 08:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Storing energy in the alloy=== |
|||
:Well, that's [[entropy]]; of course you can't get more energy out of the reaction than you put into it. That's only possible in nuclear reactions: [[Nuclear fusion| fusion ]], theoretically, if we can ever get it to work, gives off far, far more energy than it takes to split water to get the hydrogen fuel to use in the fusion reaction. |
|||
:The point is to use aluminum-gallium alloy as a way to ''store'' potential energy. You carry around pellets of the alloy in your car's fuel tank to react with water to liberate hydrogen from a tank of water on-the-go to use in a hydrogen fuel cell to generate electricity to power the electric motors in your car. The energy to refine the resulting aluminum oxide back into aluminum to use as a "battery" over again will, of course, need to come from elsewhere. This ''is useful'' to do because storing hydrogen is a pain. It seeps through any material over time and damages some metals as it does so: [[Hydrogen embrittlement]]. You can store pellets of aluminum metal alloy and water indefinitely--better than gasoline, as far as that goes. [[User:TheDragoon|TheDragoon]] ([[User talk:TheDragoon|talk]]) 10:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Gallium probably not 1.5% of coal ash == |
|||
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 [http://periodic.lanl.gov/31.shtml 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 [http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/datastat/te/GaHome.htm] 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. --[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] 17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:As I [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Gallium_occurence_in_fly_ash_-_number_needs_checking|described here]], there was a paper published around 1938 that indicated a figure of around 1.5% obtained from flue dusts from Northumbrian coal. If you can't find this article, let me know and I'll drive to another college to locate it for you. I spent several months looking at this problem - precisely because I could see the commercial potential (GaAs was just getting popular in 1982, when I did this work) - but I couldn't reproduce their numbers. (Then again, I was 22, and had virtually no experience of this type of chemistry.) Maybe I was misguided, but I didn't make up the numbers, and I got them from the original literature, and 1.5% matches exactly with what I remember. I also recall that other coalfields have very low levels of Ga and Ge. I didn't add the number into this article, so someone else must have used the same source I had. As I mentioned, germanium was isolated in huge amounts from this source around the 1950s, so the 1938 paper can't be all wrong. Please let me know if you find the paper, or if you need help with getting hold of it. [[User:Walkerma|Walkerma]] 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The article currently gives a 1.5% figure for fly ash generally, which is far too high, since the citations we have show far lower numbers. There may be a deposit somewhere with a higher concentration of gallium, and that should be cited as an unusual occurrence. --[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agreed. I suspect this coal seam may be unique. [[User:Walkerma|Walkerma]] 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Add the bulk/Young's modulus == |
|||
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. |
|||
[[User:Davidjonsson|Davidjonsson]] 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Wrong in applications, cooling, comparison to water == |
|||
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. |
|||
[[User:Davidjonsson|Davidjonsson]] 22:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, that's what I thought till I did some maths on it. There's several problem with metals for cooling purposes. One subtle one is that to cool something you need to carry the heat away. With a liquid metal, if you flow metal past something, the heat tends to flow upstream which evens out temperature and reduces the heat flow into the metal. That and some other effects meant that the equations say that there isn't a big gain over water- and it wasn't as good as some oils. Basically that heat conductivity is not telling the whole story, you also need to consider viscosity, flow, heat capacity, and the thicknesses of one or two different boundary layers etc. etc. A factor of 66 better than water is simply untrue.[[User:Wolfkeeper|WolfKeeper]] 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*"4.184/2.187 = 1.9 times less". |
|||
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. [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 04:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
NOR? Cite? All of it can be calculated. I adjust the obvious error. |
|||
[[User:Davidjonsson|Davidjonsson]] 20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:NOR as in [[WP:NOR]], standing for No Original Research. --[[User:Van helsing|Van helsing]] 20:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Concerning [[WP:CITE]]: ''"Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source"''. Was once part of [[WP:OR#What is not original research?]], somebody found it to be a wise idea to delete it though. --[[User:Van helsing|Van helsing]] 21:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The problem is not in calculating simple ratios, as above. The problem is in using a ratio of thermal conductivities as a simple all-purpose "figure of merit" for a cooling fluid, assuming that a substance which has 66 times the thermal conductivity (a fact which is not original) is "66 times better" therefore, for a given application (an assertion which IS original). It's the last which isn't obvious. No engineering application is THAT straightforward. A better conductivity is '''one''' indicator only of performance, and it's not a perfectly quantitative one. [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 04:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Running out?== |
|||
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. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Deletion of price == |
|||
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.[[User:Lon of Oakdale|Lon of Oakdale]] ([[User talk:Lon of Oakdale|talk]]) 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Photograph of gallium melting in a gloved hand == |
|||
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. --[[User:Arkuat|arkuat]] [[User_talk:Arkuat|(talk)]] 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I have some gallium metal. I could take a picture.--[[User:DMKTirpitz|DMKTirpitz]] ([[User talk:DMKTirpitz|talk]]) 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Reference == |
|||
*{{cite journal | doi = 10.1002/jctb.5010011202}} --[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Confused tag == |
|||
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. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 07:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I have removed these tags as unecessary per action taken on other rare earth articles.'''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Boiling temperature disagreements == |
|||
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 [http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/ga.html 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! |
|||
[[User:Peter Dow|Peter Dow]] ([[User talk:Peter Dow|talk]]) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:See [[Chemical elements data references]]. I wouldn't trust the penguin. Give it away and instead get yourself a [[CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics|rubber book]]. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 21:01, 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 [http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52760-disagreements-in-published-boiling-temperatures-of-tin-gallium-etc/page__view__findpost__p__572400 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 [http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/ga.html Chemical Elements website]. |
|||
[[User:Peter Dow|Peter Dow]] ([[User talk:Peter Dow|talk]]) 21:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:The part about giving the book away was meant as a joke. See [[CRC_Press#History]] for an explanation re: the "rubber book" (basically its printed by the Chemical Rubber Company (CRC)). I've looked in the CRC handbook of Chemistry and Physics 89th edition which gives 2204 degrees C (2477 K). The same value is given by webelements: http://www.webelements.com/gallium/physics.html . '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 21:18, 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) [http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/chemistry/3_1/3_1_2.html Properties of the elements 3.1.2 - the value is 2200°C] |
|||
(2) [http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/chemistry/3_10/3_10_1.html 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. |
|||
[[User:Peter Dow|Peter Dow]] ([[User talk:Peter Dow|talk]]) 22:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::By the way, you might want to mention the thread you started on [[talk:Boiling points of the elements (data page)]] to the people at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements]] because it's more likely to get a response that way. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 21:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Rubber books 47, 53 and 66 all give 2403°C. There's no more detail given (conditions etc). [[User:ChrisHodgesUK|ChrisHodgesUK]] ([[User talk:ChrisHodgesUK|talk]]) 12:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::The [[Boiling points of the elements (data page)]] takes its values from the 84th edition. The value from the 89th (2009) edition of 2204 degrees C (2477 K) is the normal boiling point (i.e. taken at 101.325 kPa) and is the same as quoted in the 84th. It is quite likely the discrepancy comes from a historical innaccuracy and possibly in some cases a difference in the formalism used to define the boling point. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 15:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== quality scale assessment == |
|||
B-Class Review |
|||
* Biology section is too short with one sentence. |
|||
* Chemistry section is a little bit crowded an needs some work to get it straight. |
|||
* There must be something in the history since discovery. |
|||
Overall B-Class with only minor problems. |
|||
--[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Low melting point reason == |
|||
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? --[[User:Busukxuan|Busukxuan]] ([[User talk:Busukxuan|talk]]) 11:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Density of gallium == |
|||
Currently states 5.91. This needs correction. See: |
|||
[http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Star/compos.pl?mode=text&matno=031 NIST 5.904 g/cm3][[User:DLH|DLH]] ([[User talk:DLH|talk]]) 13:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:see [[Densities of the elements (data page)]]. The density is taken from WEL (webelements), LNG (Lange's Handbook of Chemistry (15th Edition)) and CRC (CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 84th Edition). The CRC reference value is preferred, presumably because it's the most recent. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Triple point == |
|||
A triple point is a temperature and pressure. The article only lists the temperature. Without the pressure it's either meaningless or irrelevant. [[User:Fatphil|Fatphil]] ([[User talk:Fatphil|talk]]) 13:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:The triple point temperature and pressure are constants (and are not meaningless at all). I guess most readers don't need the pressure value (though I would specify it). [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 13:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
I calculate that its triple point pressure based on the [[Clausius–Clapeyron relation]] is as low as around 10{{sup|−35}} Pa, which is about 24 magnitudes lower than even in outer space. Do you agree with that value, Materialscientist? [[User:PlanetStar|<font color="blue">Planet</font>]][[User talk:PlanetStar|<font color="yellow">Star</font>]] 17:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== interesting demonstrative picture to add == |
|||
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 |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/38.99.136.166|38.99.136.166]] ([[User talk:38.99.136.166|talk]]) 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Wetting property == |
|||
[[Liquid metal]] states: |
|||
:''However, this observation of "wetting by rubbing into glass surface" has created a widely spread misconception that the gallium-based liquid metals wet glass surfaces, as if the liquid breaks free of the oxide skin and wets the glass surface. The reality is the opposite; the oxide makes the liquid wet the glass. In more details: as the liquid is rubbed into and spread onto the glass surface, the liquid oxidizes and coats the glass with a thin layer of oxide (solid) residues, on which the liquid metal wets. In other words, the commonly seen was a gallium-based liquid metal wetting its solid oxide, not glass. Apparently, the above misconception was caused by the super-fast oxidation of the liquid gallium in even a trace amount of oxygen, i.e., nobody observed the true behavior of a liquid gallium on glass, until CJ Kim's group at UCLA debunked the above myth by testing Gallinstan, a gallium-based alloy that is liquid at room temperature, in a completely oxygen-free environment''<br /> |
|||
This article reads: |
|||
:''When the wetting action of gallium-alloys is not desired (as in Galinstan glass thermometers), the glass must be protected with a transparent layer of gallium(III) oxide.''<br /> |
|||
That seems to contradict the previous statement? Can anyone enlighten me? [[User:Ssscienccce|Ssscienccce]] ([[User talk:Ssscienccce|talk]]) 19:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Increasing Ga melting point == |
|||
Some discussion on ways to increase Ga melting point should be added, or its impossibility. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.176.55.30|108.176.55.30]] ([[User talk:108.176.55.30|talk]]) 16:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:One possible way is to expose to much higher pressures, unless it decreases the melting point. If so, no possible way. [[User:PlanetStar|<font color="blue">Planet</font>]][[User talk:PlanetStar|<font color="yellow">Star</font>]] 21:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::The article says "Many stable and metastable phases are found as [a] function of temperature and pressure." These sound like the allotropes of [[carbon]] and [[sulfur]] which have various melting points. |
|||
::If you were to separate the two isotopes, they should have slightly different melting points, much as [[heavy water]] has different melting and boiling points from ordinary water. |
|||
::A non-[[eutectic]] alloy could have a higher melting point. So could a compound. Of course those aren't pure gallium. —[[User_talk:Rybec|<font color="black"><span style="background:#ccccff">rybec</span></font>]] 21:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on [[Gallium]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=712296552 my edit]. You may add {{tlx|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 {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes: |
|||
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div836/836.05/papers/magnum90ITS90guide.pdf |
|||
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div836/836.05/papers/Strouse99GaTP.pdf |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 07:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Missing word in 'other uses' section. == |
|||
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. [[Special:Contributions/80.176.229.143|80.176.229.143]] ([[User talk:80.176.229.143|talk]]) 21:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 22:09, 13 August 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gallium article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | Gallium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 28, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
| This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Information Sources: Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Gallium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Gallium Statistics and Information, 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.
|
Gallium rotting other metals
[edit]There's various YouTube demonstrations (e.g.) of liquid Ga soaking into other metals and weakening them till they fall apart - particularly aluminium, but others also. Is there anything we could use to source and mention this? I was surprised not to see it in the article - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have seen those videos, too. Maybe if we could find and article or something online that would work. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 01:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's discussed in the second paragraph of Gallium#Physical_properties and has some references. I just added a link to liquid metal embrittlement as well. Hope that answers your suggestion. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @MadeOfAtoms: They are looking for a freely licensed image or video of this reaction, or else a YouTube video that can be added as an external link. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's discussed in the second paragraph of Gallium#Physical_properties and has some references. I just added a link to liquid metal embrittlement as well. Hope that answers your suggestion. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)