Talk:Lithium

Possibly slightly incorrect petalite discovery history

The article states that the mineral petalite was discovered in 1800 on the island of Utö. It seems however, that it could be found in various places, and that we do not know where it was first found. We would probably need a travel diary from the discoverer to find out where he went first.

I think that it would be more correct to say something like that the first recorded mention of petalite was in 1800, stating that it had could found in three places: Utö, Sala and Finngruvan, in Sweden. (It seems correct that the actual piece of petalite that was analyzed 1817 with the discovery of lithium came from Utö and not from Sala or Finngruvan.)

I've looked at the references for the claim that petalite was discovered 1800 on the island of Utö, references 68-71:

Ref. 68, which is the original reference, from 1800 mentions three different places in Sweden where petalite can be found (not where it was first found): "On le trouve à Utoen (= Utö), Sala et Fingrufan (= Finngruvan), près de Niakoparberg (Nya Kopparberg) en Suède."

Ref. 69 refers to 3 sources: -1.Refers to ref. 68. -2.Refers to "Tschermaks MPM (1983), 31, 81-96": which mentions 5 different localities of pegmatite, including Utö, but nothing regarding where it was first found. -3.Langhof, Jörgen, Jonsson, Erik, Gustafsson, Lars, Otter, Bertil (1998) Utö- en klassisk svensk mineralfyndort [Utö - a classical Swedish mineral locality]. Norsk Bergverksmuseum Skrift, 14. 29-31: States that Utö is the locality - but no specific source to back this up (there are 14 references to the chapter). [So this is the only real source of the claim - but it is from 1998 - and it does not mention the 2 other places mentioned in the 1800 paper, it does not mention the discoverer - so I do not know why this source should take precedence. If it was known that d'Andrade mentions 3 places, but that one actually was first, it would be probably have been mentioned.]

Ref. 70 does not say that petalite was discovered on Utö. It does say that lithium was discovered in petalite from Utö (which refers to 17 years after the mentioned discovery of petalite.)

Ref. 71 mentions the same 3 localities from ref 68, and also refers to ref 68. (The ref. also seems wrong: “p. 124”, the word petalite first appears on page 484.

The Swedish version of the Wikipedia lithium page has another reference for the same claim that petalite was discovered 1800 on Utö: Per Enghag (2000), "Jordens grundämnen och deras upptäckt. Byggstenar för marken och vattnet - luften och livet", Industrilitteratur, sidan 216, ISBN 91-7548-590-7.

However this book states that petalite had been found on Utö among other places, and also citing a Swedish text from 1914 describing Petalite having been found in all of the three places (which must come from the 1800 paper).

It might of course be true that petalite was first found in Utö, but the current references do not support the claim. Wikfredd (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024

Arfwedson is misspelled as Arwedson several times Dzimmer15 (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Vague article that might report a fact

What are we to make of this? It seems that there is an extraction process for lithium using the common mineral "pyrite" (FeS₂), presumably (I guess) by having the Lithium bind to the Sulfur. The article presents it as the Next Big Thing since we need more Lithium. But it also sets off some alarm bells because it lacks detail. I dislike fake science and if anyone can shed some light on this and determine if this should be included here, I'd appreciate it. Wastrel Way (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Eric

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2024

i like fortnite

quantum degenerate Bose–Fermi mixture"

"Bose-Fermi" is linked to 2 separate wiki articles and the phrase 'Bose-Fermi mixture' is no where to be found. 142.163.195.114 (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"places such as Australia and North Carolina"

from Production/extraction. what do these places have in common? The grammatical structure implies I should be able to figure out other places like them. 142.163.195.114 (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect natural abundance

The natural abundance of Li-6 and Li-7 are given in the article as 4.85% and 95.15%, respectively. However, several other sources quote values of 7.59% and 92.41%, including the original source that Ref 6 quotes. I am simply unable to find a first-hand reference that quotes the abundances mentioned in the article. Therefore i propose the adjustment of the values in table "Main isotopes". Heppatyttö15 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The essential problem is that commercial lithium is often depleted of the minor isotope, and does not match the natural abundance. The listed abundances are the midpoints of the intervals given by IUPAC. There used to be a comment to this effect, but it was removed. I should put it back. Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Replaced with the intervals themselves. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reference on the zero oxidization state of Lithium

The following content appears on a reference for the "0" oxidation state of Lithium:

• Li(0) atoms have been observed in various small lithium-chloride clusters; see Milovanović, Milan; Veličković, Suzana; Veljkovićb, Filip; Jerosimić, Stanka (October 30, 2017). "Structure and stability of small lithium-chloride Li_nCl_m^(0,1+) (n ≥ m, n = 1–6, m = 1–3) clusters". Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 19 (45): 30481–30497. doi:10.1039/C7CP04181K. PMID 29114648.

That paper never discusses oxidation state of Li as far as I can tell.

I don't think the zero oxidation state of any element is notable or needs a reference. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Please get consensus for this at WT:ELEM. All of the element-infoboxes use a central data-set. And it should also presumably be in sync with Template:List of oxidation states of the elements that is used in the oxidation state article, which explicitly notes that it's all about compounds and complexes. That means 0 is not automatically listed for every element, because standard state is not a combination with another element. DMacks (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

First sentence should not be "Lithium is a silvery soft alkali metal." it should be "lithium is a chemical element with the symbol li and atomic number 3 2603:8080:D03:89D4:D503:4989:CB26:4FAF (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Ayup, fixed. Thanks for reporting it! DMacks (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the consensus seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines. fgnievinski (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That page "is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." (was marked 'historical' almost four years ago). The most recent consensus is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive_62#"a" chemical element or "the" chemical element. DMacks (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Please add this

"Lithium itself is a non-renewable resource." just after this existing sentence: "It has been argued that lithium will be one of the main objects of geopolitical competition in a world running on renewable energy and dependent on batteries, but this perspective has also been criticised for underestimating the power of economic incentives for expanded production.[98]". Also add a link to geopolitical (geopolitics). Desalado (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Sorry I don't understand the point of adding that sentence. There are very few renewable resources: why would anyone expect lithium to be among them? I move the sentence, reworded it, and linked it as you suggested. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for answering, Johnjbarton. The point of the sentence is to make clear that while lithium is important for certain renewable energy technology, it is itself not renewable. I think it is a valid point to tell the reader this, since while it may seem obvious to some we should not expect the reader to be aware of this situation. Desalado (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)