Talk:Neon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 11:27, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:26, 18 Jun 2005).
Contents |
[edit] Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Neon. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Neon, from the Elements database 20001107 (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.
i'm not sure, but i am under the impression that the density of neon would not be kg/L but instead g/L. In the periodic table it states for the weight of neon to be 20.18, you divide that by 22.4 to get the number listed, but it's in grams.
Another explanation is that Earth has less Neon than Argon, the same way it may have less Gold than Carbon, for while steam may be "lighter than air" and so with Neon, when steam rises to the sky it cools, condenses and drops back to earth as rain. The continuing presence of Neon in our atmosphere suggests it does the same. If this were not the case surely all the neon would be gone, also the Earth even hangs on to Methane and Hydrogen.
I removed this because it seemed spurious: as already suggested elsewhere in the article, steam condenses back into a liquid at 0C. Neon remains gaseous all the way down to -246C, so there's no reason for it to be falling back to earth in this fashion. Further, the Earth does *not* hang on to gaseous hydrogen - there isn't a significant level of it in the atmosphere, since most of it has been bound up in compounds with heavier elements, notably water. It might help to understand that this loss is a slow process; even a lighter-than-air gas can persist in noticeable quantities if it's being steadily released, e.g. by radiodecay. --Calair 01:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Steam condenses back to a liquid at WHAT temperature? Last I read it was 100C. It turns to a solid at 0C.
- I believe I can add some more. Neon is definately being radiogenically created. There are several rare decays that occur on the heavier elements (see cluster decay for the whole list). There are 5 different elements that decay into neon some of the time. As a matter of fact, 100% of all thorium on the planet can decay into neon. All the fissionable uranium on the planet also has a chance of of producing neon. Since we have no idea how much thorium or uranium is on the planet we have no idea how much neon would be produced. Since neon is a nobel gas, it will float through the mantle without forming compounds, much like radium. --metta, The Sunborn 04:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think you mean "much like Radon" Ed Sanville 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Compounds
The article states, "Even though neon is for most practical purposes an inert element, it can form an exotic compound with fluorine in the laboratory." What is the compound, what are its properties, and where is a reputable, peer reviewed source for its existance? Until some information is given and sources found, the statement will be removed. Polonium 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Acually, there is evidence that a compound exists, but it is weak. [1]. Polonium 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Glow
Do only noble gases glow in a vacuum discharge tube? Also, doesn't a current have to be present. Oxygen for example makes no mention of a glow in a vacuum discharge tube. Hackwrench 21:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
See Gas discharge for a list. Oxygen is on the list.--Syd Henderson 01:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] occurence
" neon may slowly leak out into space, which explains its scarcity on Earth" . The "may" part makes this sound speculative. I have also looked at the references provided at the bottom of the article and none make any statement about this. This conclusion is not obvious, and it should be cited.Badocter 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't found a source for the above statement, but I have found a source that offers a different explanation. [2].Badocter 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- No replies or citations to support statement in two monthes so i am deleting it. The escape velocity argument by itself does not pass muster since molecules in the earth's atmosphere move toward an equilibrium where the rate of capture from space balances the rate of escape. This sounds like a homework problem for a statistical mechanics course (provided you know the occurence of neon in space). Badocter 05:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)