Talk:Silicon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Silicon as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech or Slovak language Wikipedias.
Wikipedia CD Selection Silicon is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.		 WikiProject on Chemistry
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 10:21, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 12:51, 21 Jun 2005).

Contents

[edit] Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Silicon. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Silicon, 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.

[edit] Band gap?

Shouldn't this article mention the value of the band gap somewhere?

-bab


[edit] Reactivity?

Hey -- according to http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Si/chem.html and http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/elmat_en/index.html, pure silicon is highly reactive. The compounds it creates such as SiO2 are not so reactive at all. If this is correct, the article is rather misleading by calling it a "relatively inert element"

[edit] Usenet sightings/citings

Usenet comments about this article see here
<quote>
> On 19 Oct, Dave Plowman <dave.sound@argonet.co.uk> wrote: > > [snip] > > Hmm. Wonder what the half life of silicon is? > > > Around 276 years, according to > <URL:http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon >. > Why do you ask? ;-)

I realise the smilery, but your answer is totally misleading. The halflife of Si-32 is 276 years, but Si-28, Si-29 and Si-30 which, according to the site make up 100% of natural silicon, are not radio active.

Or course the site negletes Si-27 with a halflife of 4s, and Si-31 with a halflife of 157minutes (circa 1971 data).

Martin </quote>


[edit] Crystal structure

Regarding the crystal structure: as I understand it, the crystal structure is the Bravais lattice plus the unit cell. The diamond structure (as it is called in my field, solid state physics) has the fcc Bravais lattice, and two atoms in the unit cell. I think we ought to display the crystal structure, not the Bravais lattice, in the table because it's the complete description of where the atoms are, and if we're going to do that, it should say "Diamond structure," or if that's not considered correct, whatever term people want to use. But not "Cubic face centered," because that means (to me) an fcc Bravais lattice with a monatomic unit cell. Some artist-type should also change the little diagram at the top of the table... User:Tantalate

Many more articles like this one. Please add your ideas to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. I think we are using different definitions for things. "Diamond strucutre" is not mentioned at crystal structure and those basic forms are what the WikiProject has standardized on. Of course there are more forms - but this is a top-level article with a general (read not-specialized) primary readership. --mav 05:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone think a description of the surface structure should be added? The most common is known as Si(111)-(7x7) and has been resolved fairly recently with the use of STM. It's a common structure to encounter in solid state physics or surface physics/chemistry, but it might be too specialistic for this article? Levitz 10:14, 11 May 2006 (GMT)

The first commentor is correct. FCC is just not right. Believe me, I just gave a presentation where I referenced silicon as having a FCC structure and my proffessor stopped my presentation... very embarrassing. This is just wrong. Good info is here and here. Don't trust everything you read on wikipedia. I made that mistake. --Dan 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected this, but I didn't see any good wiki articles about diamond structure... maybe it'd be good to have one? --Dan 14:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biological role

I've removed this sentence from the applications section: In addition, it has been theorized that it could be possible that there could be lifeforms based on this element just as lifeforms on Earth are based on carbon. Has this been seriously suggested outside of science fiction? (Not that science fiction speculations should be excluded if they are significant to the topic). A recent Scientific American note says that silicon-based life is not thought to be feasible (ref). Do you think this topic should be addressed in a separate section (not applications)?

There should be a ==Biological role== section. It could go in there once that section is created. --mav 19:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That would be a good idea – something like the long, encyclopedic "Biological role" section in the article on iron. At the moment, the silicon article does not have a comparable section. There is just a "Silicon-based life" section that mentions the speculations about the possibility of silicon, rather than carbon, being the basis of life forms on other planets, before going on to describe some aspects of the actual role of silicon (in the form of silica and silicate) in life on Earth. I think it ought to be the other way round – fact before fiction – and the whole section ought to be expanded upon and re-titled "Biological role". However, I don't know anything about biochemistry so I will leave the task to someone else. --Bwiki 01:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about this (the facts are – I'm positive – correct):

Life as we know it could not have developed based on a silicon biochemistry. The main reason for this fact is that life on Earth depends on the cycle of the carbon: autotrophic entities use carbon dioxide to synthesize organic compounds with carbon, which is then used as food by heterotrophic entities, which produce energy and carbon dioxide from these compounds. If carbon was to be replaced with silicon, there would be a silicon cycle. However, silicon dioxide precipitate in aquous systems, and cannot be transported among living beings through regular ways. --Jotomicron | talk 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added some very commonly-cited scientific objections to silicon-based life based on analogies to carbon. Silicon is lousy at forming pi-bonds, doesn't like to form rings, and hydrocarbon-like silicon compounds (silanes) have this nasty habit of decomposing explosively. Kajerm 05:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More sightings

I've noticed this webpage has ripped this page off: http://encyclopedia.learnthis.info/s/si/silicon.html.

Wiki content is free for public use as long as the user refers back to Wikipedia. Nowadays, you'll find many different sites that contain the exact same article as Wikipedia; try Googling and see!
Atlant 10:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silicon-32

I have changed the isotope data on this article to conform to the data provided by the National Nuclear Data Center. This is the government provided data that the wikiproject elements uses. If you contest this data, you better have ample references to why we this reference has a 109% difference in half-life. The data available on this particualar element is available here. --metta, The Sunborn 22:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abundance

If SI is 2nd most abundant, what is the most? Maybe that should be in the article. (It's the first question that popped into my mind, so maybe others reading the article will want to know as well...)

The Iron aricle says it's iron: Iron is also the most abundant (by mass, 34.6%) element making up the Earth;. Please feel free to be bold and edit this into the article as you see fit!
Atlant 17:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Just a side note : they are the most abundant elements on earth by mass. By moles count, hydrogen and oxygen must be way ahead.

[edit] Most Bronze is NOT Copper plus Silicon!!

This is just wrong. Bronze is an alloy mainly composed of Copper (60% plus) and Tin (Sn), aluminium (Al) or lead (Pb), or in some special cases, beryllium (Be). However, Silicon can appear as an additional alloying element. I study metallurgy, source are my profs. Carlottac 10:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed that. For next time, just be bold yourself and fix it! Femto 11:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Etmology

Silicium is a late latin word that comes from silex (stone) Tonyjeff 01:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the history section contradicts what i found in many other sources

"Discovered by: Jöns Jacob Berzelius Discovered at: Sweden Discovered when: 1824" (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/scholar/elements/silicon/history.html)

"Berzelius was the first person to isolate silicon in 1823, and thus he is credited with its discovery." (http://web1.caryacademy.org/chemistry/rushin/StudentProjects/ElementWebSites/silicon/history.htm)

"Jöns Jakob Berzelius was one of the founders of modern chemistry. He discovered Ce, Se, Si,...." (http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/berzelius.htm)

Sources that pin a discovery on a single name are necessarily superficial. There are usually many people involved from the deduced existence of a new element to its successful isolation. The article outlines it correctly as far as I see. Femto 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] silicon in everyday life

how on earth do we use silicon in everyday life???

Follow the link above...you may also want to try the "search" box to the left of the screen.
Perhaps the "Applications" section could have a new sub-section added, which talks about things like silicon spatulas, silicon in paint and bedding.. etc. -- Sy / (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the name!!!!!!!!!

somebody please tell me!!!!!! what is the signifigance of the name silicon?!?!?!??! i have no idea and i need the answer. even if this is really old putit on the site anyway of you know. much appreciated --chill

You mean the short etymology in the History section isn't enough? !!??!?!??!!? Femto 13:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what about the other isotopes

it says there are a load of isotopes with a huge range in atomic mass but then only gives any detail on 4 of them. Anyone got any info on the others? Plugwash 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See isotopes of silicon (available through the infobox) for some data. Other than the three stable and one or two cosmogenic or radiogenic isotopes, there's just not much else notable to say in the article, far as I know, unless you have something specific in mind. Femto 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Silicon nanoparticles

Can silicon be used similarly to gold in nanoelectronics, using lasers to fuse silicon particles?

[edit] silicon allergy

It would be nice to see a bit of a writeup on the allergic or toxic effects of silicon. It's rare, but some people have an allergy to it. Also, silicon (Dimethylpolysiloxy) was used in breast implants, prostheses and such, until the health issues were understood.[1] -- Sy / (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] silicon not really analogous to carbon

Yes they both have 4 valence electrons, but silicon is highly unlikely to for Si-Si double bonds or even triple bonds, which are essential for organic life.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/l/Talk%7ESilicon_cb6d.html"