Talk:Hafnium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hafnium article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Chemistry Portal 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149 and Dwmyers. Elementbox converted 10:58, 14 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 16:28, 10 July 2005).

Contents 1 Information Sources 2 Talk 3 Energies 4 Excessive deletion 5 Unique nuclear aspects 6 Copies by the New York Times 7 Intel/IBM Breakthrough 8 Abundance and market price

[edit] Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Hafnium. Additional text was taken directly from, 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 subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

---

[edit] Talk

---

Thanks to all who are recently contributing to making this page even better. --Drac2000 13:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energies

The phrase "The nuclear isomer Hf-178-m2 is also a source of energetic, 2.45 MeV gamma rays." is utterly wrong as this nucleus can never emit a gamma with energy more than 0.5 MeV with non-negligible probability. (source: http://ie.lbl.gov/toi/nuclide.asp?iZA=720778 ). Actual gamma energy is 12.7 and 309 KeV for transition from that long-living level with exitation energy of 2446.05 KeV and halflife of 31 years (because transition is done to nearby levels with exitation energies 2433.326 and 2136.513 KeV), and is in range from 89 to 574 KeV for transitions from other levels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.21.179.36 (talk • contribs) .

Tagged as dubious in the article. You seem to know what you're talking about, be BOLD and fix it! Femto 11:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution as it illuminated a shortcoming of the existing text. However, from the reference link you cite above, under the section titled "Most Recent ENSDF Data (12/2002)" if you take the link available from the button marked "Level scheme" you will see that the two gamma transitions that you correctly say start from the isomer finish on energy levels that then emit more gammas in a sequential cascade. Elsewhere it is reported that each decay of an isomer on the average results in thesequential emission of 8 gamma photons (more or less) but the energies total to about 2.446 MeV. The use of about is because some of the less energetic members of the cascade are sometimes internally converted and some small part of the 2.45 MeV of the isomer ends up in electron energies. However, most of the stored energy ends up in sequences of gammas whose summed energies is almost up to 2.45 MeV. I have edited the entry to try to make this point that you have raised completely clear.

--Drac2000 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive deletion

The deletion of a paragraph because of a concern for one sentence is excessive and so has been reverted. The Wiki policy WP:CON requires discussion on this page before established consensus is deleted. The particular paragraph involved has been the subject of the immediately preceding section of discussion and represented a consensus.

--Drac2000 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your invocation of CON makes me hope that we don't have a WP:OWN issue on our hands. I Don't see any particular discussion or consensus relating to the subject of the material that I removed and there is certainly no policy requiring that consensus be reached for every common edit. There are several sentances in the article which state, as if they are completely unquestioned, that things like gamma ray lasers can be made with Hf. The Hf isomer induced gamma emission controversy is really over. No one important in the field even takes the possibility seriously and the article should reflect what is now basically a closed consensus on the subject. --Deglr6328 01:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Beetstra is moving us toward consensus. I am supplying 2 of the needed citations. Hopefully someone will do the other 2 cn flags.

--Drac2000 13:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed what I try. May I suggest that you try to combine the two paragraphs into one separate section, and to try and add some peer-reviewed references to that? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dirk. I guess our messages crossed in the ether. I was hunting the Peer reviewed refs as you were adding this message. I had to go over to another site to get them and so just inserted them. Didn't see your thoughtful recommendation until after the changes were made. Maybe it's in good shape now. Also, I found that the stray link at the bottom was actually the reference (now serving as Ref. 1.) for the first cn. The remaining cn is verified by the same ref as is now, Ref. 1, but I do not know how to use a same reference number a second time. If you can do that please consider replacing the last cn with another usage of Ref.1.

--Drac2000 15:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I have added ref 1 for the remaining {{cn}} (what you do, you give the first ref a name with the parameter name: "<ref name="name1">contents</ref>", If you reuse the ref, you can then add them with a "<ref name="name1" />". see meta:cite.php for more info). Could you check my work? I still believe the two sections about the cascade should be combined into a special section, I might give that a try later. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you! I have learned an important element of editing.

--Drac2000 16:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unique nuclear aspects

Here I try to discuss Dirk Beetstra's perceptive recommendation that a separate section be added to contain the peculiar aspects the isomer of Hf-178 offers at the nuclear level. Reference to the "history" tab for this article shows about 75 edits since May, 2006, but the discussion page shows little discussion for such extensive editing. There was extensive and highly "spirited" discussion, but it ended up archived over at the discussion for Induced gamma emission. Unhappily for the worthy element Hafnium, it has a nucleus designed to excite terrific (and justifiable) concern. At first this was described in a section of this page, but the concern was so great and the issue so complex that material spilled over into Nuclear isomer, Induced gamma emission and Induced_gamma_emission:_Hafnium_controversy. The thinking finally emerged that Hafnium was an element needing somewhat parallel treatment with other rather unremarkable elements, but the nucleus and its excitation of one of its isotopes (mass 178) gave the element a notability that needed to be remarked, but the explication could be made in adequate detail only in a separate page at Induced gamma emission(IGE). However, there again, IGE had a non-controversial history and level of interest. It just had the misfortune to act as an umbrella over the controversy over its application to the peculiar isomer of one isotope of Hafnium. A re-examination of the whole situation would be welcome, but very time-consuming; perhaps converging back to the present point. I recommend a read of the archived discussion over at Induced gamma emission.

--Drac2000 16:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copies by the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/technology/27chip.html

this article copies verbatim a portion of the start of the Wikipedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.41.195.84 (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Intel/IBM Breakthrough

Intel and IBM unveil new chip technology Breakthrough, using new material, will allow processors to become smaller and more powerful. Anyone want to explain/expand/incorporate into the article? This is out of my league. /Blaxthos 15:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Found another article. [1] Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the same article; CNN republished the reuters report. /Blaxthos 03:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Heres two more, EE times article Times Online ArticlePeoplez1k 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert (or even educated on the subject) and am hesitant to try and incorporate into the article -- do we have any experts who would lend a hand? Thanks! /Blaxthos 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the implication that Intel and IBM are partners; rather I think that they are competitors. At least, IBM's press release mentions AMD, not Intel. [2] If anyone can clarify further, please do. GeoGreg 22:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abundance and market price

In view of the new economic significance of hafnium it would be good to see something on its abundance and accessibility in the Earth's crust and its market price. Lumos3 15:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree on the crust info, but market prices are worth little because they fluctuate and vary according to purity and quantity and so on. We've been trying to avoid such info, or even the attempt to include it. The CRC in the past hasn't been so wise, but it's a new world, and one that changes rapidly. Too rapidly even for Wikipedia in this matter. Price for each purity and form and bulk for each vendor for each element would require its own wiki. If you want to start one for any element, and then tend it, you go, girl! SBHarris 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)