Archive 1

Please check for consistency regarding the year in which argon was discovered: 1892 in science, 1894 in science, and 1898 in science. Wavelength 06:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC) In August 1894, according to Isaac Asimov in The Discovery Of Argon article in Life and Time Avon Books 1979.

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

What is the source for the use of argon by museum conservators? I checked all these links and couldn't find it. I tried looking at some museum conservation sites but didn't see evidence that it is "commonly used." Please give citation!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punstress (talk • contribs).

http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/inertgases.pdf is getting close. But no cigar. This is about using argon to kill insects in museums. However, an unqualified statement is to me it sort of makes sense as argon is noble (non-reactive) and quite common. Argon is already used in sealed glass configurations (window industry). Magu 10:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very near GA, but it's terribly undercited, and needs at least one reference (that covers all information therein) for every paragraph. It's not a bad fail, though - everything else is fine - so poke me on my talk page when you've fixed it up. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

GA class is not part of project assessment scales, and GAs are not tracked by WP Bot 1.0. The assessment level has been set to B class. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

GA is not on the Wikiproject Chemistry assessment scale, and with good reason: There are no clear distinctions between B, GA, and A. There are A-level articles that are not good articles. Please do not revert.

It would be helpful if the template didn't take GA status as an actual status then. Homestarmy 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Argon has been cited in several cases of accidental suffocation. Here's one example. Argon is denser than N₂ or O₂ and will sink to the bottom of an enclosed space. Since it is odorless and colorless, it is undetectible by ordinary means. Argon only needs to displace a small portion of the oxygen in the air before dizziness and unconsciousness result. See here and here. Slowmover 15:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Many other chemicals/compounds talk about the risks, refer to MSDSs, etc. So I think this is appropriate here... LouScheffer 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, per WP:NOT#GUIDE:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.[3] If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at our sister project Wikibooks.

I would argue, that Wikipedia could get into legal problems, if such safety advice would be used wrongly and therefore I have removed it. A link to an MSDS, and a mention of the official r/s sentences and similar info in the chembox/elementbox is enough.

Info that would be permitted is the biological way a compound is toxic, info like this should be removed from all articles that contain this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that an encyclopedia should mention hazards, in the same way an article about a person or company should discuss the negatives with the positives. I personally believe that some simple warnings are appropriate, and I doubt you could find any expert who would disagree with them. None the less, I have re-written, and re-titled, the section, which now contains only facts and no recommendations. LouScheffer 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good now. The trouble is a legal aspect here, we don't want people to get bad ideas (and therefore we do not publish the synthesis of explosives), and not to mispresent information (which may occur after vandalism) resulting in people thinking it is save to eat/inhale certain chemicals. I see now that the elementbox does not have the same features as the chemboxes (which can contain a NPFA diamond, R and S sentences etc.), so a small piece of text (like what is stated now) may be appropriate here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Conducting a third review of this article after approximately six months in accordance with WikiProject GA Sweeps Review. This article continues to meet the GA criteria, though I made a couple of minor revisions, mainly for formatting, consistency, and readability. While the article is mostly well-sourced, the applications section is a little scarce on references, and could use some work on the prose. Perhaps editors should focus on removing the bulleted lists from that section in favor of a more prose-structured approach. Other than that, this article is still good. Dr. Cash 19:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i think the place of argon is wrong on the periodic table picture of the page, it was placed instead of Ne. Ar should be placed on the third line of the noble gasses.

I couldn't find how can i correct this, would someone can do?

Greetings, Sabri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrickr (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. The SVG on commons had an error. - FISDOF9 04:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the function of the Tyler Craft reference? It does not seem to contribute anything and is not in the spirit of the rest of the article... 08:15, 29 January 2007

please add the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in argon into your info. Maybe it was there already, but i didn't see it.Everything else was wonderful, thanks for all the help!!!!!

Further Suggestion: Perhaps the discovery of Argon should be given more notice on this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.195.176.11 (talk • contribs) .

Restored the missing History section. Femto 15:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add a bullet point under "applications" that specifically addresses the use in ion lasers. Argon is the main gas used in most ion lasers. It's use in ion lasers produces 10 spectral lines including 514.4nm and 488.0nm.--Hastypete (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese Character(traditional) of Argon is "氬"...--Jerrypp772000 00:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)From Taiwan

Question-- the disambig at the top says that this page is about the "non-chemical element"...shouldn't that be "chemical element"?

Good catch. That was vandalism from an AOL IP a few days ago. Fixed now. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Argon article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Argon}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== me too == i need to find some "interesting" facts about argon

argon gas blocks the passing of certain frequecy mircowave signals does anyone know how to overcome this?

According to AviationWeek.com Bae Systems is developing a diesel engine for submarine use, using liquid oxygen and liquid argon. Could anybody explain the use of Argon, is it for cooling the engine? http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a58d71764-8eda-431c-8c16-464ce76f0f1b&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.26.8 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article states that argon is the most abundant noble gas on Earth - wouldn't that be helium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.189.99 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, argon. Not just in atmosphere, but there's only 8 ppb He in the crust, and something like 1500 ppb argon. That's from K-40 which has a similar decay time (a billion years or so) as the minerals that produce He, but is FAR more abundant than they are. Hence, more Ar than He. SBHarris 00:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh.--[[ (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

im a newsreader.e —Preceding unsigned comment added by THOMAS E.D. PHILLIPS. (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This section of the article is retarded. Why is it dotted? It is very unclear, especially because some uses are blended in three words and is very hard to dicern. Recommend expansion. It also dooesnt mention "neon" lights, that bizarre misnomer that it is should still be incorporated. There should be something that explains the specific color that argon turns when put in "neon" lights. Do Something.John Holmes II (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What is a neon lamp with argon? And why you added When added to halogen in the bulbs bulbs are not neon lights, the argon in the halogen lamp is not there to change the color, but to reduce evaporation due to higher pressure. Can you make it a little bit clearer what you mean and give a citable source for it?--Stone (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

i dont know of any sources except discovery channel. and argon does change the color, as does most of the noble gases save helium. if i recall correctly, which i may very well not, you cant stick argon and mercury in a tube and get light and i know halogen glows bright white which is turned blue by the argon. the mercury enhances the color. and if you must know, my source is my brain. I learned everything ive stated here by watching how its made on the discovery channel. they explained quite well that neon only glows red, and i thought they said argon was green, but if the picture is argon then its blue. there is no citable source, but that doesnt mean it isnt true it only means that i dont know who told the ones who told me. this doesnt require that we remove that part that i added, it means wait til i find a source. it is the truth, so it cant harm anyone reading the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Holmes II (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

the application should be written in complete sentance paragraphs, like all of the other noble gases. Some one needs to change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathfinder1993 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See noble gas for pictures of "neon" tubes filled with different noble gases and the colors they produce. --Itub (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In the subsurface environment, it is also produced through neutron capture by 39K or alpha emission by calcium.

Potassium has 19 protons; argon has 18. If a potassium nucleus captures a neutron, it will either:

1. Remain as a potassium nucleus (but with one more neutron), or
2. The neutron will decay into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino, making the original nucleus into a calcium nucleus. --Bowlhover 20:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

K-40 can decay to Ar-40 by electron capture and it can also decay to Ca-40 by electron emission, but Ca-44 is stable and does not decay by alpha decay. --121.7.203.206 (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that a slightly incorrect molar mass is listed for Argon. It is published on the Wiki as 39.950, but IUPAC continually revises the periodic table of the elements and Argon is now listed as having a molar mass of 39.948 g/mol. IUPAC is the international body that standardizes chemistry practice.

Backing this up is IUPAC's website: http://old.iupac.org/reports/periodic_table/

I am not sure how to edit the Infobox, where the information is stored, so I am writing here to inform the powers that be that this should be updated.

Tim 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. SBHarris 04:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What's interesting about this is that it is reported that 99.6% of the atoms of 18Ar are of the isotope EE18Ar40 with 22 neutrons (with 4 extra neutrons). Which makes it equal with 16S (sulfur) in extra neutrons. But notice that 95.02% of sulfur's atoms are of the variety EE16S32 with zero extra neutrons. So when and where and why the extra neutrons?.WFPM (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC) And 20Ca is also reported as being 96.941% EE20Ca40 with zero excess neutrons. Data from GE Chart of the Nuclides, 15th edition.

Very interesting question. Isotopic abundances depend not only on nuclear stability but also on where you look for the elements. Here the sentence of interest is "The main isotopes of argon found on Earth are 40Ar (99.6%), 36Ar (0.34%), and 38Ar (0.06%)." The key words are "found on Earth". I recall that the cosmic (as opposed to terrestrial) abundance of 36Ar IS actually greater than that of 40Ar, as suggested by your comparison with S and Ca. In Earth's atmosphere however, the 36Ar has almost all escaped in geologic time, along with the other rare gases. On the other hand 40Ar is continuously replenished by the beta-decay of 40K, so it has become the dominant terrestrial isotope.

This also explains why argon is by far the most abundant noble gas and was discovered first (on Earth). And also why the molar masses are out of order with respect to the periodic table. All of this should be explained in the article. Dirac66 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Speciman00 has now added a paragraph to the Occurrence section on terrestrial vs. solar wind isotopic abundances, with a recent source for the value 84.6% for 36Ar in the solar wind. Thank you.Dirac66 (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good but note that 19K40 is a minor constituent of the Potassium constituency, with only 0.0117% and with a halflife of 1.27 billion years. So maybe 80 percent of it has changed by now. Is that enough to explain the Argon constituency ratio? Sounds like a complicated differential calculus equation problem.WFPM (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It is enough given that the 18Ar36 is a gas and has escaped from the atmosphere. Dirac66 (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And so the majority of the constituents of the even Z elements up to Z=22 are of the category A=2Z. So how did 19K40 get by that process to become so prevalent. The 19K isotopes 39 and 41 are noted to respectively have 1 and 3 extra neutrons. Then the isotope K40 adds a 2nd neutron and then falls back to 18 argon with 4 extra neutrons. Sounds like another case of too many available extra neutrons.WFPM (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

19K40 is not so prevalent; the majority isotope is 19K39, and 19K40 is only 0.0117% as you noted above. And of the 19K40, 89% decays into 20Ca40 and only 11% to 18Ar40, so the 18Ar40 formation is really a side reaction. It just happens to affect the observed terrestrial abundances because of the accident (for nuclear physics) that Ar is a gas so that 18Ar36 is lost from the atmosphere. In contrast the radiogenic 20Ca40 is lost in a much greater amount of primordial 20Ca40 which remains in solid form (as oxide, carbonate, silicate, etc).Dirac66 (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to talk about that. So in the case of 19K39 a 2nd neutron gets on and 89% of the time changes to a proton to make 20Ca40. And only 11% of the time does it cause a proton to change to a neutron and to become 18Ar40. So the preference is for it to go to 20Ca40, in spite of 18Ar40's being reported in the nndc as the more stable nucleus. But we're dealing here with opportunities for accumulation of a nucleon by 19K39, and this argues for the existence of free neutrons in the milieu of the accumulation space, which is supposed to be occupied by hydrogen and helium atoms.WFPM (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A good article, cited, good prose and satisfies all WP:WIAGA. Congrats. There are, however, several suggestions to improve this article for further goal: featured article, of course.

1. Please re-read again the article to get the brilliant prose. I suggest to ask someone unfamiliar with the subject to proof-read and copyedit it. For instance, I found one very long sentence of this:

   Other uses: It is used as an inert gas shield in many forms of welding, including metal inert gas welding and tungsten inert gas welding, the gas of choice for the plasma used in ICP spectroscopy, as a non-reactive blanket in the manufacture of titanium and other reactive elements, and a protective atmosphere for growing silicon and germanium crystals.

2. Expand more to get a comprehensive article. For instance, the history can be expanded to modern chemistry of the discovery of its applied used. For example in the surgery, who discovered it and when.
3. Remember to explain detailed jargon to a general reader. I found this statement lacks of explanation:

   Argon’s complete octet of electrons indicates full s and p subshells. (what are s & p subshells?)

4. Please standardize citations. Take a look at WP:CITET for some examples if you use footnotes.
5. Please be selective on external links to avoid spam external links. It also applies for referencing to commercial sites and non-academic resources. In this kind of subject, using academic papers or journals are more preferable. Please also read WP:RS.

Okay, good luck. — Indon (reply) — 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

STILL NOT DONE. SCIENCE USES THE SI  !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.70.149 (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Argon is 25% more dense than air" is foolish English because it must say "Argon is 25% denser than air." The comparatives of ALL one-syllable words in English are formed by adding "r" or "er", such as in these words {bolder, calmer, colder, cooler, duller, graver, harder, hotter, nearer, older, rarer, safer, softer, thinner, vainer, warmer, younger}. The same rule holds for most of the comparatives of two-syllable words. See "heavier".

I can only add that they refusal to follow such a simple practice is denser and duller all the time! 98.67.169.60 (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That's badder than I've seen in a while. They refusal annoy we, too. Go ahead and change it to the gooder way to do, so it will read weller. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Goes the other way, too. If something is "better," does that mean it's more bett? English is not the most regular of languages. SBHarris 17:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not a physicist, so I won't change this myself, but it looks to me like there's an error in the "Physical properties" box on the right-hand side of the page for Argon. The last item, Molar heat capacity, is given as 5R/2 = 20.786 J/mol/K. However, if you click on the words "Molar heat capacity" to go to the page which specifically discusses that property, then in a table halfway down that page it gives the molar heat capacities of all the noble gases as only 3R/2, which would be 12.47 J/mol/K. Could someone more knowledgeable than myself please check this? Thanks!

Astronist (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

3R/2 for heat capacity at constant volume and 5R/2 at constant pressure, perhaps we should be more clear on that. Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Moreover, as was noticed in the case of radon, which would have a heat capacity tremendously difficult to measure (due to it generating heat and being hard to work with), all the inert gases seem to have been supplied with calculated, not measured values of Cp and Cv. They are given as the same to 4 sig digits and I doubt they are. Even if so I doubt anybody has done the measurement so well they can guarantee ideal behavior to 4 sig digits. So a (calc value) note should be added as well. SBHarris 00:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the infobox source code should be changed to read Molar heat capacity at constant pressure C_p,m, so that the values for all gases are clarified at the same time. For the inert gases, (calc value) can be added to the value of each gas. And as for the article Heat capacity, the second-last (and longest) table does give both C_p and C_v values for gases. Dirac66 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Currently there are two Greek spellings:

• αργον in the lead
• αργος in the section history

An explanation or a correction might be needed. -DePiep (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I checked Rayleigh's Nobel speech and also his original 1895 paper with Ramsay. In both he just says argon (in Roman letters) and justifies it by detailing its inertness, presumably assuming that the reader would know it meant lazy in Greek. Modern sources seem to vary - Petrucci et al. General Chemistry (Prentice-Hall 8th ed. 2002, p.281 write argos (αργος or αργοσ in more classical Greek), but Miessler and Tarr Inorganic Chemistry write argon (αργον). A friend who teaches classics advises that αργος (or αργοσ) is the masculine form of the word for lazy, and αργον is the neuter form.

So what should Wikipedia do? I would tentatively prefer αργον in the text, as it is a valid form of the Greek (in the neuter) and it corresponds to the spelling used by Rayleigh and Ramsay, as well as in modern chemistry. We could add in a footnote that some modern authors do prefer αργος which is the masculine. Other opinions? Dirac66 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said: WP should clarify if these two forms are OK (maybe they are a declension -- lets explain) maybe one is a mistake -- correct it. What is the difference, in Greek? -DePiep (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

According to my classicist friend, the difference is gender, not declension. Greek nouns were divided into 3 genders = masculine, feminine, neuter (as in Latin and modern German). αργος is the masculine form meaning lazy or inactive used to modify masculine nouns, so it would be considered the basic word. But αργον is the neuter form which Rayleigh and Ramsay wrote as argon, presumably since they considered that a gas is neuter. Perhaps we could explain this by writing "αργον, the neuter form of αργος (lazy or inactive)". Then we don't need a footnote. Dirac66 (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I brought this issue up on the TALK page of xenon some times ago (so long it's archived [1]. From what I remember of my ancient Greek class, all this is so. As in Spanish, if you use an adjective without specifying the noun, the nature of the unspecified noun is assumed from the gender of the advective. So ropa viejas = old rags (also a Cuban dish), but viejas alone is "old stuff/things". Viejo is old man, and vieja is old woman. In Greek it's exactly the same, and (ton) argon is a lazy thing or lazy stuff, whereas the corresponding αργος and αργη would be lazy man or lazy woman and would be definitely wrong for describing a gas, which is a thing. The same is true of all the inert gases, which all should end with "-ον" to be grammatically correct. Thus, xenos is a strange man = stranger, but xenon the gas is correctly named as a strange thing or strange gas, and its root is NOT "xenos" but rather the stem "xeno-". Etc. Saying that argon means "the strange one" is correct but sort of cheating, as English allows the word "one" as used here to mean either person or thing, but the Greek is more specific and not so indeterminate. SBHarris 02:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. I'm glad I got it right independently. I have now adapted the explanation for xenon here. Dirac66 (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You have to do krypton and neon also. BTW we were taught that the sigma ς is used only at the ends of words, but σ everywhere else. Was there a period in which just one or the other lowercase form ruled? SBHarris 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now done Ne, but I will leave Kr for you as I am having trouble finding a source that κρυπτός means hidden. The two forms of sigma are noted in Greek alphabet, and the historical evolution is discussed at Sigma.

And I presume we should leave alone He which was named with an -um 25 years earlier based on solar spectra so that noone knew it was not a metal. And Rn which was named later and is not based on a Greek word - actually radius (ray) is a Latin noun (not adjective) so it doesn't have a neuter. Dirac66 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The ending -on has become a sort of bound morpheme that now functions to denote both particles and also a lot of other stuff (think of kapton coating). Probably because so many neuter Greek nouns ended in "-on." I think the first particle use of the ending was Stoney's 1891 "electron" (conceived as a bound, not free indivisible unit of electricity, but merged with Thomsons mobile light negative corpuscles after 1906) which was actually coined from "electrical" and "ion" (the last being a Greek word meaning "to go" which had been coopted by Faraday). But the Greek word for amber that gave us electricity also is elektron (I'm not going to use the alphabet), showing the ending's use for things.

I think the process of morphemizing "-on" for particles was started with Rutherford's 1920 proton, by analogy with the electron, then further extended by Gilbert's 1926 "photon" named by analogy with protons and electrons, and off we go.

The use of "-on" as a bound morpheme for nonmetals I think begins with Gay Lussac and Thenard refusing to accept Davy's boracium and naming it instead boron (1808, I think, but the boron article needs this date doesn't have it), by analogy with carbon. Then this was extended by Thomas Thomson (chemist) and his 1817 (not 1831 as is often cited) refusal to name silicium as a metal, and instead choosing the ending from carbon AND boron (see the reference in silicon which quotes Thomson, naming both carbon and boron as nomenclatural precursors). That is the tradition extended to the noble gases.

Bound morphemes are interesting. We can see them disconnect from the original word like "panorama" and then go off by analogy to make things like cin-orama, race-orama and so on. Now, the "orama" just means something big and spectacular (even though in pan-orama it merely meant "sight"). When these linguistic bits don't have a clear lexicological meaning stem, they are called cranberry morphemes from the "cran" in cranberry that can be used in cranapple, cran-raspberry, etc, all to show they are derived from cranberry, even though the original "cran" in cranberry does not mean cranberry (it's from crane = bird because of a crane-like structure in the flower). That's the kind of process that we see here. And yes, as many people have suggested, we should have changed helium to helion. But we need no Greek for radon, as the precedent had long since been established by other means.

Bound cranberry morphemes, BTW, are extremely important to the pharmaceutical industry, as they help keep track of entire classes of drugs, which are often named generically with a morpheme after the prototype drug. Thus, all the ACE inhibitors end with "-pril" after the prototype captopril, all the ATB drugs end with "-artan" after the first prototype losartan, and extending to -mab for antibodies, and anticoagulant direct Xa inhibitor drugs that are all "-xabans," etc. It's a great help for clinicians. SBHarris 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

i notice the article mentions that argon went from A to AR. however, i can't find anything about why chemists decided to make this symbol change. anyone know? the_undertow ^talk 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have only a vague memory of reading about those debates. The single cap letter A is sometimes used as a generic variable symbol for chemical species, such as gas concentrations [A], and I imagine they wanted as little chance of confusion there as possible, especially as A would be inevitably almost always be being used alone, with no other letter to signal that it was a chemical element, part of a chemical compound. So they decided to follow the general convention for new elements (when they were finding them at the time), and extend it. This makes it symbol-correspondant with the other inert gases, too. Single-letter chem symbols have historically been reserved for old, common, and usually-seen-in-bonded-organic-configuration elements: C-H-N-O-S-P-B. The element argon didn't fit well with this crowd. SBHarris 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list of single-letter-symbol elements: Boron, Carbon, Deuterium, Fluorine, Hydrogen, Iodine, Potassium, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, Sulfur, Tritium, Uranium, Vanadium, Tungsten, Yttrium. 4 T C 08:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC) added W. (formerly 4) Double sharp (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, U, V and Y are hardly old, common, and usually seen in organic molecules. And argon was given the symbol A when discovered in 1894, which did not follow the "convention" mentioned above. Then argon alone was changed (to Ar) in 1957, while U, V, Y were left as one-letter names.

The explanation for the change which I heard as a student in the 1960s was that it was decided (by IUPAC?) to reserve A for Angstrom, then the usual unit for bond lengths. Does anyone else remember this? If someone can find a source, we can mention it in the article. Dirac66 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tungsten also has a single-letter symbol (W). And Einsteinium started out with symbol E. Sandy654 (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

E was changed due to its recent-ness. They changed Mv to Md and Lw to Lr for similar reasons (grab initial letters from 1st and 2nd syllables whenever possible; there are exceptions, like Rf and Db). (Curiously some periodic tables still give Lw incorrectly; this does not seem to happen with the others.)

Added tungsten; I'm not sure how I forgot about it... Double sharp (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Under the bit about use as an asphyxiant in poultry farming, the article refers to the relative humane-ness of this application as compared to the "electric bath". The problem is, following the electric bath link leads to a page about early tanning beds... so unless we're tanning chickens to death, we should re-direct that link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steyr911 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Since this is considered a 'good' article I don't want to add something that doesn't look right in it. I added the paragraph about the use of Argon in high frequency. I think that it may need its own section in the index or its own title heading, I just didn't know how to do it. Could someone help integrate this information into the article so it doesn't look misplaced? Thank you. (Selene Scott (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC))

Actually I think it looks all right as it is. It would be great, though, if you could state in the article what the references for the paragraph you added were. (Help:Referencing for beginners might help if you're not sure how.) Double sharp (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In [[2]], there reads Gas-discharge lamps filled with argon provide blue light.
So why is the picture in that section showing a argon tube with purple light? Electric blue article actually has a picture of a argon tube with blue color. 212.50.203.198 (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification:the light of pure argon is lilac/violet (= purple!?), the light of argon that include a small part of evaporated mercury is blue. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean that you don't know what is purple? According to wikipedia article of violet and purple, violet has 100% blue and purple 50% blue color (in the RGB space). I'd say that in the picture, the left and right are violet and the center purple. 212.50.203.198 (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for RGB clarification of the colors "violet, purple". And how about "lilac"? And how about the intervening colors, e.g. violet/purple with 75% blue? ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Two-phase detectors containing argon gas are used to detect the ionized electrons produced during the WIMP-nucleus scattering. Is that what an electron looks like when someone robs it of protons? Pardon my ignorance, but this is a general interest encyclopedia, and this may be a wording error. Can we get additional explanation here please? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

On wikipedia the density of air is listed in kg/m3, Argon is in g/liter. Some sort of standardization should be implemented.

The heat capacity of Argon is (25 °C) 20.786  J·mol−1·K−1. This is the exact same value as Krypton. Coincidence? Typo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.17.112 (talk • contribs).

(moved newer comments to bottom) - Not a coincidence! The molar heat capacity of all monatomic gases is the same. Femto 15:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite so, but not to five significant figures! That's asking a bit much from nature, as different experimenters can't even get data that good on the SAME element. SBHarris 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Values are still written in a system that is not international and poorly used. The international system requires kg/m^3 ... There is some times some rules to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.70.149 (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The requirement of using kg/m^3 is widely ignored in the scientific literature, so as on wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

SI does simplify calculations, but as you say many scientific articles ignore SI and continue to use various traditional units. Since various units are used in practice, the only real requirement is that the units must be specified by each author. And similarly in each Wikipedia article. Dirac66 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Using different units in different wiki articles is confusing for non expert readers of Wiki. Wiki should at the very least aim for consistency in units and SI units should be the convention for scientific articles, whatever confused variety of units the scientific community may use. The element infobox template is plain wrong in this respect for several parameters.

I tried to change density to SI units kg/m³ as shown on the density page. I also edited the infobox template, to add kg/m³ units, but whatever I do, kg/m³ is not shown. Does anyone know how to do this? All elements show density units as g/l, which have the same value as SI kg/m³, but is not the standard SI unit for density. I am an engineer and I needed to double check, when comparing the density of argon with a compound gas which does use SI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it that hard to convert when the conversion factor is 1:1? Double sharp (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"In the Earth's atmosphere, ³⁹Ar is made by cosmic ray activity, primarily with ⁴⁰Ar. In the subsurface environment, it is also produced through neutron capture by ³⁹K. Neutron capture, really? I guess adding a neutron to potassium-39 would turn it into potassium-40. Shouldn't it be electron capture? Steinbach (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not electron capture, because ³⁹K is stable. The reactions in question are ⁴⁰Ar(n,2n)³⁹Ar and ³⁹K(n,p)³⁹Ar. Double sharp (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

These reactions should be specified in the article, as it is not obvious that the term neutron capture includes the subsequent emission of two neutrons or a proton. The article on neutron capture only mentions (n,γ) processes. Also the article on Carbon-14 mentions its formation by an (n,p) process which is not described as neutron capture. I think we need a source to confirm that the term neutron capture can include (n,p) and (n,2n) processes. Dirac66 (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify this, by referring to it as neutron capture followed by two-neutron or proton emission. Double sharp (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In "characteristics" HArF is said to be stable up to 17K, in "compounds" it is said to be stable up to 40K. They can't both be correct. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Corrected to 17 K consistently; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Argon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://elements.etacude.com/Ar.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222025556/http://home.wanadoo.nl/tcc/rnlaf/aim9.html to http://home.wanadoo.nl/tcc/rnlaf/aim9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by mav. Elementbox converted 11:07, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 21:43, 15 Jun 2005). 15 Jun 2005

If argon is a colorless gas, why the hell is there a picture of it?

Argon IS colorless. The picture shows what happens when an electrical current is passed through it... similar to the way a standard fluorescent light works. In fact, argon is commonly pumped between double-pane residential windows to act as thermal insulation. It is indeed, colorless. Also, while not the case here, be aware of the fact that some things change their color, depending on their physical state.

tirerack.com

"Tires are normally inflated with air (a combination of gasses comprised of about 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% oxygen (O2) and 1% argon (Ar) along with traces of other gasses)"

This very article states: "Argon is present in the Earth's atmosphere at slightly less than 1%, making it the most common noble gas on Earth."

It doesn't sound like an additive. It sounds like it's due to the fact that it is already present in teh air. Nor is it a "super expensive facy pants car" thing. As such I am removing the sentence and the *Citation needed*

Any reason why "i am sexy" shows up at the end of the characteristics section? I go to edit it out, and it vanishes. History also shows that it was reverted, but the words are still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.114.79 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Try refreshing the page by pressing CTRL-R. Perhaps what you see is the cash of the page kept by your browser. Materialscientist (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice malapropism. The term is "cache," Mr. Wishful-Thinking Material Scientist. MadZarkoff (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dmitri is a native speaker of Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.62.157 (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Argon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724195609/http://ps.fass.org/cgi/reprint/78/2/277.pdf to http://ps.fass.org/cgi/reprint/78/2/277.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph ends with,

...being the preferred argon isotope produced by stellar nucleosynthesis in supernovas.

I am far from an expert in the proper use of terms for this sort of topic, but: It appears to me that the word "preferred" implies some sort of agency, as if the supernova "prefers" to produce one isotope over than another, and that -- in theory (rhetorically speaking) -- the supernova could "change its preferences" and begin producing more of a different isotope instead.

I'm afraid to suggest an alternative wording, since I can't claim the scientific expertise to edit an article with a green "good" evaluation. However, from a lay reader's perspective, this kind of language makes me think of quasi-scientific writing over the centuries. (E.g., "The moon must want to be attracted to the Earth", as part of an early competing theory of gravitation, which I heard discussed on a BBC Radio 4 "In Our Time" podcast years ago, and has stuck with me.)

Best regards, 2018-02-11 Sun 19:11, Obl obl 00:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obl obl (talk • contribs)

@Obl obl: I think that this sort of use is common mostly because no one writing this sort of thing seriously thinks the supernova has agency, and so that reading just doesn't get consciously considered. For example, when we say that a process favours some product, we're not even considering the interpretation that the process has volition, though we would readily concede the point if pressed. That sort of quasi-scientific reading has just been erased from our minds too well! ^_^ Since this can be clarified without doing violence to the text, I've done so, writing instead that ³⁶Ar is the most easily produced isotope rather than the preferred isotope. Thank you for your suggestion! Double sharp (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please check the current value of the conventional atomic weight of argon: it is either 39.948 (https://www.isotopesmatter.com/applets/IPTEI/IPTEI.html) or 39.95 (https://applets.kcvs.ca/IPTEI/IPTEI.html and https://iupac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IPTEI_postprint_20190301.pdf, p. 47) – Alexander Lozovsky (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Before "2017", A_{r, standard}(Ar) was 32.948(1) (Meija "2013", table 1). From this value, the abdrigded value (table 2) is derived, in the argon case incidentally the same: A_{r, abridged}(Ar) = 32.948(1) (Meija "2013", table 2). This is the value that appears in your first source (with the addition "* proposed"?).

Per "2017" nominally (CIAAW 2017), A_{r, standard}(Ar) was changed into an interval: [39.792, 39.963]. (This value appears in both of your links). A conventional value for this interval was not published (as the other elements with interval notation have, Meija table 3). The conventional value should be calculated then. I'm not sure, but this might be it:

Step 1: interval into abridged form: round to 5 digits for argon results in [39.792, 39.963] (unchanged, incidentally).

Step 2: from this interval, go to a single conventional value: take mean of the border values:

(39.792 + 39.963)/2 = 39.8775.

Step 3: Round to prevent suggesting overprecision:

Rounded into <= precision than the original value: 39.88.

Conclusion: 39.88 is the "conventional" value to use. The rouding process (setting precision) may be off, I'd like to learn more.

The value 39.95 you mention does not follow from this calculation. Note that this value lies away (at 90%) from the middle of the interval (=at 50%). Is there a background for this? Was the pre-2017 abridged value 39.948 used (Meija "2013", table 2) and rounded into 39.95? -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Meija, Juris; et al. (2016). "Atomic weights of the elements 2013 (IUPAC Technical Report)". Pure and Applied Chemistry. 88 (3): 265–291. doi:10.1515/pac-2015-0305.
• "Standard atomic weights of 14 chemical elements revised". CIAAW. 2018-06-05.
• A_r(E) values used in this wiki: Standard_atomic_weight#List_of_atomic_weights

► As the Updated IUPAC Technical Report of 2019 says, "Some users of atomic-weight data need a value that is not an interval, such as for purposes of trade and commerce. For these users, a conventional atomic-weight value [4] is provided for each of these 13 elements and is shown in white (Figs. 1.1 and 1.2)" (p. 4), where [4] is (see note). Both Fig. 1.1 (p. 3) and Section 4.18 Argon (p. 47) show value 39.95 for argon. As for me, it looks pretty official. Also, Fig. 1.1 shows conventional atomic-weight values for all the thirteen elements in question (i.e. gives the complete list).

Then, you say "Note that this value lies away (at 90%) from the middle of the interval (=at 50%). Is there a background for this?".

As the CIAAW|Argon points out, "While atmospheric argon can serve as an abundant and homogeneous isotopic reference, deviations from the atmospheric isotopic ratios in other argon occurrences limit the precision with which a standard atomic weight can be given for argon. Published data indicate variation of argon atomic weights in normal terrestrial materials between 39.792 and 39.963. The upper bound of this interval is given by the atomic mass of ⁴⁰Ar, as some samples contain almost pure radiogenic argon-40. The lower bound is derived from analyses of pitchblende (uranium mineral) containing large amounts of nucleogenic ³⁶Ar and ³⁸Ar".

Since most of the atmospheric argon is provided by the decay of potassium-40, it is no surprise that it is almost pure radiogenic argon-40, hence the shift to the upper bound in the conventional atomic-weight value (which indicates that mostly you come across samples rich of argon-40).

• IUPAC Periodic Table of the Elements and Isotopes (IPTEI) for the Education Community – Update 2019 (IUPAC Technical Report) – Postprint of March 1, 2019

• [4] J.Meija,T.B.Coplen,M.Berglund,W.A.Brand,P.D.Bièvre,M.Gröning,N.E.Holden,J.Irrgeher,R.D.Loss,T.Walczyk, T. Prohaska. Pure Appl. Chem. 88, 265 (2016).

– Alexander Lozovsky (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Alexander Lozovsky; we should use 39.948 (though marked as proposed), as that is the value IUPAC gives for the conventional atomic weight (marked there as proposed, but very likely for the reasons Alexander Lozovsky states). Double sharp (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Alexander Lozovsky for the post. As I wrote, " A conventional value for this interval was not published" that is, with the "2017" technical report change (into interval). But now it is, in the Update. As for Double sharps push for 39.948 and not 39.95: I dispute that choice. Its status is "proposed" for a reason. On the other hand, the Update 2019 (2019-03-01) Lozovsky provided, an IUPAC publication, clearly says 39.95. This is the lates publication. -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: I only had time to look at the first source, so I put 39.948 as it looked familiar (it's the pre-abridged value). Since I see now that 39.95 is the current one and 39.948 is only proposed, I would support 39.95, to be updated to 39.948 when the proposal is accepted. I need to go again now for a moment; you can change it to 39.95 with the other source and without the "proposed" (or I can do it myself later). Double sharp (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

► Please also take into account that applets at IsotopesMatter.com and KCVS.ca are of different versions. The former is "Version/Date: 2.0.0, July 17th, 2018" and the latter is "Version/Date: 2.1.0, June 13th, 2019". So it seems like the proposal has already been discussed and the 39.95 value has been supported. – Alexander Lozovsky (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexander Lozovsky and DePiep: I've changed it to 39.95 throughout. Double sharp (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp and Alexander Lozovsky: thanks all! Will read the replies later on carefully. The major issue is solved anyway. I planned to refine the sources (into good wiki ref's), and re-read this thread to get it. Lozovsky, your contribution is great, please come back again :-). You have pointed to the weak spot in atomic weights (weak over at IUPAC that is [3]) -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

change 'Canvendish' to 'Cavendish' Wikidoctor56 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)