Talk:Aluminium/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The discovery

Article says:

Discovered by Humphrey Davy in 1812... In 1825 the Danish physicist and chemist Hans Christian Orsted produced aluminium for the first time.

How can Humphrey Davy have discovered it if it wasn't produced until later? Shouldn't we say Orsted discovered it? (Webelements lists Orsted as the discover; it has Davy as giving it a name before it was discovered.) -- Simon J Kissane

according to my research Davy discovered potasium and sodium but not alluminium. I have changed the article to reflect this. -- mike dill

Actually you can discover comething without being able to produce it, as Davy did with Aluminium, he realised that it existed but couldn't make any. Yet that didn't stop him from naming it, and "officially" discovering it. -- Sam Davyson see http://153rd.com/sam/as/physics/aluminium/normal/redirect.html for more.

Oh come on, you know you don't mean that. How about "you can predict [not discover] something without being able to produce it". If I have a proof that a number must exist mathematically (consider if instead of the trivial proof that there is no largest prime, we had a non-constructive proof there is one), but it isn't constructive, I haven't "discovered" that thing, but merely proved (or in this case, better "predicted") it to exist. So in your sentence if he "realised that it existed" either 1) he realized it SHOULD exist, in which case he "predicted" it or 2) he realized it HAD to exist, in which case he "proved" it exists, but in any case without discovering any. 216.236.252.246 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Anon.
Oh come on yourself. Lots of elements were discovered using spectral analysis, using a prism, but Aluminum was discovered too early for this method.


Removed

"Furthermore, Joseph Needham suggested finds in 1974 showed the ancient Chinese used aluminium (see "notes" linked above)."

since I can't see any notes substantiating this, and there's no indication of what is meant by the statement. Aluminium metal? Salts?

Oxidation

There does not seem to be any mention about the effect that the rapid oxidation has on electrical conductors. Is this ever taken advantage of in practise? At least I believe it makes it very difficult to make good eletrical contact to aluminium conductors. That might deserve a note in the article. --blades 01:02, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Other Uses

Powdered alumin(i)um is commonly used for silvering in paint. Mention that, and this could get a Category:Pigments link. But I don't see a good place to just stick it in. --Elijah 01:17, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I took the liberty of sticking it in with the other examples of usage. --Deelkar (talk) 05:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aluminium 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/Aluminium}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could anyone confirm?

Could anyone confirm the change [1] (made by anonymous user 80.5.160.8 with history of vandalism). Pavel Vozenilek 02:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. 80.5.160.8 seems to be an ISP cache server, not an individual user.
Darrien 08:46, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
It looks more or less OK. The abstract of the original paper [2] (requires sub) doesn't actually discuss isolated clusters of Aluminium atoms (these may not be stable), but does discuss the iodine salts written as Al13Ix where x is an even number. -- Solipsist 08:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you should click on the link that Mr. Vozenilek provided.
Darrien 09:46, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Ah - I thought I did, but you are right - looks like I'm out by one on the edit under discussion. -- Solipsist 09:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Confusion over oxidation/passivation/inertness

The introductory section says that aluminium is "remarkable for its resistance to oxidation ". This is incorrect. Aluminium metal is readily oxidised. Water will do it rapidly with the evolution of hydrogen gas and considerable heat. What prevents this is that the oxide is insoluble except in alkali conditions. This is the "passivation" to which the next sentence refers. This needs to be reworded to illustrate that under normal conditions aluminium is inert due to the oxide coating, without saying that aluminium metal itself is resistant to oxidation.

Merging Super-Purity Aluminium

Super_Purity_Aluminium is a different beast than the run-of the mill stuff produced in the current Hall-Héroult process. Of course, I still haven't been able to figure out how they make it. (I have an email addy for a producer in the industry, but haven't had time to monkey with that...)

I guess it could be merged, but I was hoping that as a seperate article it might get worked on more, since it's not being worked on within the Aluminium article....

~ender 2005-07-22 15:53:MST

Commons

Please insert {{Commons|Aluminium}}. --Saperaud 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Engineering use

I'm proposing to modify and rearrange this section. The Applications section already provides a nice and brief overview of different applications. A natural followup of that would be to discuss material properties, manufacturing and usage for the various alloying systems. The alloying systems, either written as AA6xxx or Al-Mg-Si, can be subsections of the Applications section. We could also make a new section called Aluminium alloys, where it would be more natural to put subsections on heat treatment and hardening mechanisms that are common for most of the alloys.

My main complaints of the Engineering use section is:

  1. The term engineering is not only mechanical engineering.
  2. It starts off with "Improper use.." instead of focusing on what it's used for.
  3. The example with the bike and soft drink can is not very clear. A thorough discussion of this should include density, moment_of_inertia and buckling.
  4. Welding of aluminium alloys is not difficult, but it does alter the mechanical properties in the heat affected zone. Aluminium does not become red hot, but this is only a problem in manual bending operations using a blowtorch and is hardly of any industrial significance.
  5. The discussion on heat effects is not very good. Terms such as overheating, accumulated stresses and delayed distortions are inaccurate and are not used by engineers.

I haven't done a wikipedia entry yet, so I'll leave this here for a while before I do anything. By the way, I'm really surprised you have put so much effort in discussing the spelling when the article itself clearly needs a lot of work. Is it possible maybe to discuss spelling here? -Sigkyrre 11:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sigkyrre, welcome and please do the editing you have outlined. The article is in need of good knowledgeable editing. Let's get away from the spelling blather and do some real editing. Vsmith 12:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree it's time to think of other things. The French version has a great deal on the nations that produce aluminum, should that be added? If so how? (Or is it already there under a different name)--T. Anthony 05:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the section title Engineering Use makes little sense. I think it's meant to refer to use in engineered products and structures, not use by engineers (e.g. aluminum slide rules). But the list of "general applications" is mostly stuff designed by engineers too. Any objection if I re-name this section "structural use". Or mechanical use?Ccrrccrr 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I think Engineering use makes sense, it is currently too broad for the content in that section. I'm ok with Structural use or Use in structures. Or maybe Aluminium alloys; that's what the main article is called, and it feels more natural following the Aluminium compounds section. Sigmund 07:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Zinc

I wonder if reference to Pliny is true, but it was really Zinc, not Aluminum? During that period, it would have been possible to make Zinc with the technology available, but Zinc was not discovered until later.

Zinc looks definitely more probable to be discovered in antiquity, but they still didn't give any reference. I prefer to suppose that it's no more than an urban legend. MvR 23:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Pliny hoax?

Could anyone give an exact reference for this quote of Pliny? This fragment is repeated literally in many sites, but nobody gives the original text. Here is said that the fragment is from book XXXV, but I couldn't find nothing like this in the Latin text. Seems to be a hoax. MvR 09:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There was no objection, may I cleanup? :) MvR 23:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Woah yeah that isn't a hoax. I have found that in the national libarary, with takes a while to find. It gives support that this is clearly not a hoax, just really hard to endorse.

Spelling

I have split the talk page. Everything not to do with the "aluminium"-verses-"aluminum" issue I've left here. The spelling discussion I've moved to Talk:Aluminium/Spelling. From now on let's keep that fight over there. Jimp 23Nov05

Echo! Echo! Boy, did that make it roomy in here. Participating parties please remember to (re)include the page on their watchlists. Femto 12:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Woah yeah that isn't a hoax. I have found that in the national libarary, with takes a while to find. It gives support that this is clearly not a hoax, just really hard to endorse.

Al-26 note

Aluminium-26 is identified here as a synthetic radioisotope - one that is "not found in nature". This is incorrect, since Al-26 is a gamma-emitter in the aftermath of supernova explosions ... a useful fact to astronomers, as discussed for example in this article.... <http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=9595>. Twang Jan 06 2006.

Spelling in Canada?

Moved to Talk:Aluminium/Spelling.--T. Anthony 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thermite

I believe that the precautions section should include the danger of mixing powdered pure aluminum and iron(III) oxide. Al + Fe2O3->Al2O3 + Fe(2) with over 11,000 KJ/Mol. This is enough to melt the iron and explodes violently with little activation energy. CompIsMyRx 22:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a wise idea. Thermites are pretty narly :D
Ryan Jones 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Did read that as "termites are pretty gnarly". I need more tea… From an MSDS(pdf):

  1. Reaction with acids and alkalis may generate flammable hydrogen gas.
  2. Fine dust presents an explosion hazard if dispersed in air at high levels.
  3. Molten aluminium may react violently if it comes into contact with water.
2+3 are too general, but 1. may also be worth mentioning. Femto 12:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The Iron oxide/Aluminum mix is not very dangerous as the activation energy is significant.
I toured an Aluminum plant where the manager said a worker had dropped a water bottle in a vat of molten Aluminum and there was Aluminum everywhere. He also was there during WWII where there was a copper shortage and the government took the copper electrodes and replaced them with Silver from the Mint. Along with some military guards to make sure the electrodes remained.

Though should thermite also be mentioned in the coumpounds section? It is a common experiment in high school chemistry labs (atleast in my area of the states, or maybe a common reactions section for the metal for how it is used in chemistry).--PedroDaGr8 16:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Brinell hardness

I noticed that Brinell hardness given is in different units than in the linked Brinell hardness test page. Also metric measures given by MatWeb are in line with Brinell hardness page, but not with the Aluminium page. Thus I propose that somebody who understands this better to add some note about different units. Zds 10:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The data and its format is from hardnesses of the elements (data page) (currently the only reference on that page is Samsonov as quoted by WebElements.com). The pressure units are explicitly stated with the values, this should suffice I'd say. (I know that for Brinell the conditions should also be stated. If there are any flaws with this data, blame WebElements, I'm no material science expert either, I'm afraid.) Femto 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

Moved to Talk:Aluminium/Spelling. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Advertising

could the diet coke can count as a ad, because it very well could be —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.202.104.155 (talkcontribs) .

Agreed it's an unnecessarily obtrusive product shot, removed the image. Femto 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

This article can no longer be considered a good article. The article became extremely fallacious and poorly cited since it has been featured as a Good Article. It can be renominated as soon as this problem is fixed. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


radius

can someone tell were the value of 125/118 pm was found for radius of aluminum atom? on universitary sites it seems to be mostly 143pm. As this difference is quite huge (>10%) its source shall be verified. one source on the 143pm value : <http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/Al-en.htm> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.129.1.39 (talkcontribs) .

Values differ because the "atomic radius" is not a uniquely defined property. All element infoboxes use a consistent set of data as referenced by atomic radii of the elements (data page). Femto 10:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The common spelling is Aluminum so why does this article spell it with an extra “i”?

Moved to Talk:Aluminium/Spelling GeorgeLouis 05:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Berthier

"Still it would further be P. Berthier who discovered aluminium in bauxite ore and successfully extracted it." -- Changed P. Berthier to Pierre Berthier. I assume that this is correct. -- Writtenonsand 13:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


heat capacity of aluminum

How the hell can its heat capacity be 24.2 J/MOL*K? water is 4.184 and that is definetly higher than aluminum's 10/5/06 (71.106.252.63)

The 4.18 kJ/(kg·K) is the mass-specific heat capacity, the molar heat capacity for water would be 75 J/(mol·K). Femto 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Where is aluminum mined? Where is it produced? --McTrixie 19:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a chart regarding bauxite mining at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauxite#World_Bauxite_Mine_Production.2C_Reserves.2C_and_Reserve_Base. Probably don't need to have these stats in an article about aluminiuml. Anybody can go to bauxite and get more info about the ore. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I went ahead and wrote Aluminium in Africa, as the bauxite chart didn't offer enough information. --McTrixie 18:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


what is aluminums atomic configuration? iluvmyfurby december 12 2006

Iceland

This sentence: (Nearly all the power for aluminium smelting in Iceland comes from the heat vents upon which the island sits. [citation needed]) Any source? Does this mean the underground steam heats the smelting process directly or is the steam used to generate electricity in the usual way? If the latter, then this sentence describes what happens in the rest of Iceland's economy as well, so why is it in here? All contributions gratefully received. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 00:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Al is not smelted by melting it like with iron. Boxite ore is disolved and then the Al is electricly seperated out. Iceland's steam is use to make electricty in the standard turbin/generator setup that is sent to the Al smelters. --AnotherBrian 06:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. But the quote is still wrong because hydro-electric power is (I think) used more than geothermal power in Iceland. Haukur 11:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

How is Aluminium mined and extracted? Is it by open pit or underground mining?

Pece Kocovski 00:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article seems to get a pretty constant stream of vandalism every day. If you look at the history, for at least the last 500 edits, the vast majority of them have been vandalism followed by a revert. With such a low signal to noise ratio, it makes it very hard to find out when substantive changes have been made to the article. I am therefore semi-protecting it. If you object, let's discuss. Nohat 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Extrusion

Might like to add that another of Aluminum's useful properties is that it is often considered the best material for extrusion: "Aluminum is probably the most ideal metal for extrusion (hot and cold), and many commercial aluminum products are made by this process..." Groover's Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing, Third Edition, p419, which also gives the aluminum heat sink as an example of an extruded product with complex cross section on p424. The ISBN is 0-471-74485-9 [3]. A graph that's relevant (but might not be enough to cite) is here, on slide 47: [4]. Apologies if this is already covered, but I didn't see it mentioned when I read over the article, thanks, Brendanfox 03:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC).

History and outlandish pre-19th century claims

Aluminium seems to attract a fair number of legends about it being produced prior to the 19th century. I've removed the claim about China as I can find nothing reliable that backs it up (use of aluminium oxides or alloys with a high Al content is not use of aluminium); it appears to be as baseless as the story that Tiberius was presented with an aluminium cup (based on a tale by Pliny about that emperor being presented with a malleable and flexible glass cup) 128.243.220.41 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Isotopes

It's probably just me with a general lack of understanding, but according to Isotopes of aluminium article, there are 22 isoptopes, numbers ranging from 21 to 42 but in the article, under the section isotopes, it says there are 9, numbers from 23 - 30. Which is right?Starom 16:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism

It's getting silly again. It looks as though they're hitting Zinc as well. What have the metals ever done to them? ;)

Can we get it protected for cleanup? Kay Dekker 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gap Under Properties

Can anyone get the text into that gap? It's very strange. ISocket 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Specific Heat of Al

With all the other information here, wouldn't it be worthwhile to include the specific heat of Al, at either J/kgK, or J/cgK? I know it can fairly easily be calculated from the molar heat capacity, but I think it would be easier to include it for people looking for a list of all the information regarding aluminums properties.

Although technically you can get all the info from here, I don't like looking up the AMU's, I never memorized them, its easier to re-google another site-- that takes what, 4 seconds? 67.42.75.190 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The general opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements seems to be that the infobox should not be overloaded with semi-redundant data, so it was left out, though mass-specific heat capacities are still available at heat capacities of the elements (data page). Femto 14:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Femto! That will help save much time in future calculations! (I am melting *lots* of stuff with a Fresnel lens, and I want to know how long it takes before I do it so I can figure out % reflected.) 67.42.75.190 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ionic or molecular?

would Al2 be ionic or molecular/covalent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WorldKid (talkcontribs) 23:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

That would be molecular (or covalent) since it's a nonmetal nonmetal bond. Katami 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Al2 is molecular - it's a diatomic molecule - but it does not contain a nonmetal-nonmetal bond! Al is a metal.
Ben 07:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Electrical Resistivity

Inconsistent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.96.243 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity

gives a different value of electrical resistivity to aluminum. 2.82 instead of 2.65 (in whatever units its here). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.96.243 (talkcontribs).

Actually my table book (which can be used in the Matriculation Examination in Finland) says the value is 2,655 * 10^-8 ohm*m. I guess that should be the real value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.113.245.14 (talkcontribs).
Reference here is electrical resistivities of the elements (data page). Femto 13:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Household Wiring

"Because of its high conductivity and relatively low price compared with copper in the 1960s" Aluminium doesn't have a higher conductivity relative to copper, and this phrase could be taken to mean that it does!

OK, I re-wrote this to make it clear than aluminium is almost as good as copper, but considerably cheaper. LouScheffer 16:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protected for a week

Due to the recent surge in vandalism, I have applied semi-protection to the article for a week. If anyone objects, feel free to contact me on my talk page, or bring it to the attention of any other administratior for review. Georgewilliamherbert 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous reference?

Regarding reference 4: "Metallurg, No. 7, pp. 44–46, July, 1969". Is this correct? Metallurgist no7, July 1969 ranges pages 395-455 from what I can see on www.springerlink.com. 129.241.199.88 11:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Could refer to a different publication, there also seems to exist a translated Russian Металлург journal. I've dropped the original contributor of this ref a line asking for clarification. Femto 15:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Was some time ago I added this, but I've found my source via Google Scholar (although I can't read it from this connection) [5] - it is translated from the Russian journal, the author is S. Venetski. Average Earthman 20:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Superlatives

I've removed the section (again): "Whether measured in terms of quantity or value, the global use of aluminium exceeds that of any other metal except iron, and it is important in virtually all segments of the world economy."

Since the statement IS unsourced, it should be removed. I've tried to find statistics which support this statement, but am unable to do so. If someone does find a WP:RS which does, the text can be re-added. --Rifleman 82 15:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you advocate removing all unsourced material from Wikipedia? It's neither doubtful nor harmful, and these guidelines recommend adding a {{fact}} instead of removing the section. I've re-added it and referenced Britannica online, which should be authorative enough (assuming iron is the only "ferrous" metal). ⇌Elektron 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do believe that there should be no unsourced material from Wikipedia. That said, Wikipedia is still work-in-progress and some allowances may be needed.
Anyway, in my opinion, to assert it is a metal of great importance would probably be fine, but to assert that it is the first or second most widely used metal (note the superlatives) would require a citation.--Rifleman 82 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Standard practice is to use a {{fact}} and wait for someone to come up with the citation. And I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has a policy of preferring facts ("it is the second most used metal") to subjective statements ("it is used in virtually all industries"), the latter which I think is a candidate for removal. ⇌Elektron 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is an on-line source [6] which in turn references "Source: U.S. Geological Survey; John E. Young, Mining the Earth (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, July 1992); W.K. Fletcher, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia". This covers production, not value, but seems relatively secure since aluminium has twice the amount produced of the next metal, copper.
Here is a more recent source World Mineral Production, 2001-05 by the British Geological Survey. It's available as a free download. These references were not hard to find with google, with many more on-line references. In this case a {{fact}} is more appropriate, perhaps with a note on the talk page of what searches you tried and failed. LouScheffer 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not that it matters much, but I tried google searching variations of "world metals consumption". --Rifleman 82 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Atomic Mass

There's all this data about aluminium, but not the mass? This just seems wrong. Katami 23:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is, under "Standard atomic weight". The term (weight as opposed to mass) appears to be correct. ⇌Elektron 01:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "light weight" and similar terms

In a few places, the article comments on aluminium's light weight. These should be reworded in terms of "relatively low density" should the not, after all, a tonne of aluminium weighs exactly the same as a tonne of osmium or a tonne of hydrogen. Comments? Is "lightweight" generally considered a synonym for "low density"? Xarqi 12:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In everyday usage, "lightweight" often means "low density" (e.g. balsa wood). In scientific usage, "lightweight" doesn't mean much (and only means something if you specify what planet you're referring to, and whether you're taking buoyancy into account). If the paragraph is "everyday" (uses in industry, introduction, etc) then it can be left. If it's scientific, then it should be changed. ⇌Elektron 12:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Aluminium etch & chromate process

This is a process which is used as a pre treatment to aluminium before powder coating. Can anyone tell me if the etch & chromate process has a 'shelf life' or expires? also i would be greatful for any information about the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razgaz (talkcontribs) 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add new topics to the end in a new section (click the "+" beside "edit this page"), it's where people look for new things and are more likely to comment on them. ⇌Elektron 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

bacteria which like aluminum

Nine years ago Science News ran an article about the discovery of a type of bacteria which requires aluminum to thrive (pdf version here). But I've seen nothing more about it since then. What ever happened to that? Did that story turn out to be erroneous? NCdave 05:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess nobody knows? NCdave (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Move Spelling Section

The spelling section seems a little out place in the middle of the article. I am going to move it to the end of the article. --ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Aluminium is a neurotoxin

"Aluminium is a neurotoxin" I see these same words repeated on the net in a almost all of the alternative health sites but nowhere else. How true is it. If something is repeated often enough it will be beleived. Where is the source of this information? 194.202.236.116 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

magnetism

I have been trying to make the pages about paramagnetism, space group and magnetic structure a bit more encyclopedic and give them a bit more body, e.g. the whole concept of Pauli-paramagnetism was missing and no a Pauli-paramagnetic metal does not behave the same way as, say frozen oxygen. There is a lot of confusion about this topic and I would like to see improvement rahter than lumping everything together. On the article page alumin(i)um is denoted as paramagnetic but what exactly is meant by that? I do not know its properties very well but I suspect it is an itinerant Pauli-paramagnet not a regular localized paramagnet. Can someone clarify? Jcwf (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done a major rewrite on paramagnetism and included a remark on Al and I'd value comments.

Jcwf (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

aluminum

why they dond write spesific details about how aluminum work in the past and now in the present please write cause i need the informention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.172.192 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you wrote in English instead of Wookie, you might get an answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


I have removed a section labeled "natural occurrence" because it repeats material in the introduction -- incompetently. Unless someone can add information that shows further indication of unusual concentrations suitable for industrial exploitation or relevance to environmental concerns, I suggest that the section not be revived. Paul from Michigan (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Article state: In April 2008 the price of aluminium was around $1.35.[24] Is that price for a ton? Or for a gram? Or, could it be a price for carat or grain? TestPilot 05:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Most likely an American pound, and less likely a kilogram. Find a source.

Metal prices are volatile, so it's best to have a link and a source.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)



Metal vs. Non-Metal

I am fairly certain that because of its characteristics, Aluminium is sometimes considered a non-metal because it shares some chemical properties with non-metals.

Nope, it's definitely a metal. Check out webelements, periodictable.com and theodoregray.com. Now just because aluminium is under boron in the periodic table, is it a non-metal? That's like saying that since tin is under germanium in the periodic table, it's a metalloid. --121.7.203.206 (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity

We need some clarification in the matter of aluminium toxicity. The article begins by saying that aluminium is non-toxic but later says, under the heading 'Precautions', that it is a neurotoxin. It can't be held both ways. Which is right?

I am inclined to believe that is a neurotoxin, because of something my teacher said, but a textbook would be nice. --DolphinnGoLeafsGo 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because many kitchen pots and pans are made of aluminium, the issue of toxicity is indeed an important concern. Greg Fisher 06:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that elemental Al is toxic, but that since it quickly forms Al203 in air that it's not actually a huge concern in practice. This MSDS says that it's toxic if inhaled but not if ingested. Not sure whether to count that as an authoritative source or not. fsiler (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

there has been research done on this by the RIVM in the netherlands, see e.g. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/710401022.html (and I know there is a follow up on this report which debunks the alzheimer claim, but also shows another health risk, but I need to dig somewhat deeper probably to find it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.252.82.4 (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Abundance

is it a coincidence that as the most abundant metal, it is the 'half' of iron, the most stable element, is there a reason or just coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.83.241 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

on speaking to my academic supervisor, it is suggested that it is a coincidence, and its abundance is more likely related to its stability due having magic nuclei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_(physics), is this relevant to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.83.241 (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On the abundance topic, I noticed that the reference used to cite this claim (ref 1) contained no references and can not be verified. Is this a potential problem? Should we request a better citation? 72.54.98.226 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref 1 does support the sentence it is on. Wizard191 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Aluminium is the most abundant metal in the Earth's crust for reasons having nothing to do with nuclear chemistry but with geology and geochemistry. In fact, iron is much more abundant in the universe and in the solar system, and even on Earth if you count all the iron in the planetary core. --Itub (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Deodorant

aluminum is used in almost every deodorant, shouldn't that be listed under uses? also it's found abnormally in masses in the brains of alzheimers patients, but i don't think that's a use. --138.89.138.128 (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Some might help--Stone (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Aluminium 26

An article on Aluminium 26 is on my wish list for the isotope's cosmological importance: 26Al is believed to have heated even protoplanets as small as Ceres and Vesta in the early solar system, its creation from supernovae in the galaxy has a great impact on how the solar system was formed, etc.. If anyone is interested enough, please create the article - otherwise I'll create it myself ... in time. Said: Rursus () 13:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mining

As with lots of other metal articles the mining distribution is wrong in the amount mined and the where the mines are

The dots for mining % per country is always located near the capital an does not show regional ditribution of mining within the country.--Stone (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
exactly... Please read the caption to the map. See my longer comment under uranium, as well.. Turgan Talk 18:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How it is made-what we can do with it

List of products and how it is made....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.86 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See the "Production and refinement" and "Applications" section. Wizard191 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ISO information in recycling section is not relevant

In the recycling section there was an implication that ISO 9001 and ISO 14000 "certification" somehow makes recycled aluminum as good as primary aluminum. These standards are used to describe an organization's quality systems and environmental management systems and have nothing to do with recycling or the fitness of a particular product or material.

I have removed the reference.

118.168.109.121 (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Webster's Dictionary of 1828

I've found two conflicting accounts Here and on World Wide Words about the 1828 listing for this element in Webster's Dictionary. I don't have access to the dictionary, but online copies seem to agree with Wikipedia (e.g. http://1828.sorabji.com/1828/words/a/aluminum.html )

The World Wide Words article (here http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm ) does make some interesting claims about the origins of the word, but if this fact is incorrect, I find it difficult to justify using it as a source in this article. -Miskaton (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, after a back-and-forth, I need to eat some humble pie. Websters does indeed have the spelling that Wikipedia claims it does not so Wikipedia is wrong on this point. As confirmation to my above reference (which did show "aluminum," contrary to Wikipedia's claim, "with aluminium appearing in Webster's Dictionary of 1828," the 1930 version also lists "aluminum" on Google Books. -Miskaton (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I know that when the element was discovered, it was originally named 'aluminum', but shortly thereafter renamed to 'aluminium' to fit with names of other elements ending in -ium. While the rest of world uses aluminium, the US remained using aluminum. As a result, the Webster Dictionary (which is an American dictionary, and is also responsible for the US folk spelling colour as 'color', etc) would have the American spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.225.45 (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Davy's discovery of Al reported in Phil. Trans.

Here's the original paper: Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. (1808) 98, 333-370.

Would this make a useful addition to the references already in the article?

Also, here are the online OED entries:

Ben (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. (1808) 98, 333-370 by JSTOR is easier to acces for me.--Stone (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New form of matter found in aluminum experiment

[7] reports a new form of matter, based on aluminum. Does this have enough sources yet to report? i know big claims need solid references, but it seems to be a peer reviewed paper. It doesnt even have a name yet, though its interesting that its described as Transparent aluminum, like the fictional form from star trek. i added a brief mention there. i would prefer someone with more science writing experience add this info to article. i think it may need a separate article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The news is "real" and the original article is at doi:10.1038/nphys1341, but. As I understand the article, it demonstrates that a 50-nm Al foil becomes transparent under high-intensity X-ray irradiation (13.5 nm) due to saturated absorption at the core L shell. This is certainly interesting for hard-core science, but note that transparency is restricted to the irradiating wavelength, namely 13.5 nm, which is very far from visible light. Thus not new form of matter and not really transparent. Materialscientist (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Elemental Al?

"Aluminium is too reactive chemically to occur in nature as a free metal" - aren't there small amounts of elemental Al in the crust, due to its self-passivation? I heard once that before we'd worked out methods of producing aluminium from its ores, it used to be mined in its elemental form, albeit in such low quantities that it cost more than Au —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecjw (talkcontribs) 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard that and I doubt it very much. It is true that Al was very expensive in the 19th century, but it was obtained by chemical reduction (using alkali metals, I think). --Itub (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Aluminium protection

Whilst I will admit that anons have not been the most helpful mob of late, I don't agree that any level of protection is required. I further admit it does reduce the workload on editors. However I believe that the current application of protection to Aluminium is not required.

I believe that the idea of no useful contributions in "ages" is not (1) correct (24th October was a week ago, when User:98.26.254.61 contributed) and (2) more importantly is insufficient to warrant protection. Before registering (and still occasionally) I have made edits when not signed in.

I don't think we should be precluding anyone from contributing where it can be avoided, and in this case, the vandalism is sufficiently low, and enough users have this page on their watchlist (or so it would seem), that I feel that the protection is not required, and has the potential to turn away a would-be future editor.

Protection should only be applied when there is no other stable way of dealing with vandalism. I believe that this is currently not the case, and is not necessary User A1 (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved this thread here from my talk. My thinking behind protecting was that vandalism in Aluminium is above average, partly because of neverending spelling war. Editing unlogged is not an argument, but other opinions are welcome - no hard feelings. Materialscientist (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that all school-subjects (planets, presidents, elements) should be semi-protected, due to the high rate of vandalism from bored or resentful IP-users from school computers. There is a long-running argument that some very productive IP editors would be scared away if they were required to register to edit as nameusers. However, we really don't know, since the experiment has not been tried. Epidemiology cannot answer this question. For one thing, available studies do not look at the en.wiki population (French IP-users commit much less vandalism, and .fr wikis have much less IP-vandalism). Even more importantly, retrospective epidemiology looking at what IP-editors DO, tells us NOTHING about what these edits would do if they were forced to edit as nameusers, or not at all. Until WMF actually does the experiment (and it would take randomized cross-over sprotection of articles to give us the answer) we simply have to go on our instincts. Mine tell me something different than yours tell you. I think IP-editors who would quit rather than register, do NOT add as much to Wikipedia as IP-vandals subtract, by taking up valuable editor time which deals with vandals rather than adding good new content. SBHarris 03:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I am an admin who has been here for over eight years, and who still does 90% of his editing anonymously from IPs. Anonymous editing is a right, not a privilege, and it is a common aspect of the exopedianist mentality. The value of anonymous editing has repeatedly been proven as enormous to Wikipedia. Essentially by arguing for this degree of protectionism you are advocating a wholesale change to the core philosophy of Wikipedia. You will need substantially more than "your instincts" to convince me that such a change is necessary. Manning (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, editing is a right, and can be facilitated by making an account. I have no problem with interpreting "Anyone can edit" as including the chore of creating an account to edit some pages. There is no wholesale change to the philosophy, just trying to make best use of (limited) editor time. As one who grows tired of eroding articles with very little useful information contributed by IPs, I have no problem with judicious use of semiprotection (especially in large articles). Accounts at least give a level of accountability for edits made, which is I think important in BLPs too but we digress....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Flagged revisions should mostly sort this out. The flagged revisions feature means that the changes get systematically checked because you have to look at the diffs from the last flagged verion before flagging the next version. Right now if you don't catch a vandalism in the few hours or day or so after it happens it's gone from the watchlist and you've missed it. That's the real problem, right now it's too easy to miss stuff, and we've got too much duplicated effort, 20 people could check the same article, whereas one article that only a few people check get missed.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

aluminium is found in rocks. It is then extracted from the rocks just like gold.

A question about reference/source #18

The History Channel's show "Life After People", said that aluminum was more expensive than gold at the time that it was molded into a pyramid and put on the monument. This wiki article has a source that says otherwise.

I personally don't care enough to research it - it's not that important to me and it's not a fact that will change anyone's perception of aluminum. Maybe someone here wants to look into it. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither the source nor the article seem to make mention of aluminum being less expensive than gold at the time. The source does mention that aluminum casting would be more expensive than the gold-plated alloy option, which is perhaps what Life After People meant.Rip-Saw (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Reactive chemically? Me picking holes

What? I can't edit this page? There goes democracy. Wiki is in league with the alumni, clearly.

Anyway, I'm picking holes but the setences;

"Aluminium is too reactive chemically to occur in nature as a free metal."

Should read; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.47.178 (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Aluminium is too chemically reactive to occur in nature as a free metal."

Remember, those gimps from Oxford are out there, looking for every mistake to criticize us. We must fight the fight brothers of wiki, and chemists bent out of their tiny minds from molar excesses of solvent exposure. :P

1 mole brains : who knows how many moles of god only knows what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.47.178 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy.—Tetracube (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor?

Aluminium has a resistivity of(20 °C) 26.50 nΩ·m, compared to copper (20 °C) 16.78 nΩ·m, which is why is is often taken as a cheaper alternative for conductive wires. Could somebody please explain how that makes Aluminium a "poor" metal?? This is really ridiculous. Jcwf (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read Poor metal - it's an old classification term and doesn't indicate "good" or "bad". Vsmith (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
But I've heard that Aluminium is somehow connected to evil spirits and demon posession. Can that be true? Said: Rursus () 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh - only pure aluminium contains demons. The oxide form is highly resistant to evil spirits, as everyone knows. :) Manning (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to argue over this sort of thing, why not just use the name post-transition metal and close the whole issue? --121.7.203.206 (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.124.148 (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

History of Nomenclature

This article cites the OED for the claim that the name "aluminium" dates from 1808, while "aluminum" dates from 1812. However, I just checked the online OED a few moments ago, and the most recent attestation for each is listed as 1812. Should this be corrected? Resistor (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture caption wording

In the applications section the picture of the truck has the caption "Aluminium slabs being transported from the smelters" I think "Aluminum slabs being transpordted from a smelter" makes more sense -since there's no reference to an indiviual smelter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.156.11 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, tweaked. Materialscientist (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

History of Nomenclature

This article cites the OED for the claim that the name "aluminium" dates from 1808, while "aluminum" dates from 1812. However, I just checked the online OED a few moments ago, and the most recent attestation for each is listed as 1812. Should this be corrected? Resistor (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Look closer. It's "alumium" that dates from 1808, not "aluminium." Mutinus (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If it is a tie, shouldn't the "aluminum" spelling be used, as it is more commonplace today? Otherwise, all the articles look like a mispelling. I only stumbled on to here thinking it was an error, only to find out that it is a tie. Even if "aluminium" predates "aluminum" (which it does apparently does not), should we not use the colloqial spelling in use today? I suppose we can convert all manner of words to the "original" spelling, satisfying only wordsmiths and perhaps frustrating everyone else. For example, the letter "u" is a fairly modern invention, right? Shovld we change all the vsages back to the olden days? Oldmanbiker (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No. --John (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll drop this, as it is apparently another spelling based on locality issue. Oldmanbiker (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Right. See WP:ALUM. --John (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Sir Humphrey Davy named the metal, and did so several times. First alumium, then aluminum, and aluminium. So the American version does predate the English, but aluminium is what caught on with scientists, even in the States at first. It was only around 1900 when it started to shift from -ium to -um, probably due to the metal's increase in usage around that time and Webster's dictionary having it listed with the earlier spelling aluminum, meaning journalists were more likely to spell it that way. (http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.168.11 (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What about 'Aluminio'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.47.113 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC) AluminiumAlumin(i)um

  • Although much argument has occurred over whether the page Aluminium should feature the form endorsed by the IUPAC or the more widely used word "aluminum," I would like to propose a name change to "Alumin(i)um." Using this method, readers from either background would be able to clearly tell that it is talking about the element and it should not be as controversial. User:Ryan Vesey 20:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The trouble is, many are unaware that there is an alternate spelling, and this would confuse those people even more.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I vote for NiobiumNio(Columb)ium --Stone (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose move in the strongest terms and request/suggest speedy withdrawal of the proposal. The article already clearly states "Aluminium or aluminum" in the first line. Adding the brackets in the title completely confuses matters. Besides, there is no convincing reason why we should not use IUPAC convention in naming this article. Polyamorph (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Opppose. Using brackets in this way seems to me to be a way to ensure that the article will found by noone. The current solution, with plenty of disambiguations to "aluminum" is the the best one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To avoid making a decision between the two commonly used names, we should invent this horrible, bowdlerized monstrosity? No thanks, I'll go with the IUPAC name. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current state with naming chemical elements (outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Nomenclature#Element_names is the ideal situation. There is no reason to change it, especially to this suggested highly awkward title. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons delineated above. /ninly(talk) 21:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clever idea, though! But creating a new spelling that nobody uses isn't the answer. First Light (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I now see the reasoning behind people's thoughts now. Thank you for discussing the usage of "aluminium" vs "alumin(i)um" instead of "aluminum" vs "aluminium." Because I proposed this change, and I now disagree with myself, I believe this can be removed.--Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request from Obligatory, 11 March 2011 I'm worried about the toxicity of aluminum (paragraph 3)

{{edit semi-protected}} The mention of toxicity is not enough in my opinion. The last sentence in the third paragraph could be revised. The sentence could be replaced;

                           - the meaning that aluminum can clearly be toxic to human beings and children is important-
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. GƒoleyFour— 03:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Small edit request

The article states Aluminum has 62% the thermal/electrical conductivity of copper (it's actually 59%) and does not specify whether the percentage is for the electrical or thermal conductivity (it's both). Also, aluminum superconducts at 1.2 "Kelvin", not "kelvins" Amccaugh (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the Kelvin bit, ref for conductivity? Vsmith (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Adjusted that per infoboxes, which are referenced in chemical elements data references (we've got to link those to the boxes). Its roughly 59% for both at room temperature, simply because the thermal conductivity is mostly due to electrons. Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request.

Following sentence needs to be rewritten. " Investigations of the long-term health effects are still ongoing, but elevated brain aluminium concentrations have been found in post-mortem examinations of victims who have later died..."

I removed the "who have later died" part. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

As far as I understand, there is a contradiction between this article and the one regarding Earth's composition and abundance of elements.

Here it says Al is the third most common (and first metal), being 8% of total mass, when those 2 articles (with reference to external article) state it is much less commom.

Is it my problem understanding or something here is worng? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.158.89 (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I clicked your link and found no said contradiction, thus please be more specific. Note that Earth's composition specifies percentage per oxides rather than pure elements, thus the numbers are somewhat different. Also note that mass and atomic percentages don't match each other. Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Revisions of June, 2011

For some reason, I decided to revise the chemistry (mainly) in the article. If people are even slightly worried about revisions or deletions etc, let me know. I can be a deletionist. Probably the most significant changes that I made were (1) to downplay the toxicity talk and (2) to reshufle the list of useful compounds, refocusing on a few big ones - oxides, sulfates, chloride. Areas possibly deserving further attention:

  • history section contains some redundancy,
  • probably could use a sub-subsection on aqueous solutions (this should probably be a standard section of related element articles). I think that the main stuff is [Al(H2O)6]3+ at low pH,
  • etymology section is too long, its just a bloody name!,
  • safety section seems too long and, to some extent, anecdotal. I guess that is inevitable,
  • additional (broad) views on the oxides and hydroxides probably,
  • Household wiring section under "uses" (it is not used that way anymore). Perhaps cut out this section and briefly mention this obsolete use in history section.

--Smokefoot (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word experience

In one paragraph in the recycling section the word "experience" is used as follows: "In Europe aluminium experiences high rates of recycling"

As far as I know the word "experience" denotes gaining of knowledge or wisdom as a result of some event or activity.

I suggest the word should be avoided when describing properties of aluminium as metal is incapable of any mental acuity.

Suggested rewrite: "Aluminium recycling rates are high in Europe..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvidcarlander (talkcontribs) 21:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, my insurance company, The Hartford, found that my roof had experienced significant deterioration last year, even though it doesn't have a brain. Neither my roof nor my insurance company, for that matter. Perhaps you should consult a good dictionary of English? SBHarris 20:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)