Talk:Argon

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).

Information Sources

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)

Suggestion

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)

Link suggestions

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)

Year of discovery of argon

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.

Potassium can capture a neutron to form Argon?

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)

Decription

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

there is a picture of a flourescent tube with argon gas, vaporized mercury, and halogen all with an electric current through it doucher.

RE Argon in tires

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*

GA Failed

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)

Density, heat capacity

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)

Passed GA

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)

Change in name (really, symbol)

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, Yttrium. 4 T C 08:18, 6 March 2010 (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)

B-Class

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)

Dangers of argon should be mentioned

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)

GA sweeps review

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)

periodic table

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)

Most abundant noble gas?

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)

Aplications

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 aplication should be written in complete sentance paragraphs, like all of the other nobel 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)

Updated Molar Mass

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)

vandalism

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)