Talk:Timeline of chemical elements discoveries

Archive 1 - discussion prior to merge (2003-2005)

Poll/request for feedback

I've listed this article because I am stumped about an essential feature of the article/list: I am not sure how to define the discovery date. Here are some cases I have stumped onto (I am talking mostly about the Recorded discoveries section):

1) many early elements are noticed/discovered by someone, but there is not a good definition of chemical element available to label as such; also, there was no academic community to accept these discoveries;

2) many elements were discovered by someone but they did not care enough to advertize their discoveries (i.e. palladium) or simply did not get to publish it fast enough; meanwhile others have published similar discoveries, and not in every case the latter recognized the discovery of the first person;

3) some elements were discovered obscurely but never got any attention; nevertheless, scientific assesments suggest veridicity of results (I cannot think of a better example right now, but technetium is a good example);

4) some rare elements were discovered, but I am not sure they were actually truly isolated; for example some rare earths wewre probably isolated in small quantities, but there might be no report besides the initial discovery (heaviest radioactive elements fall in this category also)

5) some elements were almost surely known to exist before they were isolated; for example F isolation from HF had been attempted for a very long time before it was actually done; is isolation=discovery in this case?

6) some elements were prepared very impure; later, others got the credit for doing the separation the same way, but at higher purity (i.e. silicon); who is the winner?

7) more to be added! I don't care about MOS or text yet. I just want to know what should I use as a principal date.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I would suggest to report the first recorded date of discovery or mention of the element. If it looks like whoever mentionned the element first did not consider it a "discovery", then place a footnote or something saying that this is only the first report of an element, rather than the actual date of discovery.
• Also I wouldn't call isolation = discovery. If they knew an element was in a molecule, then the element was discovered.
• First persons to create the element wins. Give mention the second person if you feel its important
• Hope that helps. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say to always list in order of discovery, not isolation. If the isolation date is significantly later than the discovery date, then it's worth mentioning including. As for the early elements, I don't think that an early lack of knowledge about chemistry really matters. So long as someone recognizes an element as a distinct substance, as with copper, that counts as a discovery. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to have first characterization/mention/experiment that determined there is a new element/compound; first publication of results (that appeared in a journal, that ended up being widely accepted), and first isolation of the element (widely recognized). But is still have problems. Here's a typical example, arsenic:

• first discovered by Geber
• Albertus Magnus around 1200 proved that there was a metallic substance obtained from arsenic oxides. "However, his documentation is considered vague" but people in the Middle Ages seemed to name this substance.
• It was not until 1649 that Johann Schröder (1600-1664) clearly reported the preparation of metallic
• Lavoisier was the first to state that metals are elements, not compounds.

Geber would clearly fit in the first category, but his works did not spread. Magnus's results seemed to be more spread, so he could fit for the second. Schroder's result definitived the debate and obtained the metal clearly. Lavoisier named this metal as element. Who should fit where? Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nergaal, thanks for inviting me to the discussion. Personally, I think that adding more columns might not be necessary, as the Notes section already deals with the same information. In the case of arsenic for example, Geber's works were actually quite widespread among both medieval Arabic and European alchemists. Since the works of both Geber and Albertus Magnus were widespread, I don't think it's necessary to have a column about who should get credit for making the substance more widesptead. Of course, neither of them recognized it as an 'element', so I do think it would be a good idea to have a column for the first person to recognize it as an element, as with Lavoisier in a number of cases. In my opinion, I think the "First report of characterization (widely recognized)" and "First person to report characterization (usually accepted discoverer)" columns should be replaced by something like "First person to recognize as element". Jagged 85 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Did gold or silver come first?

The dates given in the article contradict the comment as to which came first. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that this has been fixed now. Thanks. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Diamond or coal?

Although pure carbon (Allotropes of carbon) is best known as either graphite or diamond, coal is mostly carbon and has been known much longer. So why is not coal listed as the first known instance of elemental carbon? JRSpriggs (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Or charcoal, for that matter? —WWoods (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that this has been fixed now. Thanks. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Table formatting?

Trying to cram all that Notes text into a narrow column messes up the table. How about something like this instead:

Z	Element name	First observed or predicted	First report of characterization (widely recognized)	First isolation (widely known)	First observerer	First person to report characterization (usually accepted discoverer)	First isolator
		Notes
33	Arsenic	800 CE (ca.)		800 CE (ca.)	Geber		Geber
		Discovered and isolated by Geber ca. 800 CE. Albertus Magnus was the first European to isolate the element in 1250. In 1649, Johann Schröder published two ways of preparing elemental arsenic.
51	Antimony	800 (ca.)		800 (ca.)	Geber		Geber
		Discovered and isolated by Geber ca. 800 CE. Basilius Valentinus was the first European to describe the element around 1450. First description of a procedure for isolating elemental antimony in 1540 by Vannoccio Biringuccio.
83	Bismuth	800 (ca.)		1753	Geber		Claude François Geoffroy
		Discovered by Geber ca. 800. Later described in writings attributed to Basilius Valentinus around 1450. Definitively identified by Claude François Geoffroy in 1753.
30	Zinc	1526		1746	Paracelsus		Andreas Sigismund Marggraf
		Identified as a unique metal by the alchemist Paracelsus but was extracted as a metal since antiquity (by Indian metallurgists before 100 BCE), but the true nature of this metal was not understood in ancient times.
15	Phosphorus	1669		1669	Hennig Brand		Hennig Brand
		Prepared from urine, it was the first element to be chemically discovered.
27	Cobalt	1732		?	Georg Brandt		?
		Proved that the blue color of glass is due to a new kind of metal and not bismuth as thought previously.
78	Platinum	1735		1735	Antonio de Ulloa		Antonio de Ulloa
		First description of a metal found in South American gold was in 1557 by Julius Caesar Scaliger. Ulloa published his findings in 1748, but Sir Charles Wood also investigated the metal in 1741. First reference to it as a new metal was made by William Brownrigg in 1750.
28	Nickel	1751		1751	Axel Fredrik Cronstedt		Axel Fredrik Cronstedt
		By attempting to extract copper from the mineral known as "fake copper" (now known as niccolite).
12	Magnesium	1755		1808	Joseph Black		Humphry Davy
		Black observed that magnesia alba (MgO) was not quicklime (CaO). Davy isolated it electrochemically from magnesia.
1	Hydrogen	1766		1500(ca.)	Henry Cavendish		Paracelsus
		Cavendish was the first to distinguish H2 from other gases, although Paracelsus around 1500, Robert Boyle, and Joseph Priestley had observed its production by reacting strong acids with metals. Lavoisier named it in 1793.

That loses the "sortable" feature, however.
—WWoods (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks better but... I wanted to add all three dates and all three people because of the sort function. If you find a way to make sort still work, regardless of the way the table looks, I am totally for it! Nergaal (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I came here following a plea for help at Help talk:Table#Help needed. I guess I don't see the problem that you're trying to correct. Clearly there are problems above, but everything looks fine on the article page at browser widths from 2048 down to 1024 pixels. Narrower than that—down to 600 to 800—it's a bit "scrunchy" but still quite usable. —EncMstr (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The table on the page is quite cramped. I was thinking the table here looks much bettter, but loses the sort function. Is it possible to have a table like this with sort function? Nergaal (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is. Once the rows have multiple meanings like that, there's no way to sort sensibly. If it were my task, I'd concentrate on making the narrow columns narrower, like using a shorter word than characterization for the two columns in Recorded discoveries. Maybe use fewer columns? —EncMstr (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How can I make the table with a width of 150%, or say 800px? This woulld sove teh cramping and would make the table still usable. Nergaal (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend eliminating the "Report of characterization" and "Person who widely reported first characterization" columns entirely. The only entry that uses either one of these columns is the first one (arsenic), and even there the "Report of characterization" column only has a question mark in it--not exactly vital information. It would free up a lot of column space to just eliminate both; if there's a desire to keep the reference to Albertus Magnus for arsenic, then just make a footnote of it under the "Observer" column. The Rev (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

help

can somebody open this article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114234977/abstract Pleaaase `Nergaal (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I might get it! --Stone (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry its pay per view also for academic institutions in Germany.--Stone (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Order

What's the default order of the elements? If it's by "First observed", then Manganese (1770) and Barium (1772) are out of place. If by "First isolation", then Bismuth (1753), Zinc (1746), Magnesium (1808), Hydrogen (1500(ca.)), Barium (1808), and Tellurium (1795?). Also, the names are sorting by first name rather than last. I think there's some way of putting in a sort key, so that e.g. "Franz-Joseph Müller von Reichenstein" is sorted by "Reichenstein", but I don't know how that works.
—WWoods (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the sorting order is independent of what is displayed by using the {{sort}} template. Instead of Franz-Joseph...Reichenstein, write {{sort|Reichenstein|Franz-Joseph...Reichenstein}}. That is, {{sort|what it is sorted by|what is shown}}. —EncMstr (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking into it, I see there's also {{sortname}}, which'd save a bit of copy&pasting: {{sort|Franz-Joseph...|Reichenstein}}

—WWoods (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Discover

The key question is: Who discovered the elemet? I have the problem with the definition of discovery.

• Fluorine was known as a element for very long time and used acordingly. So who discovered it? Some alchemist or early chemist I would suggest. Fore sure not Moissan.
• For my impression Molybdenum and Fluorine and some others are treated very different:

Molybdenum was discovered by Scheele although he only suggested the composition of Molybdena.

Fluorine was discoverd by Moissan because he first isolated it.

Lithium was first isolated as element by William Thomas Brande but Arfwedson discovered it

Zinc was used in ancient india but not identivied as an element, so knowing it but not stating it is an element makes you not discover it.

Copper was found by some ancient tribes 6000 BC but who suggested first that this is an elemenmt?

Had Geber already the concept of elemet when he isolated arsenic? If not he does not qualify as discoverer like the producers of zic in india.

For me this long list incorporates a lot of difficult to answer questions which would be best answered in an text, because a list is not capable to do the trick of giving explanations.--Stone (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all the table is not fully updated, so feel free to update it. I agree the answer is hard to give. I had created most of the text of the article when I noticed this. I even opened some sort of a poll up here to try to brainstorm on this issue. Nevertheless, simply going to a text is not the best option since this table has a huge potential in terms of sorting. Also, the first part is different from the recorded discovies.

My suggestion was to very clearly state 3 categories: one was first observer or predictor (i.e. discovery of HF or the first statement that HF includes a new element would count here for F); first published result which received wide aknowledgement (this would be hard for the early elements, but it should include the date the discovery was either put in a report or a book - i.e. first person to say that there is a new element and here is its spectra/characterisation); and first person to isolate+characterize the elemental form (i.e. publish a result saying here is how to get gaseous F2). These are all suggestions. Once several clear classifications are found, this list would look great. Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer just simply having two categories: the first observer or predictor, and the first isolator or characterizor. I really don't see any reason why the wide aknowledgement category is necessary, especially in regards to ancient and medieval times when discoveries were limited to certain regions. If there are some cases where it's necessary to point out the first wide aknowledgement, then the Notes section can explain it, instead of having an extra column for it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I also think that the Indians should be recognized as the first observers of zinc, as they were clearly aware of zinc and built the first zinc mines. It seems a bit odd that the ancients are recognized as the first observers for the other elements, but not for zinc. Also, the only elements from the list that were referred to as 'elements' in medieval times were sulfur and mercury by Geber. The rest were not identified as 'elements' until Lavoiser. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Graph

It would be interesting to see a time graph of the discoveries to get a sense of how quickly/slowly the discovery of chemical elements occured. Suntag (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be great! Any takers for this job? Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.mpoweruk.com/elements.htm Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/DiscoveryYear.html 65.80.178.227 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sulfur/ Mecury

These are not identified as "elements" in the chemical sense by Jabir/Geber. In their pure (philosophical) state they are "principles" in the theory of metallogenesis. Please see The Mineral Exhaltation Theory of Metallogenesis in Pre-Modern Mineral Science Ambix Vol. 53, No. 1 March 2006 Pgs 43-65

J8079s (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

lead and tin

I took this out :Lead was first purified and clearly differentiated from tin by medieval [[Alchemy and chemistry in Islam|Middle Eastern chemists]]<ref name=El-Eswed>{{Cite journal|title=Lead and Tin in Arabic Alchemy|first=Bassam I.|last=El-Eswed|journal=Arabic Sciences and Philosophy|year=2002|volume=12|pages=139–53|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|doi=10.1017/S0957423902002060}}</ref> as lead and tin were purified and clearly differentiated from at least Mesopotamian times. J8079s (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a cite Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence By Peter Roger Stuart Moorey Published by EISENBRAUNS, 1999 ISBN 1575060426 J8079s (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean ?

"The elements are listed generally in the order in which each was first defined as the pure element, as the exact date of discovery of most elements cannot be accurately defined."

What is this misconceived sentence supposed to mean? What does "defined as the pure element" mean ?? There is a problem with the word "defined". You can infer the existence of, discover, extract, measure, determine the properties of a chemical element, but you cannot "define" it. And what is a "pure element" ? All elements are "pure". Is the sentence intended to mean, the preparation of a sample of the element which is not mixed or compounded with any other element ? To what degree of purity ? For many elements, preparation of "pure" ( uncontaminated ) samples occured decades after the existence of the element was scientifically conclusive.Eregli bob (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Gold and Queen Zer

Queen Zer I suggest never existed. There are lots of websites that mention her and her gold or turquoise burial goods, but many are plainly humbug, for example many date her to 5500 BC. The earliest mummies are no earlier than about 3300 BC. I can find this reference [1] to a queen Zur, wife of an Athotis.

I suggest that Zer is a old variant of Djer(Aka Athothis), and hence not a queen. Gold was found associated with Djer, see [:File:CeremonialFlintKnife-Djer.png] for example. This site purports to have a picture of the gold and turqoise bracelet found on a human wrist at tomb O, identified as the tomb of Djer. I'll mark the article as "dubious".

"widely known"

In the "Recorded discoveries" table is a column headed "Isolation (widely known)". I have no clue what this means. What is it that is "widely known"? The element? The person who isolated it? The fact that it was isolated? 86.160.83.63 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Smelting of iron / iron age

"The discovery of smelting around 3000 BC led to the start of the iron age around 1200 BC"

It needs to be clarified whether "discovery of smelting" refer to the smelting of iron or to the general technique. If the former, then why was there a 1800 year gap? If the latter, then it contradicts the statement earlier that "lead smelting began at least 9000 years ago". 86.181.201.159 (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible mistake

When referring to Carbon, "Samaritans" are mentioned. This might be a mistake. Perhaps, Sumerians are meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.29.164 (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have improved the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.29.164 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)