Talk:Krypton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Version 0.5
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Good article Krypton has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic star Krypton is part of the Noble gases series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
WikiProject Elements (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 14:38, 1 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 22:48, 19 June 2005).

Information Sources[edit]

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

Talk[edit]

I moved this page from plain Krypton to Krypton (element) to reduce ambiguity with Krypton (planet), which, as the home planet of Superman, is probably far more widely known. I will amend the base page Krypton to show both options.

See discussion in Wikipedia:Disambiguation

Judging from "what links here" I say you are very wrong. The fictional planet is only going to be mentioned a small handful of times in an encyclopedia while the element is going to be mentioned many, many times. A disambiguation block is therefore the best option here - both the programming language and the planet are just a click away (just like they would be under full disambiguation). And I helped write the disambiguation policy page. --mav 20:08, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oh lighten up.

He might be blunt, but I think he's probably right here. The programming language and the fictional planet are probably less significant than the element after which they were both named. Ed Sanville 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


The speed of sound in Krypton gas as given at Allmeasures and WebElements is the speed of sound in Krypton liquid (conditions to be checked tomorrow). For the speed of sound in Krypton gas we found no available handbook value (although looking for it very hard in the second largest university library in germany). We (Projektpraktikum at the University of Constance) measured the speed of sound in 99.997 % pure krypton gas at 23°C (room temperature) and standard pressure using resonance in a closed tube and got as a preliminary result (220 \pm 1) m/s. (Will be rechecked when measurements are finished, some corrections for measurements in a tube have not yet been applied. For data contact johannes.ebke - at - uni-konstanz.de)

For those of you who rather believe established sources, see for example this Article from BBC. It doesn't state the exact velocity, but gives a general sense of the value to expect.

See also talk:WikiProject Elements


(Same person speaking as above) We have some time ago completed the corrections mentioned, and 220 m/s is a quite accurate value. Anyone who wants more values can use the formula at Ideal Gas. (extrapolated to zero frequency, there is noticeable dispersion so that at high frequencys (we measured up to 1500 Hz) it is rather 220,7 m/s) Our value for 0°C (211 m/s) is perhaps more accurate because the Temperature could be controlled better. (but still since there is dispersion we get up to 212 m/s with 1500 Hz) But since 23°C is approx. room temperature i think we should leave it at that... SiriusGrey 17:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Kryptonate[edit]

Is kryptonate a molecule containing krypton or a clathrate containing krypton? From the name and the article, I would say the clathrate one, but I wanted to be sure (if they exist, what are molecules containing krypton called?). Once the definition is given, perhaps kryptonate should redirect to this article, as I don't think there's enough information for a separate article. -- Kjkolb 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


what is the origin name of krypton...and what krypton uses... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.113.241 (talk)

"Krypton" comes from the greek "krypto", meaning hidden. It is usually used in lighting, including flashlights and lasers. See the article for more. --Deryck C. 07:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

Good article, excellent referencing. Some suggestions:

  1. What is abundance of krypton in extraterrestrial environments, ie other planets and the sun?
  2. "there is evidence for KrXe or KrXe+." could do with a reference.
  3. Reference 6 should be the original paper.

TimVickers 02:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

GA sweeps review[edit]

Conducting another GA review as part of the WikiProject Good Article sweep. After 6 months, I concur with the original GA review on this article, and it continues to meet the GA criteria. It's still very short, and various sections could be expanded. But overall, the content is significant enough to keep GA status. Dr. Cash 02:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

The lead is copied from the first few lines of the Notable Characteristics section. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, not a duplicate of a later section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That was because it was duplicated in this recent edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Krypton&diff=116653671&oldid=116599575 . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Squids and Chips (talkcontribs) 14:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

B-Class[edit]

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 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Bleh. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My incorrect rollback[edit]

Sorry for the mistake. My internet connection is too slow that I pushed the button after the vandalism has been reverted. Sorry. --Deryck C. 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Radio-isotopic dating[edit]

I have changed 'and' to 'but' in the last sentence of the first paragraph in 'Isotopes' because the use of Krypton-81 in dating waters is counter-intuitive when considering its volatility. Let me know if you think this is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pre1mjr (talkcontribs) 15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What about Krypton and Global Warming?[edit]

I recall a discussion many years ago regarding the release of Krypton from certain nuclear reactor processes. The isotopes released have a tendency to persist in the atmosphere to a far greater extent than any released "naturally". Krypton is either a greenhouse gas itself, or contributes to the greenhouse "effect" somehow. During this discussion, concern was expressed regarding the potential for global warming caused by the release of Krypton. Wouldn't it be ironic if additional Nuclear Fission Reactors were constructed to provide a non-carbon dioxide producing source of electricity production, only to find out that the real greenhouse gas culprit all along has been atmospheric Krypton (they type released by nuclear power stations). Instead of a solution to global warming, billions would have been spent on power plants that actually cause it.

Oops.

In any case, perhaps someone with more proven knowledge of the relationship between Krypton, Nuclear Reactors, and Global Warming could contribute this information to this WIKI entry.


Bob Edmonton Canada bulkspin@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.198.153 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds extremely implausible. First, because krypton is a monatomic gas, which implies that it cannot absorb significant amounts of infrared radiation, and therefore won't contribute to the greenhouse effect. Second, because the amounts of krypton involved are extremely tiny. A more reasonable concern would be the health effects of the radioactive krypton isotopes that could be released from the nuclear power plants. --Itub 07:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Garbled Precautions Paragraph[edit]

This paragraph:

Very little is known about how dangerous Krypton is although it is considered by most scientists to be a non-toxic asphyxiant. Theologically, Krypton as a gas may also cause asphyxiate if large amounts of the gas has been inhaled this is due to it's equivalent inert properties that it shares with other noble gases such as Xenon and Argon that allows Krypton gas to displace oxygen.:

...was pretty garbled. I pared it down to the minimum that made ense, but I couldn't replace the lost meaning. Maybe somebody with more knowledge of the subject could repair it from an earlier version. Particularly, the "theological" reference looked like vandalism. rowley (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Theologically" looks like a mistake for "theoretically". Owing to its chemical inertness, it is very unlikely to be toxic. Nevertheless it certainly has anaesthetic properties. Its narcotic potency is currently the subject of a debate on the nitrogen narcosis talk page but it is quite possible that breathing air mixed with 50% krypton could produce noticeable anaesthetic effects. Of course, air mixed with krypton would have a lesser fraction of oxygen and would produce the usual effects of hypoxia, which I think is what this paragraph was trying to say. When we've resolved the question of krypton's narcotic potency, it should be possible to do a decent re-write of the "Precautions" section. --RexxS (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Isotopes[edit]

I think we are now up to 32 plus 8 metastable isotopes for a total of 40 isotopes, twice what the article cites. Can someone update the section's lead sentence with an appropriate reference? 65.80.178.227 (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the article; it seems there are 6, not 5 stable isotopes, and the total number of isotopes is vague, something above 30. Materialscientist (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


another compound[edit]

doi:10.1021/ja9098559

It simply contains 2xKrF2 units, thus I don't see much new here with respect to Kr bonding as compared to KrF2 which is already in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Boiling/Melting point[edit]

It's missing a negative symbol for Fahrenheit.

If you are talking about the infobox, I do see minus sign on my screen there. Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Vapour Pressure Table[edit]

Misprints here. If the boiling temperature is 120 K, then the vapour pressure at 120 K should be 1 atm = 100 kPa, NOT 1 kPa as stated. Please correct, someone with access to source data? 124.176.23.97 (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)thortveitite.

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Electronic configuration[edit]

Someone please check configuration. I doubt it's correct but I'm not skilled chemist so I won't make any changes. Unknown (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.142.234.1 (talk)

All the elements appear to have had their electron configurations swapped.[edit]

I noticed while trying to check my work for a chemistry assignment that all the elements seemed to show the wrong information in a google search which led me to check Wikipedia's entries on the matter. I am in a bit of a time crunch between classes, so I am just going to leave a note here for now pointing this out. I figure it is either because of a bot, some master table, or possible vandalism. Examples include Iodine showing Krypton's configuration while Krypton shows Argon's. I haven't explored further, but the clues leave me in little doubt that this is through all the elements. Nick F. S. 207.233.102.21 (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Belay my last. It appears that this is known as "Shorthand Notation". Maybe it would be appropriate to list both the long form and the shorthand indicating it as such for those who are just being introduced to chemistry. This caused a lot of confusion for myself but this is largely because my own college has made chemistry a hybrid course that requires the students to largely teach themselves from a college developed book that doesn't actually cover a lot of things. It seems to take for granted that you know certain things already and just goes from there. I'll come back later with a better developed idea, but I think some way of indicating on the elements that the electron configuration is written in shorthand would be useful. Nick F. S. 207.233.102.21 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree, it's not very helpful if you don't know what the shorthand means already. Perhaps a note or even some text is required, referring the reader to noble gas#noble gas notation. How about using the {{abbr}} template, so that if you hover over [Ne] you will see mouseover text saying "1s2 2s2 2p6", which is what "[Ne]" is short for? Double sharp (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2014: let's try that again![edit]

The section on the use of Krypton in the definition of the meter jumps back and forth in the chronology, making it confusing. It also gives an inaccurate rounded reciprocal of the formal definition, and and it's simply wrong in its claim about a 1927 redefinition of the metre; in 1927 the CGPS adopted the IAU's cadmium-based spectroscopic definition of the angstrom. This was a separate unit from the metre (although chosen to be very close to 10−10 m), as technology at the time limited the accuracy with which wavelengths and macroscopic objects could be compared. The current text is:

In 1960, an international agreement defined the meter in terms of wavelength of light emitted by the krypton-86 isotope (wavelength of 605.78 nanometers). This agreement replaced the longstanding standard meter located in Paris, which was a metal bar made of a platinum-iridium alloy (the bar was originally estimated to be one ten-millionth of a quadrant of the Earth's polar circumference), and was itself replaced by a definition based on the speed of light—a fundamental physical constant. However, in 1927, the International Conference on Weights and Measures had redefined the meter in terms of a red cadmium spectral line (1 m = 1,553,164.13 wavelengths).[1] In October 1983, the same bureau defined the meter as the distance that light travels in a vacuum during 1/299,792,458 s.[2][3][4]

I'd like to replace that paragraph with:

In 1960, the International Conference on Weights and Measures defined the meter as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of light emitted by the krypton-86 isotope.[5][6] This agreement replaced the 1889 international prototype meter located in Paris, which was a metal bar made of a platinum-iridium alloy (one of a series of standard meter bars, originally constructed to be one ten-millionth of a quadrant of the Earth's polar circumference). This also obsoleted the 1927 definition of the ångström based on the red cadmium spectral line,[7] replacing it with 1 Å = 10−10 m. The krypton-86 definition lasted until the October 1983 conference, which redefined the meter as the distance that light travels in a vacuum during 1/299,792,458 s.[8][9][10]

The 1927 conference also technically redefined the metre by clarifying the measurement conditions for the international prototype metre, but that seems like too much detail. One open issue is whether to refer to the 1927 or 1907 definition of the angstrom; it was defined by the IAU in 1907, and adopted by the CGPM in 1927, so either date is reasonable. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ Burdun, G. D. (1958). "On the new determination of the meter" (PDF). Measurement Techniques 1 (3): 259–264. doi:10.1007/BF00974680. 
  2. ^ Shri Krishna Kimothi (2002). The uncertainty of measurements: physical and chemical metrology: impact and analysis. American Society for Qualit. p. 122. ISBN 0-87389-535-5. 
  3. ^ Gibbs, Philip (1997). "How is the speed of light measured?". Department of Mathematics, University of California. Retrieved 2007-03-19. 
  4. ^ Unit of length (meter), NIST
  5. ^ "The BIPM and the evolution of the definition of the metre". Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. 2014-07-26. Retrieved 2014-09-24. 
  6. ^ Penzes, William B. (2009-01-08). "Time Line for the Definition of the Meter". National Institute of Stadnards and Technology. Retrieved 2014-09-24. 
  7. ^ Burdun, G. D. (1958). "On the new determination of the meter" (PDF). Measurement Techniques 1 (3): 259–264. doi:10.1007/BF00974680. (subscription required (help)). 
  8. ^ Shri Krishna Kimothi (2002). The uncertainty of measurements: physical and chemical metrology: impact and analysis. American Society for Quality. p. 122. ISBN 0-87389-535-5. 
  9. ^ Gibbs, Philip (1997). "How is the speed of light measured?". Department of Mathematics, University of California. Retrieved 2007-03-19. 
  10. ^ Unit of length (meter), NIST
Yes check.svg Done. Note that this isn't an endorsement of this particular version, I've simply implemented it because there has been no objections here. Stickee (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)