Talk:Nickel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Nickel 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.
March 23, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Version 0.5
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Elements (Rated GA-class, Top-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.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Mining (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by Dwmyers 19:59 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC). Elementbox converted 15:08, 2 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 05:29, 14 June 2005).


Information Sources[edit]

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Nickel. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Nickel Statistics and Information, USGS Periodic Table - Nickel, 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 subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.


Errors in production data?[edit]

As today Jan 29 2014, there is a discrepancy between the text and a table in World production section. Text is saying Russia is the largest producer in 2011, but it is only the third according to numbers in the table for 2011, as well as for 2012, also shown in the section. Below is likely outdated: They claim that Canada produces 30 percent of world nickel, and the implied claim that it is the biggest producer, seem to contradict other sources in the Internet. Russian nickel production is almost twice as high as Canada's, and most sources say that Russia is the biggest producer.

Updated, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk[edit]

The amount of nickel which is allowed in products which come into contact with human skin is regulated by the European Union. In 2002 a report in the journal Nature researchers found amounts of nickel being emitted by 1 and 2 euro coins far in excess of those standards. This is believed to be due to a galvanic reaction.

wouldn't the quantity of nickel exposure from dental braces be far above any contact from handling coins? Crusadeonilliteracy

I know that I can not wear many earings because nickel in the posts make my earlobes swell up.

This is an allergic reaction which often happens from contact with some metals. I believe a thing niobium plating resolved that problem.

Raney Nickel[edit]

I think the following use of Nickel is called Rainey Nickel, but I do not know how to spell it.

Finely divided nickel is a catalyst for hydrogenating vegetable oils.

ok, it's awesome info n' all but i need to know what things have nickel in them!


I believe you are referring to "Raney Nickel" which is a trademarked Ni-Al alloy catalyst. The designation "Raney-type catalyst" is sometimes used to broadly describe Ni alloys with spongy, high-surface area structures. Reference to the Raney Nickel page could be added to this page. --Dhall27 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding sections[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia, but if someone could tell me how to start a new section on the uses of Nickel, it would be a useful section.


To add a section simply go to the 'edit this page' tab at the top of the page. Reading the guidelines would also be a good idea.

Allergic Reactions[edit]

Can we change to:

Nickel is the most ubiquitous contact allergen among children and adolescents. If its in contact with the skin like ear rings, blue jeans buttons and belts sensitised individuals may show an allergy to nickel affecting their skin. (byer and Morrell) The amount of nickel which is allowed in products which come into contact with human skin is regulated by the European Union.

Nickel is the most ubiquitous contact allergen among children and adolescents. First sentence from abstract:

  • Byer TT, Morrell DS (2004). "Periumbilical allergic contact dermatitis: Blue jeans or belt buckles?". Pediatric Dermatology 21: 223–226. DOI]

Some guitar strings are made of nickel and may affect people who are allergic to nickel. You can check the little paragraph I added to the Guitar talk section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guitar (Health Issues)... --Lethaljellybean 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am currently still allergic to prolonged exposure to nickel, the metal here. Seeing as glasses are often made out of nickel, the ear portions that hold the glasses up have to be coated. At one point we could not find any, and therefore had to get stainless steel glasses, which of course, cost more. I cannot see why that under the toxicity section (where it mentions allergic reactions to nickel) that earrings are listed instead of glasses, seeing as many more people are inclined to wear glasses due to sensitive eyes than earrings. 96.42.46.42 (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Russia Nickel Export[edit]

MMC Norilsk Nickel is a privately held company that is deeply involved in the export of nickel from Russia. The sentence about "Russia using its 40% of the world's supply of nickel for its own domestic use" doesn't really make sense. The ore is smelted in Norilsk and the nickel is sold on the world market for the highest price and I am sure that Russia is not going to ever suffer a shortage of nickel, like Venezuela will never suffer a shortage of crude oil, no matter how much is sold. --McTrixie 11:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Metallurgical Industry of Russia": For 2006: Russia's nickel exports to countries outside the CIS in January-July increased by 5.5% on the year, to 143,600 metric tons, according to the federal customs service. Total nickel exports, including CIS states, were 143,900 tons.


MMC NN produces about 250,000 metric tons per year total.--McTrixie 11:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

phytoremediation[edit]

Is it relevant to add here some phytoremediation-related information relevant to nickel? There's some here: Hyperaccumulators table – 2 : Nickel, with particular attention to the notes at the end of the table, and to notes relevant to Streptanthus polygaloides and Thlaspi montanum. There are more to come of the same style, I just haven't developped that side for lack of where to put the info. I have the same question about quite a few metals, notably Cadmium (note with Tagetes erecta in Hyperaccumulators table – 1, and some), copper, lead, etc, incl. radionuclides. What/where do you think this should go? Basicdesign 05:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nickel

is it nickel is a recyclable material?

Extraction section[edit]

I have a few problems with the section on extraction: First, the article says "Most lateritic ores have traditionally been processed using pyrometallurgical techniques to produce a matte for further refining." I would say that most lateritic ores have been traditionally avoided, because they are so difficult to process! And the "traditional" matte smelting route is applied to sulfide ores, i.e. floation, partial roasting, electric or reverb smelting; or skip the partial roast and flash smelt. That's enough... I'll save my other quibbles with that section for laterBSMet94 06:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Revising my previous statemtent, I should have said that traditionally laterits have been avoided for production of elemental nickel. Obviously, the rotary kiln/electric furnace process has been around for quite a while in the production of ferronickel, which isn't exactly pure nickel production. Just thought I'd clarify my remarks. Isn't anyone going to correct that section, or are you waiting for me to do it? heheheh BSMet94 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

email to Hyperphysics[edit]

To: RodNave:gsu.edu
Subject: at odds with "The Most Tightly Bound Nuclei"
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin2.html#c1
Why do the masses (2003) for Fe-56 and Ni-62 show that m/A is lower for Fe-56, which is different from B/A?
-Aut
-lysdexia 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
--- Rod Nave <rodnave:gsu.edu> wrote:
> Hello, Autymn,
>
> I think the case for Ni-62 being the most tightly
> bound is well
> established.
>
> Does "isotopic masses(2003)" refer to a specific
> table?
Atomic Mass Evaluation: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc. You can also find the tables at http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel.
> The only thing I can suggest is that at the required
> level of accuracy,
> m/A is not exactly the same thing as binding energy
> per nucleon because
> of the difference between neutron and proton mass.
> Ni-62 with 28 n, 32
> p is a slightly higher percentage neutrons than
> Fe-56 with 26 n, 30 p
> . Since showing their difference in binding energy
> requires four
> significant figures, this difference in percentage
> neutrons may tip the
> balance in mass per particle the other way.
That's a good point; neutròns suffer more from the nuclear bonds.
mn-mp = .001388
Ni-62: 61.9283451u, .99884428u/A
Ni-60: 59.9307864u, .99884644u/A
Ni-64: 63.9279660u, .99887447u/A
Fe-56: 55.9349375u, .99883817u/A
Fe-58: 57.9332756u, .99884958u/A
.99884428-.998833817=.000010463
mp = 1.00727646688u; mn = 1.00866491578u
However, that brings up a new problem, that Ni-64 seems to win out:
Ni-62: 28mp + 34mn = 62.4983482u -> 61.9283451u => .5700031u
Ni-60: => .5502320u
Ni-64: => .5877120u
Fe-56: 26mp + 30mn = 56.4491356u -> 55.9349375u => .5141981u
Fe-58: => .5331898u
-Aut
-lysdexia 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
> However, that brings up a new problem, that Ni-64
> seems to win out:
>
> Ni-62: 28mp + 34mn = 62.4983482u -> 61.9283451u =>
> .5700031u
> Ni-60: => .5502320u
> Ni-64: => .5877120u
> Fe-56: 26mp + 30mn = 56.4491356u -> 55.9349375u =>
> .5141981u
> Fe-58: => .5331898u
Never mind! I didn't divide by A: .0091936, .0091705, .0091830, .0091821, .0091829. Then the strongest nuclei are Ni-62, Ni-64, Fe-58, Fe-56, Ni-60.
-Aut
-lysdexia 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


magnetic properties[edit]

someone should perhaps add to the article that Ni is a quite interesting magnetic material, as it is a highly itinerant ferromagnet, shows extraordinary large longitudinal fluctuations of the local magnetic moment and due to these properties it has proven until recently extremely difficult to estimate its thermal properties through the standard methods of ab-initio thermodynamics. See e.g. Phys. Rev. B 75, 054402 (2007), Phys. Rev. B 64, 174402 (2001), Phys. Rev. B 71, 214435 (2005) Yes, I could write up something myself, but first I'm no native speaker and second, I've got work to do.

I understand, but feel it is too complex to any non-specialist. Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone add in what the 4th magnetic element(near Room Temperature). Iron, Cobolt and Nickel are three. Jokem (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The text seems to have been removed, and I came here with exactly the same question. Don't leave us in suspense! Marnanel (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The 4th is gadolinium, as now stated in the section Atomic and physical properties. Dirac66 (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Radius of Nickel[edit]

I believe what you have in the article is the diameter rather than the radius. Check Helen G. Hansma et Al., DNA binding to Mica correlates with cationic radius: Assay by AFM, Biophysical Journal V. 70 April 1996 1933-1939. However, in the above they give the ionic radius and I think they refer to the hydrated radius but it is more likely than the one in the article in wikipedia anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.166.61 (talkcontribs).

Reference is atomic radii of the elements (data page). The articles use a set of data with consistent definitions taken from webelements.com, for what it's worth. Femto 14:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The atomic radius is listed as 135 pm, but the Los Alamos Labs (which the article cites) lists the atomic radius as 124.6 pm. 99.233.162.203 (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Nickel[edit]

I have found the Canadian Nickel after 1958 is not magnetic. It was also when Canada stopped making the polygon shaped one also. The article states it was magnetic on some dates up to 1989, I would like to know what those dates are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.51.222 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

i like nickels they are shiny and pretty. my favorite number is 28 and that is nickel's atomic number.i like nickels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.205.181 (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Added coin clarification[edit]

I added a clarification about a nickel COIN not being magnetic because it is made mostly of copper (I did not check the accuracy of the statment as to what composition the coin has). Nickel, the element is clearly not made of copper as the sentence otherwise implied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.43.65.27 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Although the older Nickel Coin (Canada 1958) IS magnetic. Jokem (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

some one tell me were it is found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.200.246 (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Supply of Nickel Statement???[edit]

The last line in the article states "At current use rates, the supply of nickel is predicted to run out in 90 years."

That is patently absurd. Nickel makes up over 1.8% of the Earths mass. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=350422

I do not believe a single mention in a non-peer reviewed magazine warrants adding such an impossible to defend claim to this article. (P.S., I could not actually read the article by clicking on the link, but I can assure you the Earth will not be running out of nickel anytime soon, although the price may go up if deeper extraction is required.)

--Electrostatic1 (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

confusing sentence[edit]

The sentence in the article under "extraction and purification" which says "In many stainless steel applications, the nickel can be taken directly in the 75% purity form, depending on the presence of any impurities." makes little sense, but I am not sure the best way to edit it. I believe what it is trying to say is that for use in making stainless steel, the 75% nickel extracted from ore using conventional roasting and reduction processes is of sufficient quality to produce the desired alloys with steel, but the statement "depending on the presence of any impurities" makes little sense. If the nickel is 75% pure, then there are certainly impurities present, in fact 25% of the material is (non-nickel) impurities. Should it say "depending on the composition of the impurities present"? Or is the statement that 75% pure nickel can be used to make stainless steel dubious? Theseeker4 (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mining Map[edit]

The map that shows mining of Nickle is wrong. It shows that the mines are in the east of Australia when in fact they are exclusively in the west. The pattern it shows for mines in Australia is the same as for iron, copper, uranium and aluminium. Whoever makes these maps please be more accurate

Please read the caption to the map. See my longer comment under uranium.. Turgan Talk 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

error in Characteristics para 2[edit]

Para 2 of the section "Characteristics" starts with the words "can fly to the elements chromium, aluminium and titanium". It is not clear what is meant, so no correction is possible until clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.59.5 (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Nickel be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ?[edit]

Shouldn't Nickel be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nickel as an instrument of war[edit]

Since we were born in Canada 3 day before Pearl Harbour, we have been interested in the use of nickel ever since.

One of the first things we learned was that Canada and Russia controlled the world supply & price of nickel. And, not insignificantly, that nickel was a necessary element to fight any war, using guns. What that role has been, is now in Iraq, and will be in future wars is NOT even mentioned in this topic. Please, we are NOT suggesting that this is the time or place to argue "political" issues, only that one cannot discuss the 20th Century and it's wars, without discussing Nickel. And, we suggest, you can NOT cover Nickel, without at least once mentioning it's critical role in warfare.

Since this is my first view of this page, we are not prepared to suggest anything to you, yet. If it is already covered, please show me where. If it is not covered, we will suggest something for you to consider.

JGBHimself (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Curie Temperature[edit]

The curie temperature of nickel should be added in this article as well as information about its ferromagnetic properties.

ok, here's a reference: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/StephanieMa.shtml -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I added Curie temperature, but sited Kittel's book (unfortunately, the above reference does not comply with the reliable source policy of wikipedia). Materialscientist (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ferromagnetic[edit]

Are there 5, not 4, ferromagnetic elements? I think the onther is Dysprosium, but has a low curie temperature. Jokem (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

More than 5 elements are ferromagnetic at low temperatures, such as dysprosium (85 K), thus 4 refers to room-temperature ferromagnets. Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This link only shows 5 elements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetic, what are the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talkcontribs) 03:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Most lanthanoids, such as erbium, terbium, dysprosium, gadolinium, thulium and maybe some others. See [1], but I'm not sure that article covers them all. Materialscientist (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Electronic configuration[edit]

There is an error in the electron configuration of nickel....it should be [Ar] 4s2 3d8 not what it is right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.185.56.181 (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please post messages at the bottom. The section "Atomic" explains why it is not [Ar] 4s2 3d8. Materialscientist (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Should the electrons per shells not be 2, 8, 16, 2 instead of 2, 8, 16, 1 like it is in the picture ? Bergerondavid (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be 17, 1 instead of 16, 2, (16, 1 is incorrect) but I don't know how to edit SVG to fix that. The .. 17, 1, configuration is a bit more stable than .. 16, 2. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I requested it to be changed at WP:GL/I, and now it's been fixed. Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nickel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vercingetorix08 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well-written[edit]

Pass

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
During a read-through, there were only a few small grammar errors which are easily corrected during a quick read-through.
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
It does..

Factually accurate and verifiable[edit]

Pass

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
True.
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
True.
(c) it contains no original research.
True.

Broad in its coverage[edit]

Pass

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
It does. I felt that the article did a particularly good job of addressing both the chemical and non-chemical aspects of Nickel (i.e. History, etc.) with sufficient, but not excessive, detail.
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Absolutely. The article did a fantastic job of bringing up important aspects of Nickel, such as its Occurrence, while making links to other pages which would describe the intricate details of that subject, such as Nickel Minerals.

Neutral[edit]

Pass

(a)It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
True, to the best of my judgment.

Stable[edit]

Pass

(a)It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
True, based upon the Talk and History pages.

Illustrated by images[edit]

Pass

(a) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
True.
(b) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
True.

Well, that's about it.

PASS Congratulations, to everyone who worked on this article. It is a fantastic job, and a credit to all of you.

Most stable known nuclide[edit]

Section "Isotopes" states: 62Ni is the most stable known nuclide of all the existing elements, even exceeding the stability of 56Fe. This is not true, or at least misleading. That a nuclide has the highest binding energy per nucleon does not imply that it is the most stable.

This is most easily seen when looking at isobars. For example, tritium has a binding energy per nucleon of about 2.827 MeV, whereas helium-3 has only 2.573 MeV. I think that nobody would claim that tritium is more stable than helium-3 (to which it decays). Another example are carbon-14 (7520 MeV binding energy per nucleon) and its daughter nuclide nitrogen-14 (7476 MeV). --ulm (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think if we keep this statement, we need at least to link to a definition of "stability". Rwflammang (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest we just remove this sentence. We already have a clear and presumably correct statement in the second paragraph of the section, which says Nickel-62 has the highest binding energy per nucleon of any isotope for any element (8.7946 Mev/nucleon). That should be sufficient. Dirac66 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
If EE28Ni62 has the highest binding energy, that means that after the creation of EE28Ni58, with 2 extra neutrons, the nucleus was able to accumulate an additional 4 extra neutrons within the nucleus with even a lower binding energy to that minimum value. This and the Isotope EE20Ca40 indicate that the process of accumulation is evidently that of the accumulation of deuterons within a limiting mileau of available extra neutrons such as to act as a controlling factor over the atomic deuteron accumulation process.WFPM (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC) It is to be noted concerning this that the element 28Ni nickel is only 2 elements removed from the end of the 2 + 4 + 4 = 10 transition metal series, and that the 2 extra neutrons of EE29Ni58 could be due to the accumulation of neutrons rather than deuterons in the 29th and 30th locations for deuterons within the structure.WFPM (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
As a corollary to this we might note that in the next element 29Cu copper, the two stable isotopes are reported to be OE29Cu63, with 5 excess neutrons and OE29Cu65, with 7 excess neutrons, which indicates that the criteria for stability had increased to include the stability involved in the accumulation of the 4 more centrally located excess neutrons into the structure.WFPM (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusion/Possible Edit Request[edit]

I was surprised to see a page locked after creating an account to make corrections, and further more to see the label GA on an article, must be a new system. A simple difference of information caught my attention. Wikipedia is most known for its user-friendly qualities. Though often said not to be a credible source by educators, its classification pages are often suggested by science teachers for its organization of taxonomy and elemental qualities. I find it essential that this mistake be corrected. {{Edit semi-protected}} A questionable contradiction with known theories, where the summary tables at the top right, under general properties, states that the Electron configuration of Nickel is [Ar]4s^1 3d^9; and though under Characteristics, the second paragraph states [Ar] 3d^8 4s^2 says it is incorrect, the Reference for direct investigation seems to also state that [Ar] 3d^8 4s^2 has the lower energy? Cyber Englightenment

  • The dominant configuration of bonded Ni0 atoms is neither 3d8 4s2 nor 3d9 4s1, but 3d10, in accordance with simple rule from doi:10.1002/qua.22277
  • This is a common occurence for transition metals such as Ni where the 3d9 4s1 and 3d8 4s2 atomic states are nearly degenerate from doi:10.1021/bk-1987-0353.ch002
  • The Hartree-Fock ground state configuration of a free Ni atom is 3d8 4s2, while the LDA free atom ground state is 3d9 4s1 from doi:10.1088/0031-8949/37/1/020
  • for instance by describing nickel asa mixture of states with the configurations 3d10, 3d9 4s1 and 3d8 4s2 from [2]
  • the lowest /-level average of the free Ni atom has 3d8 4s2 as leading configuration, the lowest LS level average has 3d9 4s1, and chemically bound Ni° has 3d10. from [3]
  • Also in these experiments systematic differences between distributions of atoms in states with a 3d8 4s2 configuration and those of the atoms in states with a 3d9 4s1 configuration are observed.[4]
  • In the crystalline state the configuration of nickel is considered to have a 3d9.4 4s0.6 hybridized configuration as a result of this.[5]
  • 3d8 4s2 is regarded as the ground state.[6]

For me this looks like there is a little bit of discussion on how to look at that problem. --Stone (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC) --Stone (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The requested change should not happen until a consensus is reached.   — Jeff G.  ツ 18:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Nickel electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Nickel electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 10, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-07-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Nickel

Electrolytically refined pure (99.9%) nodules and a 1 cm3 cube of nickel, a silvery-white lustrous transition metal with a slight golden tinge. The nodules have visible green, crystallized nickel-electrolyte salts in the pores. Native nickel is rarely found on Earth's surface, being mostly confined to the interiors of larger nickel–iron meteorites.

Photo: Alchemist-hp
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


Edit request[edit]

I can't add this myself, but I feel that the application section should have more than a passing mention of the use of nickel in batteries, as several different major battery types require the use of nickel. This is mentioned elsewhere in the article, but it seems like it should be in the application section as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keelyellenmarie (talkcontribs) 23:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The boiling temperature for Nickel is widely reported to be 3186-3187 K, not the 3003 K listed in the properties box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.167.216 (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

see Zhang Y; Evans JRG and Zhang S (2011). "Corrected Values for Boiling Points and Enthalpies of Vaporization of Elements in Handbooks". J. Chem. Eng. Data 56 (2): 328–337. doi:10.1021/je1011086. . Materialscientist (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)