Talk:Xenon

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.
Featured article Xenon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Xenon 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 10, 2008.
WikiProject Elements (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 

Small Xe lamps not short-arc[edit]

The article describes short arc lamps with the following sentence:

"They are employed in typical 35mm, IMAX and the new digital projectors film projection systems, automotive HID headlights, high-end "tactical" flashlights and other specialized uses."

This is not correct. While xenon arc lights certainly are employed in theatrical projection, small xenon-filled lamps in the tens-of-watts range, including car headlights and flashlights, are not short arc lamps. Rather, they are metal halide lamps that happen to use xenon as a gas fill, which is importantly different technology. Witness the fact that they are available in a range of colour temperatures, from a warmish white similar to tungsten lighting all the way up to almost cyan. This is achieved by altering the composition of the metal halide mixture inside the envelope. Xenon arc lamps do not have this option as their output is based entirely on the emission spectra of Xe.

This is complicated by the fact that one manufacturer called their small Xe lamp range "solarc" when they were not arc lamps at all.

This should be corrected.91.85.40.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Isotope error?[edit]

How can Xe-136 decay to Ba-136 by beta decay when the atomic number of barium is 2 higher? Should that be double beta decay or something similar? Ken Arromdee 03:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I cant' find a source to verify what it is as all the sources I can find say Xe136 is a stable isotope.[1] With a half life of 200000000000000000000 years that is stated in the current version of this article, less than 1 part per billion of this stuff would have disappeared from a sample in the time that has elapsed since the big bang happened.Badocter 17:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The sources at talk:isotopes of xenon all set a lower limit, at some 10^21 a. Femto 13:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The isotope EE54Xe136 is unusual with regard to the number of extra neutrons (N-Z value) contained within the stable atom. It has 28 extra neutrons, and after it in the periodic table, the number of extra neutrons per maximum stable isotope declines to 26 for 56Ba, 24 for 58Ce, and finally to 23 for 59Pr. Since the decay modes for extra isotopes amounts in excess to these extra neutron values is that of Beta- emission and the conversion of an extra neutron to a proton, this data indicates the 54Xe136 to be an unusually stable nucleus in order to be able to maintain its stability with this number of excess neutrons. After this area of the periodic table, the extra neutron values of the elements in the progression then return to their usual custom of having an imcremental increase in extra neutrons of 1 additional extra neutron per element.WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that of the 9 reported stable isotopes of 54Xe Xenon, 7 of them are EE's with even numbers of both protons and neutrons and the other 2 are EO's in the center of the order with even protons (54) and odd neutrons (75 and 77). These 2 odd proton isotopes of 54XEe are also noted to be adjacent to the prevalent stability trend line which runs through this area of the nuclide chart and has the formula A = 3Z- 30. Also the 3Z - 30 isotope 54Xe130 is within the stability trend line between the adjacent monisotopic elements OE53I (A=127) and OE55Cs (A=133), which are both strong isotope stability trend line indicators.WFPM (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Also since the atom is considered to be made up of the accumulated but independently spinning nucleons, this data provides an argument for the existence of some kind of a structural concept which results in the allowing of a dynamically balanced addition of the extra neutrons, such as is shown in my image at Talk:nuclear model.WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Xe can't possibly be a greenhouse gas, why does this need a citation?[edit]

Xe is an atomic gas. It doesn't HAVE any molecular bonds to absorb in the IR. Just like every other atomic gas, it can't possibly be a greenhouse gas, does this really need a citation? It's a simple scientific fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.123.27 (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, non-specialist might think monoatomic gas can absorb IR via electronic transitions and request a reference even for basic facts. I added a ref, though it is not about physics of the light absorption. Materialscientist (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Undoubtedly it's a simple scientific fact, so that should make it easy to cite. In my experience, unsourced material is much harder to defend against dubious edits, so it's better to have a reliable source and keep the information in good condition. Especially in an FA'd article. Otherwise you end up with steady increases in unsourced entries and an eventual FAR.—RJH (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy[edit]

There are redundant descriptions of how xenon isotopes are produced at the end of the "Occurrence and production" section and the first paragraph of the "Isotopes" section. I'd like to merge these to save space. Where do you think the information should be consolidated?—RJH (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find that much redundancy, except for the statement about nuclear fission production of Xe-135. However, it seemed better flow to move anything that mentioned specific nuclides of Xe into the isotopes section. And since that section has a lot on astrophysical stuff, I put the stellar production bit in there too, to head it. That leaves commerical production in the non-isotope section, and stellar production in the isotope section. See what you think. SBHarris 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mixing Chemistry and Physics[edit]

The article on Xenon is typical of the element articles in that it mixes the chemical information with the physical information in a chronological and otherwise mixed together manner such that each inquirer has to study the whole thing to hopefully sort out any information that might be useful to him personally. That's more like Newspaper information than encyclopedia information and is probably due to the dynamic nature if the information supplying process. However I think that the information is so dominated by the cronicological and other chemical information that it requires a more organized physical information source such as the CRC handbook in order hopefully organize and better try to understand the basics of the physical information data.WFPM (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WFPM: I usually have difficulty attempting to fully understand what you are trying to communicate, and this is no exception. About all I can say for now is that the article has been read and reviewed by many people, and the presentation order didn't seem to be a significant issue. But there is always room for improvement.—RJH (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess the problem is mine in trying in trying to understand the physical information about the elements without being particularly concerned about their chemistry, and therefor I can disregard most of the chemistry in the CRC handbook and get most of what I want in the Physical properties section. Whereas in your article you jump from chemistry to physics more or less at random, and I lose my train of thought. But I've got a lot of information from Wiki, for which I am appreciative, And some of which I disagree with. And I appreciate your editorial maintenence problems. So keep up the good work.WFPM (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see chemistry-related material here:
  • For the History, mention of the chemistry seems quite appropriate. This should be in chronological order.
  • The Characteristics section has a paragraph on chemistry. Should this section be purely physics? The paragraph on compounds can be moved down to serve as a summary in the Compounds section.
  • The Isotope section discusses dissolving xenon in blood, but otherwise appears free of chemistry.
  • The Compounds section seems to be entirely chemistry.
  • The Applications section inevitably mixes chemistry and physics. I don't see how this can be avoided.
Where are you finding the randomness?—RJH (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems is that chemistry is branch of physics, so why not discuss "chemical topics" in the midst of physics? The only requirement is that chemistry facts should be grouped and kept together, when mentioned near each other. But multiple little chemistry "islands" are fine if the chemistry of xenon comes up without a topical organizatin which is on some other basis, such as it is in many of these articles. You can either cram every chemical fact together in a CHEMISTRY heading, or you can have other headings and discuss relevent chemistry within them (such as "Applications" as noted above). BTW, chemists just nod when you say chemistry is a branch of physics. Their blood pressure only rises when you say chemistry is JUST a branch of physics. SBHarris 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're doing fine! It's just that you're an editor trying to keep a majority of your interested readers informed and at the same time accommodate a lesser number who want to know what is going on on a much more fundamental level. Evidently most of your interested readers are interested in chemistry and application physics as I guess they should be. But a few are interested in how the elements were (and probably still are) being created by accumulation processes going on in say in the Whirlpool Galaxy, where the processes are more physical and fundamental, but still deal with things like the constituency of atoms like those of 54Xenon and the other elements. And with the Wiki system of organization of subject matter, it seams more logical to talk about Xenon in the Xenon section than in the Whirlpool Galaxy section; even though the subject matter details may seem extraneous to the majority of the Xenon section readers.WFPM (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so it sounds like we don't have an issue then. The "Occurance and production" section of this article already discusses (in a general sense) how Xenon is created by stars. The Stellar nucleosynthesis article covers the process of creating the elements (although that article is in need of expansion). I think the more general topic of element abundance belongs in the Abundance of the chemical elements article (also in need of expansion), rather than here.—RJH (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I still think that it is significant to note that 7 of the 9 stable 54He isotopes are EE's and that the 2 EO's are in the center of the range of extra neutron content. But that information is probably appropriate to some other nuclear physics article that I don't know about. The abundance article is informative, but parochial, and your lead section didn't say much about the 9 stable isotopes and lead me to believe that further information about them might be informative. You might be interesting in knowing the 50Sn, with 10 stable isotopes, also has 7 stable EE's plus 3 EO's in the center of the Extra neutron range.WFPM (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC
So after the 10 isotope stable segment of 50Sn nuclides have each accumulated 4 additional deuterons + 4 more extra neutrons they are larger and slightly less stable, and so the lowest of the EO isotopes is able to capture an associated electron and change to the OE isotope OE49I127, which is the only stable isotope of 49Iodine do I make myself clear? Ah! the recipes of Mother nature. Maybe these details would fit into your article on Stellar nucleosynthesis, but it's more of a reference article and I don't know the buzz words of that subject matter.WFPM (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. This page is for the discussion of improvements to the Xenon article. You appear to have wandered off topic, so I will leave off here.—RJH (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay but let's just say that Norman Holden's section in the 87th (2006-2007) CRC handbook only discusses 46 Xe isotopes (between Xe110 and Xe147), with the excess being mostly due to IT (internal transition) gamma emission and which didn't change the atomic number or constituency. So we're in the dreamworld of trying to trying to have an organized discussion of what can best be described as a vast condition of Chaos and I appreciate your efforts to allow and maintain a reasonable discussion of the subject matter. WFPM66.139.109.246 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an isotopes of xenon wiki. It's a main article for the section here, which only discusses the notable ones, which have some common use in geophysics, astrophysics, and nuclear power related applications. Here is not the place to discuss your nuclear structure theories, WFPM (even the isotopes of xenon wiki isn't). SBHarris 19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes! I knew it had to be in there somewhere! And not even referred to in the article! Well I'm glad to know the subject matter has been completely covered, and of course appreciate the additional information.WFPM (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Size of the xenon flash image[edit]

The download size of the Xenon flash image is 496 Kb, by far the largest on this article. The next largest is the XeF4 crystals at 95 Kb. The text itself is only 80 Kb. Thus the flash image is probably a big reason this page takes the amount of time it does to download.—RJH (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia software sends entire file for animated GIFs no matter the thumb size. Cropped and slowed down. 246kb now. Converted "crystals" to JPG - another 70k or so. Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That seemed to help.—RJH (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New medical application[edit]

Does this perhaps deserve a mention? First baby given xenon gas to prevent brain injury Fmpi (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a medical specialist, so I don't know if this treatment differs than the statement, "Thus it can be used in concentrations with oxygen that have a lower risk of hypoxia." Otherwise I'd say yes to mentioning the treatment; I'm not sure that a mention of the infant is necessary. Here are what appear to be related (but more technical) cites: [2][3] Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Location of pronunciation info[edit]

I noticed my edit was reverted. Other webpages on individual elements include the pronunciation immediately after the word if the element's pronunciation is not straight forward. Refer Aluminum, Cerium ,Scandium, Manganese, Gallium and many others(List of elements). As a result people expect the pronunciation information to be there. I, like many others did not/do not, know to look in the info box. This page should use the convention that has been agreed upon throughout all of Wikipedia. Given that the pronunciation of Xenon is particularly tricky, this element in particular should have it at the very beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.112.65 (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Putting the pronunciation in the first sentence is (to me at least) an unpleasant, if not annoying, interruption in the flow. (The pronunciation being perhaps the least important aspect of the topic.) There is already a slot for it in the infobox. The issue of this approach was raised on the element infobox talk page, but no objection was raised so I see no problem with the approach. It works fine on articles like hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and neon.—RJH (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't like moving it either, as it may seem to be low-importance interuptive info for people who know how to say it already, but not for anybody else. I think that the chemists who already know how to say xenon, copernicium, periodic acid and 1-buten-3-yne, have forgotten both their roots and the people who these WP articles are supposed to be written for.SBHarris 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this topic needs to be hashed out in a general discussion. There appears to be a small but highly motivated group who believe pronunciation information is remarkably important; another group like me who just want it out of the damn way, and the majority who don't seem to care. I thought that putting the pronunciation in the infobox would be a happy middle ground, but I guess that isn't the case. Maybe with a general discussion we can get it moved over to the wictionary, where I think it belongs. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Refer to Template_talk:Infobox_element#Pronunciation for discussion. Refer to here for MOS discussion. Dave3457(talk) 21:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional Picture[edit]

I believe that this picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XeTube.jpg from Pslawinski would fit well in this arcticle, as it is one of a series of similar pictures shown in every other previous noble gas arcticle. Lloyd James 03:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyd.james0615 (talkcontribs)

Unfortunately we already have two images in the article that illustrate the same concept. (See Wikipedia:Layout#Images for example.) But it might be worthwhile to set up a gallery on the commons.—RJH (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Other Illumination Use[edit]

Why is there nothing in this article regarding the use of xenon gas in the bulbs of automobiles equipped with High-Intensity-Discharge headlamps? Initially beginning in the early to mid '90s certain cars (typically expensive European variety) began to use HID lighting and since then the use of HID lights has become much more prolific. Troverman (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Because we were all waiting for you to show up and add it in, along with the necessary citations. :-) Seriously, if you have a useful addition to make, please do so. See WP:BEBOLD. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note per the "Gas-discharge lamps" section[edit]

I removed the following sentence from the article because it had been tagged as unsourced since March. It looks like it is probably true, but I couldn't find a suitable source after a brief search. Given a suitable references, it can always be added back in.

Xenon is the largest and heaviest non-radioactive noble gas and so its rate of diffusion and leakage through a glass or other envelope is minimal relative to alternative inert gases.

Regards, RJH (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2011[edit]

While Xenon was discovered in England it was discovered by the Scottish Nobel laureate. Could this be changed.

187.56.2.233 (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly needs to be changed? It was discovered in London, by a Scottish and a British chemists. Materialscientist (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and added nationalities and professions to the names listed in that section. The 1904 Nobel prize in Chemistry was for inert gases in general, rather than Xenon in particular. Lord Rayleigh also received a 1904 Nobel prize for discovering Argon, so he also deserves some credit. Personally I think that should be covered elsewhere. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

update on double beta decay[edit]

I don't seem to be able to edit the main page but $^136$Xe has been shown to decay via double beta decay [1]

If I might make a suggestion: that might be something worth adding to the Isotopes of xenon article. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of stable isotopes[edit]

This edit change the listed number of stable isotopes from nine to eight. This matches the total on the "Isotopes of xenon" article, but it disagrees with the total in the infobox. This USGS web page lists nine stable isotopes. One of these totals would seem to be incorrect Regards, RJH (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is because on This USGS web page they have 136Xe as stable. However the EXO-200 experiment [dbd 1] has shown this not to be the case.Dja1979 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It looks like the infobox will need to be updated then. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Is a half-life many orders of magnitude longer than the age of the observable universe really "unstable"? Aren't protons themselves eventually unstable? --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Protons are stable in the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SM). In some extensions to the SM predicts that the proton is unstable but this has not been observed, so the proton is considered stable. As for the 136Xe halflife being long therefore being stable, yes if you have one atom then it is unlikely to decay while you watch it, but you normally have many mols of atoms, so a certain number of these will decay on human time scales. Enriched Xenon Observatory observed >1000 decays.Dja1979 (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ackerman, N.; Aharmim, B., Auger, M., Auty, D., Barbeau, P., Barry, K., Bartoszek, L., Beauchamp, E., Belov, V., Benitez-Medina, C., Breidenbach, M., Burenkov, A., Cleveland, B., Conley, R., Conti, E., Cook, J., Cook, S., Coppens, A., Counts, I., Craddock, W., Daniels, T., Danilov, M., Davis, C., Davis, J., deVoe, R., Djurcic, Z., Dobi, A., Dolgolenko, A., Dolinski, M., Donato, K., Dunford, M., Fairbank, W., Farine, J., Fierlinger, P., Franco, D., Freytag, D., Giroux, G., Gornea, R., Graham, K., Gratta, G., Green, M., Hägemann, C., Hall, C., Hall, K., Haller, G., Hargrove, C., Herbst, R., Herrin, S., Hodgson, J., Hughes, M., Johnson, A., Karelin, A., Kaufman, L., Koffas, T., Kuchenkov, A., Kumar, A., Kumar, K., Leonard, D., Leonard, F., LePort, F., Mackay, D., MacLellan, R., Marino, M., Martin, Y., Mong, B., Montero Díez, M., Morgan, P., Müller, A., Neilson, R., Nelson, R., Odian, A., O’Sullivan, K., Ouellet, C., Piepke, A., Pocar, A., Prescott, C., Pushkin, K., Rivas, A., Rollin, E., Rowson, P., Russell, J., Sabourov, A., Sinclair, D., Skarpaas, K., Slutsky, S., Stekhanov, V., Strickland, V., Swift, M., Tosi, D., Twelker, K., Vogel, P., Vuilleumier, J.-L., Vuilleumier, J.-M., Waite, A., Waldman, S., Walton, T., Wamba, K., Weber, M., Wichoski, U., Wodin, J., Wright, J., Yang, L., Yen, Y.-R., Zeldovich, O. (2011). "Observation of Two-Neutrino Double-Beta Decay in ^{136}Xe with the EXO-200 Detector". Physical Review Letters 107 (21). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.212501. 

Update External Link[edit]

I am the program coordinator of the ACS-National Historic Chemical Landmarks program. I have updated the references to ACS-NHCL web content, as that page have been replaced by (http://portal.acs.org/portal/PublicWebSite/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/progesteronesynthesis/index.htm). KLindblom (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Obviously Xenon is a word that needs the pronunciation. I recommend it be restored next to the word. It is fine to also have it in the info box, but if I am reading an article and come to an odd word I expect either a wikilink to that subject or the pronunciation of that word right there if it is the subject of the article. I see no reason for fixing something that is not broken. Apteva (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously? You can sound it out just by looking at it. Anyone w access to WP can look it up, say at dict.com. Anyone with the most elementary paperback dictionary can look it up. Per WP:NOTADICTIONARY it shouldn't be there, but we don't bother much with that with articles that are poorly developed. But this article is FA, and has it in the info box. The duplicate violates WP:CONTENTFORK. This is a problem because soon the two transcriptions will diverge. Which should the reader follow then? — kwami (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This is such an obvious case that it barely needs commenting, but content fork refers to building a second article xenon 54 and changing the content. Should the article stop after the first sentence it would be a dictionary entry. "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." When the article was promoted to FA it included pronunciation[4], because no matter how obvious an xe is pronounced to some people obviously xenon was felt to warrant including pronunciation. The article Campbell's Soup Cans, also an FA, did not feel the need to offer pronunciation guidance. WP is very egocentric. If we use a word that is not very common, we never link to wiktionary, but if there is a wikipedia article on the subject we link to it, instead of expecting readers to google it or look it up in a dictionary. Apteva (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Xenon and dopping[edit]

The inhalation of xenon induces the Hypoxia-inducible factor 1, alpha subunit and down stream activates the production of erythropoietin. This method is used as a general method to improve the abilities of athletes.[2] [3][4][5]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Ackerman, N.; Aharmim, B., Auger, M., Auty, D., Barbeau, P., Barry, K., Bartoszek, L., Beauchamp, E., Belov, V., Benitez-Medina, C., Breidenbach, M., Burenkov, A., Cleveland, B., Conley, R., Conti, E., Cook, J., Cook, S., Coppens, A., Counts, I., Craddock, W., Daniels, T., Danilov, M., Davis, C., Davis, J., deVoe, R., Djurcic, Z., Dobi, A., Dolgolenko, A., Dolinski, M., Donato, K., Dunford, M., Fairbank, W., Farine, J., Fierlinger, P., Franco, D., Freytag, D., Giroux, G., Gornea, R., Graham, K., Gratta, G., Green, M., Hägemann, C., Hall, C., Hall, K., Haller, G., Hargrove, C., Herbst, R., Herrin, S., Hodgson, J., Hughes, M., Johnson, A., Karelin, A., Kaufman, L., Koffas, T., Kuchenkov, A., Kumar, A., Kumar, K., Leonard, D., Leonard, F., LePort, F., Mackay, D., MacLellan, R., Marino, M., Martin, Y., Mong, B., Montero Díez, M., Morgan, P., Müller, A., Neilson, R., Nelson, R., Odian, A., O’Sullivan, K., Ouellet, C., Piepke, A., Pocar, A., Prescott, C., Pushkin, K., Rivas, A., Rollin, E., Rowson, P., Russell, J., Sabourov, A., Sinclair, D., Skarpaas, K., Slutsky, S., Stekhanov, V., Strickland, V., Swift, M., Tosi, D., Twelker, K., Vogel, P., Vuilleumier, J.-L., Vuilleumier, J.-M., Waite, A., Waldman, S., Walton, T., Wamba, K., Weber, M., Wichoski, U., Wodin, J., Wright, J., Yang, L., Yen, Y.-R., Zeldovich, O. (NaN undefined NaN). "Observation of Two-Neutrino Double-Beta Decay in ^{136}Xe with the EXO-200 Detector". Physical Review Letters 107 (21). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.212501.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Breathe it in". the Economist. Feb 8th 2014.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ . doi:10.1007/s00101-010-1788-5.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ . doi:10.1681/ASN.2008070712.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ . doi:10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283212cbb.  Missing or empty |title= (help)

Speed of sound in xenon gas[edit]

Where does the infobox value of 169 m·s−1 come from? It's not in Speeds of sound of the elements (data page), though the quoted value for liquid xenon (1090 m·s−1) is. Double sharp (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)