Talk:Helium: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:52, 16 April 2013

stability is why it's favored over helium-4... yeah...RIDICULOUS!

The worst part is, this disgusting edit has been around for almost a YEAR without anybody changing it. FOR SHAME!

Mrkbh12 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you support the assertion that 3He is more abundant than 4He in the Sun? It is my understanding that (1) the abundance of 3He in thuchdiuchuchch uex euc LDUDCN<dj-ewudn;EICUNSD;jchiudfvhjdkscn c al_elements]], and also in the solar wind[[1]], and (3) 3He is probably not a significant participant in solar reactions[[2]]. I believe the concentration in the solar wind approximates that on at leascjnalkjvdcj ncjn jkchv sxn DCK D-3730E7DHA;LZBHAES;E5

On 18-08-1868, a solar eclipse day a French scientist Janssen took spectrometer readings from this fort Vijaydurg, one of the oldest forts on sindhudurga coast of India. The stone benches he used for taking the readings are known as “saheb’s kattas” in local language. These spectrometer readings helped in detecting the presence of “Helium”, one of the basic elements on Sun http://www.konkanonline.com/Sindhudurg/Vijaydurg-Fort.html

Is this a reliable source? Ruslik_Zero 20:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The date is the same, and eclipses last such a sort time that he can't have the data from two sites. The article states that it was the eclipse of Guntur, India, but that doesn't mean that the total-eclipse ground track was ONLY at Guntur. These things pass in a linear arc typically for long distances. Janssen may well have been somewhere near, like Vijaydurg fort, in which case it's a simple matter to put in "Vijaydurg fort, during the Guntur, India eclipse of 18 Aug, 1868." I'd like another cite (the WP article on Vijaydurg fort says the same, but uses the same cite), and will look at the web to see if this is mention in any chem histories. How far is Vijaydurg from Guntur, anyway?

This [3] cite gives Vijaydurg fort as the location of the English Platform from which the Englishman J. Norman Lockyear took eclipse readings in 1898. But that isn't right for many reasons, as Lockyear took his readings in 1868, the same year as Janssen, but several months later and not necessarily during an eclipse (evidence is that it was not). This grows ever more mysterious. There was an important eclipse in India in 1898, but none of these helium people took part in that, even if the English did build a "platform". And I very much doubt it would have been in the same part of India anyway.

The wiki article on the eclipse of 18 Aug, 1868, here [4] concludes on the basis of Wikibios that Janssen was in Guntur and Lockyear in Vijaydurg. But that does not make sense, as Lockyear observed helium in non-eclipse situation a month after Janssen, and was not in India at all, but at home in the UK (I just confirmed that). Nevertheless, Janssen's report from India and Lockyear's from the UK arrived at the French Academy on the same day, so they are often treated as codiscoverers. Interestingly, Janssen had constructed the first spectroheliograph soon after the eclipse, and proven to himself that he could see the helium line at the Sun's limb, without needing an eclipse, starting very soon after the eclipse. So he also knew this before Lockyear independently discovered the fact.

Janssen (head of the French team to go to India for the eclipse of 18 Aug 1868) most certainly DID go to India, and saw the Aug 18, 1868 eclipse there at a "camp" near Guntur (Guntoor) town (that might be Vijaydurg fort, or it might not). There was a also a British team there for the same purpose, led by a Col. Tennant, in the same area and the same track, that also saw the eclipse and the helium line (TENNANT might have been at Vijaydurg, especially if the platform there is really an "English platform" for observing that eclipse, and not a French one). The eclipse track was said to have passed through the modern state of Andhra Pradesh [5]. The camps could have been anywhere in the track. Here is more [6] This traveler is unaware that Lockyear didn't go to India. But if these are English platforms perhaps they were built by the Tennant English team, and Lockyear is known to have looked at both the French and the English results (which both showed the helium line) and conclude (from England) that a new element was present, and not sodium. S B H arris 01:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Arbitrary break

There are two article of Jansen describing his trip to the eclips and two biographies:

The Total Solar Eclipse of August 1868. Part I.
The Total Solar Eclipse of August 1868. Part II.
Jules Janssen (1824–1907): From ophthalmology to astronomy doi:10.1007/BF00155012
Pierre Jules Cesar Janssen

If they do not mention anything ....... --Stone (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He writes himself: My observatory was set up at the house of M. Jules Lafaucheur, who kindly placed at my disposal all the first floor of his house, the highest and best situated in Guntoor. Portions of his first floor communicate with a large terrace upon which I had erected a temporary building, answering the purpose of our observations. --Stone (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one [7] also gives a good description.--Stone (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even James Francis Tennant was not there, but in book [8] it is said that one JPEC sponsored expedition made camp and an abandoned coastal for. --Stone (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[9] states that the Joint Permanent Eclipse Committee JPEC was foundedn 1894. You can't belief what you read.--Stone (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[10] states that Maunder in 1898 could not go to Viziadrug because Lockyer was observing there.--Stone (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Well, Viziadrug is indeed our Vijaydurg, so it's probable that Lockyear observed the India eclipse of 1898 indeed there, and perhaps the "English platform" is thus his, from THAT year. But he had long since helped discover helium back in 1868 (30 years before), and that while he was in England, not India. So the mixup is understandable. The eclipse of 1898 in India (which is a known and separate event) didn't have anything to do with helium.
Thanks for the definitive word on where Janssen was for the 1868 Indian eclipse, in which the first use of a spectroscope on an eclipse discovered helium-- he was indeed in Guntur, not in Vijaydurg fort. We still don't know where "Col. Tennant" and the English team in India for 1868 were. I'm not even sure that the "Col. Tennant" who led the English eclipse team to India in 1868 is the same James Francis Tennant, scientist. He may be. But if James F. Tennant, scientist, wasn't in India to see the elicpse of 1868, then these are two different Tennants. S B H arris 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[11] Tennant is the same Tannant. My be I wrote it wrong. He was not at Viziadru, but he was in India! He staid in the house Mr Wilson the sub-collector of Gumtoor and made his observations from the garden of that house. Jannsen was a half mile west of his position.--Stone (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think we've gotten to the bottom of this. Two teams were in India for the Guntur eclipse in 1868, both seeing helium lines for the first time, one English (Tennant's) and one French (Janssen's). Both were near Guntur, neither near Vijaydurg. Janssen, using the first spectrograph on the Sun, found he could see these new lines even when no eclipse was going on, if he aimed near the Sun's limb, to pick up some hot corona. Lockyear in England discovered even before Janssen told him, that he could see helium lines with a spectroscope in England, with no eclipse. He interpreted Janssen and Tennant's data as that of a new element.

The eclipse of 1898 30 years later, was one in which Lockyear participated directly from India. Apparently he did build the platform at Vijaydurg fort for this, but he wasn't interested in finding helium-- all that had been long settled. But the rumors that Vigjaydurg had something to do with finding helium in India persist, due the confusion between the eclipses of 1868 and 1898, and Lockyear (codiscoverer of helium) being personally present in India in Vijaydurg IN 1898 for the eclipse of that year (he hadn't been to India in 1868). You didn't write it wrong. Your source says Viziadrug and that's simply another name for Vijaydurg. Lockyear was there, 30 years after helium's discovery, doing something else with THAT eclipse. S B H arris 09:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think when I read the Lockyear article he makes clear that the eclipse data from India was not used for his findings of Helium. Neither was the data from Jannsen nor from any other eclipse source. He said that all he needed was derived from his own data collected in his garden in London.

One book I mentioned above states for the 1868 eclipse one JPEC sponsored expedition made camp and an abandoned coastal fort the path of the eclipse is going over Vijaydurgand they only used places which were either reachable by train or had a harbour. This makes clear that even in 1868 it might be possible to have some English astronomers at the fort. The platform might be from the 1868 or 1898 expedition, but helium was neither discovered there nor was data used from this expedition for the discovery.--Stone (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC) After a long look into the literature on that topic the edit request finally is declined.--Stone (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color of Helium II

What color is Helium II liquid? Does anyone have access to a link to a color photograph of it? Keraunos (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a black and white photo, but there's no reason to think it's colored. It's described as colorless, just as helium I is. Actually, on closer look the color photo used in this article is a closeup of THIS photo, so the color photo shows superfluid helium already. I'll re-label it. S B H arris 23:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's Helium Reserves to run out in 25 years

Can someone please add this info in the article? It says it's semi-protected and I don't know how to edit it Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1305386/Earths-helium-reserves-run-25-years.html

Thanks!

I think reading:

Reserve, Committee on Understanding the Impact of Selling the Helium; Board, National Materials Advisory; Council, National Research (2010-06-30). Selling the Nation's Helium Reserve. ISBN 9780309149792.

makes me think we still have some helium.

And: The helium is produced by alpha decay in the earth's interior so there will be always new helium we can use.

--Stone (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting of Helium

It seems to me that it would be useful to have an image of helium being wasted uselessly. The photo of the Flying house reenactment of the movie "Up" seems perfect for this. Perhaps someone can upload it to wikimedia commons ? 91.182.130.233 (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Liquid density of Helium at M.P. is 0.125 instead of 0.145. Can be verified by using a number of external sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.194.251.123 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helium density decreases from 0.145 to 0.125 between 0 and 4 K, see, e.g. Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (86th ed.). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. p. 6-120. ISBN 0-8493-0486-5.. Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glow color discrepancy

Image previously used. Definitely purple or violet.

Current Infobox text: "Appearance: [...] exhibiting a purple glow when placed in a high voltage electric field"

Which image and color is "correct"? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oxygen glowing for a long discussion...the tube shown in the previous image is not professionally made, water might have entered during the manufacturing process. User:Materialscientist removed the images, then I added A-hp's images - uploaded by A-hp himself - ([12]) so that we would at least have a good representation. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molar Heat Capacity 5R/2 Wrong ?

As I'm only reading up on this right now (learning), not sure if I'm correct but the Physical Properties side panel shows the Molar Heat Capacity as 5R/2 whereas this Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity (Half way down at the heading "The simple case of the monatomic gas" states it should be 3R/2 for all monatomic gases ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.81.212 (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread. Materialscientist (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha ... Thx ... back to learning then :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.81.212 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish scientists emanating from Uranium

erm... "two Swedish chemists, Per Teodor Cleve and Nils Abraham Langlet, emanating from the uranium ore cleveite"?? Neat trick! Can this be rephrased?Plantsurfer (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were very emanent scientists. S B H arris 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol Plantsurfer (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification

I think the following paragraph:

"By 1995, a billion cubic meters of the gas had been collected and the reserve was US$1.4 billion in debt, prompting the Congress of the United States in 1996 to phase out the reserve.[4][28] The resulting "Helium Privatization Act of 1996"[29] (Public Law 104–273) directed the United States Department of the Interior to start emptying the reserve by 2005."

would be clearer if phrased:

"By 1995, a billion cubic meters of the gas had been collected and the reserve was US$1.4 billion in debt, prompting the Congress of the United States in 1996 to phase out the reserve.[4][28] The resulting "Helium Privatization Act of 1996"[29] (Public Law 104–273) directed the United States Department of the Interior to empty the reserve, starting no later than 2005."

As it is it can be read that the plan was that the reserve would be emptied by 2005. Thanks. Peculiarist (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use in suicides

I just came across Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01723.x, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01723.x instead. which discusses how helium is increasingly being used in suicides in Australia and similar data has come out from the UK (not anywhere near an RS, but the data is from an RS). Should we include this? SmartSE (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. More material on helium's use in this fashion is already quoted in the wiki on suicide bag. The mechanism is discussed at controlled atmosphere killing and nitrogen asphyxiation, which is mostly about capital punishment where nitrogen (nor helium) has ever been used, and which I'm trying to get renamed to inert gas asphyxiation, with subarticles or subsections on different inert gases and homicide vs. suicide. I could use some help on this from editors here, as the nitrogen asphyxiation article seems to be WP:OWNed by one or two editors who are resistant to making any changes in it.

Helium is particularly suitable for inert gas asphyxiation suicide, since it collects at the top of do-it-yourself apparatuses, forming a layer around the head. Otherwise, it's not much different from equally affordable argon or nitrogen. S B H arris 19:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- 42 died in Britain last year due to helium!. The Guardian doesn't explain why... but perhaps it's due to suicides. Either way, it should be covered here in depth. The current article suggests there are few safety issues.Malick78 (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Abundance

Can the following phrase "thus an Earthly helium balloon is essentially a bag of retired alpha particles." be made a bit more encyclopdedic? (For want of a better word) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.132.66 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that bit as unnecessary. Materialscientist (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk Modulus of LHe

In the liquid helium section of this article, it is stated that the bulk modulus of LHe is ~50MPa, and there's a reference to an article discussing solid helium. I believe this is incorrect and that figure probably relates to solid helium. A more commonly assumed/cited bulk modulus of liquid helium is 268 Bar (~27MPa), according to Pressure-volume-temperature relations in liquid and solid4He - E.R. Grilly, J. Low Temp. Phys. 11, 33 (1973). http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3175u35hgnq0127/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.174.73 (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, thanks. A note for readers: Grilly talks about compressibility, which is inverse of the bulk modulus; its value has a significant temperature dependence, especially at the lambda point, and 27 MPa is just an indicative value at approx. 2 K. Materialscientist (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong history

Now we have it: Nature's Building Blocks: Everything You Need to Know About the Elements 2011 gives us the "real" history of Lockyear in Vijaydurg India in 1868. This contradicting his (Lockyers) own description of the events. So do not quote this 2011 version of John Emsley for the discovery of helium, he is wrong.--Stone (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nature's Building Blocks: Everything You Need to Know About the Elements 2003 So do ~~not~~ quote this 2003 version of John Emsley for the discovery of helium, in which he is ~~wrong~~ right.--Stone (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? You mean Lockyear's own account is wrong (which wouldn't be the first time that first-person historical accounts are inflated), but Emsley's historical account, based on many sources, is correct? So we SHOULD quote Emsley? S B H arris 19:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the second Emsley is right from 2003. The newest version of Emsley is wrong and is contradicting the written report of Lockyer from 1868. So lets stick to the old and right version.--Stone (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't notice the different dates at the end of the two Emsley links. I've taken the liberty of adding them in bold to your comments above. If that's not okay with you, of course remove them. S B H arris 18:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to contact Emsley, I only found his phone number and no mail so I try to call him.--Stone (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in contact with Emsley and we try to figure out the story will having a look into the available documents.--Stone (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upper-atmospheric harvesting of helium?

Gases tend to naturally sort themselves by molecular weight, and all of our "lost" helium hasn't actually left the planet. It's just way up in the sky in a hard to access location.

Would it ever be economically feasible to harvest helium from the upper atmosphere, compress and liquify it, and send a container of liquid helium back down to the Earth?

If the concept of a space elevator ever gets off the ground, it could be used as a helium transport method.

DMahalko (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that if you leave a bottle of vodka on the shelf long enough, that the alcohol in it will rise to the top, like cream on whole milk just out of the cow? Sorry, my friend, but nature doesn't work that way. Liquid separation only works when intermolecular forces allow aggregates to form that are large enough that the bouyancy forces on them are large enough compared with the mixing caused by thermal impacts (Brownian motion on this scale). But in a microemulsion separation never happens. Nor does it happen in gases. Oxygen is heavier than nitrogen, but the composition of the atmosphere at sea level is the same as on the top of Mr. Everest. Helium does NOT selectively drift up to the top of the atmosphere. It mixes uniformly, as does the neon that has always been in it. S B H arris 21:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second least reactive element?

How can this be true? What then is the least reactive element?

Asgrrr (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neon. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This must be wrong then, or confusingly worded:

"Helium is the least reactive noble gas after neon and thus the second least reactive of all elements"

Does it mean that Neon is more reactive than Helium, therefore Helium is "after" Neon, or the other way around? This is not good wording.

Asgrrr (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means Ne is even less reactive than He, so He is the least reactive after Ne. Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]