Talk:Lead

Elements B‑class Top‑importance

	Chemistry portal 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.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned in case law.
The citation is in: Godoy v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 2007 WI APP 239 (Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oct. 16, 2007) . Link.

Template:FAOL

Archives

Archive 1

Units for Density

I don't think the units for density for any of the elements are correct. Density is mass PER unit volume. the "per" means "/" not "•".

eg.  ρ_Pb = 11.34 g/cm³.

Maybe the "g•cm³" is a different way to write it, but I think it is confusing. Someone should fix that.

--Drew.wollman 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observe that the actual rendering is g•cm⁻³, which is correct (because of the minus sign in the exponent. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 17:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. I totally spaced the "-".--Drew.wollman 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Lead page one of the density values is listed as: 11.34 g*m3 both the unit "m" is wrong (should be cm) and the exponent "3" is wrong (should be -3) I think it should be: 11.34 g*cm-3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.74.40 (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears correct right now. Wizard191 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who decided it was a good idea to use the CGS system? This is the 21st century, let's get with the MKS style units. 66.206.229.112 (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The figures are identical to specific gravity. The reason for using these is that they come out as small numbers: water is 1, but you can express them as tonnes per cumbic metre, if you prefer - the figures will be the same. MKS would require the inclusion of a factor of 10³. Not so stupid as you thought! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old word for lead

I've been told that lumb is an old word for lead. As a diver I see crates containing lead weight posted lumb for sale but yet there's no mention of it in reference or dictionary links. 87.85.229.34 (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Belinda Gadsby[reply]

Who told you that? "Lumb weights" are made of lead, but so called because produced by Lumb Brothers. William Avery (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what you have picked up is "plumb" -- this is a version of the Latin plumbum. The word occurs for example in plumbline. However that is indicated in the first line of the article, so that no change is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Pencils ==sdfqwetw

I added a bit to the section about pencil lead. The article cited actually contradicted the "pencils never contained lead" statement because the Roman pencil was actually made of solid lead. The wooden covering was an innovation to accommodate the use of more fragile graphite, which is preferred to lead because it leaves a darker mark. (Maybe I should add that to the article too?) Paddingtonjbear (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. IMO, this will do for the lead article, which shouldn't really focus on the history of pencils. Yes, early writing tools were made of lead, but IMO, "stylus" is a more appropriate modern term for those rather than "pencil". Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jingle bells:D