Talk:Iron

Magnetic Saturation

irono magnetis to the table of physical properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmic love monkey (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Electron config

4s is filled before 3d right? So I guess it should be [Ar]4s2 3d6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.91.197 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

you're right, that should be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.89.232.179 (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Electron configurations are written in the leaving order, not the filling order. 4s is ionized first, so it gets written second. (And 4s does not really fill before 3d. That's the sloppy aufbau, and it gives the right overall electron configuration for completely the wrong reasons.) Double sharp (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Soft metal

In the intro, iron is described as a silvery soft metal. How soft is soft? Soft is a relative term, meaningless without reference to a standard - soft by comparison with what? I suggest removing the word if it cannot be defined. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I elaborated on the softness and added brinell values with references. --Wizard191 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the statement made that iron is softer then aluminum in its unalloyed state? The article plainly shows that it has a greater hardness then aluminum in its elemental form (Mohs hardness for iron 4, Mohs hardness for aluminum 2.75). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.151.202 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

protection

why is this page fully protected yet i can edit it?Gopal81 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC) and also, what's with the "create" section of this page?

You can edit it because you are registered. You added the "create" section. --Wizard191 (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Iron, nickel, meteorites and stellar nucleosynthesis?

The intro says: "Iron is the heaviest element produced by stellar nucleosynthesis; heavier elements require a red giant or supernova for their formation. Iron and nickel are therefore the most abundant metals in metallic meteorites and in the dense metal cores of planets such as Earth". Firstly, this doesn't make sense since nickel is heavier than iron. Secondly, the article on stellar nucleosis lists amongst most important reactions in stellar nucleosynthesis "production of elements heavier than iron" and states that stellar nucleosis. Can someone please clarify this? I came here looking for an explanation and have come away more confused than before. Thanks --Irrevenant [ talk ] 07:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is (I understand) the result of nuclear physics. Atomic weights are normally expressed as integers, but in fact they are not exactly such. Thus the fusion of two deuterium atoms to form helium involves a loss of mass, which is emerges as energy. This is the power source that drive the sun and stars. Energy continues to be released as fusion occurs to progressively larger atoms until iron. After iron, energy has to be put in to make larger atoms. Accordingly, iron is the most stable element. The release of energy by nuclear fusion can go no further. At least, that is what I was taught at school. The reference to nickel looks wrong, but I do not propose to alter the article on the basis of what my chemistry master explained nearly 40 years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the answer to your question, but upon a little research there is an article called iron meteorite which states that metallic meteors are mostly comprised of iron and nickel. It sort of dead-ends there where the nickel comes from. Perhaps you might want to go to that talk page and post your question, because you'll probably get better results. I have changed the sentence slightly to link there and removed the connection to the nucleosynthesis. Wizard191 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Peterkingiron this might explain a bit more: Nickel has lower bonding energy per nucleon then iron but it is very close. iron has the highest bonding energy per nucleaon and therefore if you wanted to extract the largers amount of the nuclear enegry from nutrons and protons, you would fuse them into iron. the term 'stable' is a bit problematic IMHO since stability depends on the environemnt and under normal conditions most naturally occuring isotopes are 100% stable and will last forever if they are not subjected to radiation. instad of 'stable' i would say something like this "in instellar nucleosynthesis conditions, iron is the favored product since it will not release enegry in a nuclear recation. lighter elements then iron can release energy by fusing into heavier elements, while heavier elements will release energy by breaking down into lighter components" in reality, heavier elements are created but their creation consumes enegry rather then releases energy and and that is only possible because there is a lot of radiation and very high temperatures that can 'give' the required energy. so once you have a stellar body that is composed of heavy elements and is radioactive it will eventually produce elements closer and closer to iron until it can no longer release any more energy and will start getting less radio active and colder, eventually collapsing and then either transforming into a denser body (neutron star perhaps) or exploding (supernova?). i'm no expert in atronomy, but the physics is clear, in a situation where nuclear reaction are happening all th time and heavy elements are abundant, iron is the most favourable final product. source of info: ginacolli physics chapter 30 and 31 (i didn't copy anything form there but that's where i learned it from). After reading a bit more, it seems that nickel is quite abundant as the author explained; though it is heavier then iro it is very close to iron and is produced

Well, the above is not really correct. Sorry. See Nickel, Binding energy, Stellar nucleosynthesis, Isotopes of nickel, etc. The stable nuclide with the highest binding energy is actually nickel-62, followed by iron-58 and iron-56. The reason you see so much more iron-56 around than the other two, is not because of energy considerations. Rather, inside a type Ia supernova, there's an excess of energy but not enough neutrons, so what gets produced is the nuclide which is "pretty close to most tightly bound" and "pretty stable," with the constraint of using fewest neutrons (or at least equal numbers of neutrons and protons, since this is being done with helium). That's nickel-56, with a half-life of 6 days. It is Ni-56 (atomic number 28 of course) that gets made in quantity from helium (you see it's just 14 alpha particles), and blown into space. Especially see Silicon burning process, which I think I'll link back here. We've seen lightcurve decays of massive amounts of this Ni-56 decay to Co-56, then Fe-56, in new supernova clouds. All the Fe-56 you see around you is radiogenic-- it was originally radioactive nickel-56 when first blasted out into space, then quickly become iron-56. SBHarris 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AS I made clear my knowledge of the subject is about 40 years old. I am happy to leave this subject to experts. My response should be regarded as a "holding" response, to be ignored when better information was made available. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry-- I just had to look it up again myself. The basic problem is that people who understand this kind of thing don't explain in the simplest way. Elements from helium to iron are dominated in universal abundance (depending on the type of supernova they came from) by various sets of nuclides made of even numbers of alphas. The problem is that Ca-40 (10 alphas) is the last stable nuclide-- everything heavier with equal proton and neutron numbers, is radioactive. 56 nucleons from 14 alphas is near the most stable size, and not too unstable radioactively (6 day half life) and that's Ni-56. But 60 nucleons made from 15 alphas (Zn-60) has a half-life of only 2.4 minutes, so you can see it's energetically bad because of an increasingly wrong proton/neutron ratio. So He-fusion sticks at Ni-56, and all our iron-56 is from that. There's no "easy" way to make Ni-62, or any of the stable Ni isotopes, out of alpha particles. SBHarris 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you Sbharris for correcting me and clarifying this topic. i was totally unaware that nickel nickel 62 has the highest binding energy per nucleon and not iron 56. thankfully someone corrected me, and hopefully it will be corrected in the article itself by someone, as the information in the public article seems incorrect. iron 56 is *not* "the heaviest stable isotope produced by the alpha process in stellar nucleosynthesis". stellar nucleosynthesis seems quite a complex process, but IMHO, since this article is not about that but rather about iron, it does not have to go too deep into that. just simply state that iron one of the heaviest stable isotopes that are produced by stellar nucleosynthesis in red giants, and it is the most abundant metal since it is the most favorable product of that (stellar nucleosynthesis) process. (i hope i got it right this time). Hrneo (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Iron ore mining distribution

This is just about the map that shows the distribution of iron mining in the world. The map shows that six iron ore mines are in the south east of Australia. If I am not mistaken some of the biggest iron ore mines in the world are in the west of Australia with very few if any in the east of Australia. Perhaps the map should be replaced by something more accurate or just taken down

Please read the caption to the maps, and see the comments on all your other similar posts for the varuious metals... Turgan ^Talk 18:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Organisms that do not require iron

Borrelia burgdorferi, the Lyme disease spirochete, is an example of a species that does not require iron to grow (PMID:10834845). Even so, Borrelia has a protein, BicA, capable of binding iron (PMID: 23061404), so the statement "Iron-proteins are found in all living organisms" may be technically true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel haft (talk • contribs) 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Effects of Iron from red meat

Currently the section on dietary intake of iron states "heme/hemoglobin from red meat has effects which may increase the likelihood of colorectal cancer." I don't think this statement can be accurately concluded from the two articles provided as references. The first article was about rats fed a diet high in red meat hemoglobin, and it was found that the rats had higher level of cytotoxic materials in their fecal water. It was also found that the rats had lower levels of cytotoxic lipids and fatty acids. Fecal matter is removed from the body for a reason - its nature is cytotoxic, and also I don't think we can use this to conclusively link red meat hemoglobin to human incidence of colorectal cancer. The authors say that their previous studies show that cytotoxic compounds may lead to epithelial proliferation which is a risk factor for colorectal cancer. However as far as I can see in their previous work, cytotoxic fatty acids were what was shown to induce epithelial proliferation, but the results of this study were that that cytotoxic fatty acid compounds were reduced, not increased by red meat hemoglobin consumption. The second article showed that hemoglobin and hemin from red meat shows cytotoxic effects when placed in cultures of colonocytes (colon cells) and cancer cells in vitro. I just dont see how this data can be related to the in vivo condition for a number of reasons. First, its unlikely whole hemoglobin/hemin would make it through the stomach without being at least partially broken up. Secondly, the colon is not just colonocytes but also contains mucus membrane, epithelial cells, bacterial flora etc all of which contribute to the in vivo condition and may shield colonocytes from cytotoxic effects. Also, should we really be surprised when animal proteins placed in culture with human cells exhibit cytotoxicity? Is this anything more than a simple immune response? In fact the study showed that the hemoglobin was also cytotoxic to cancer cells... if I were to draw scientific conclusions as readily as some I might even say this effect reduces likelihood of colorectal cancer (lets not go that far). The second study also claims that previous studies have shown that although processed red meat and unprocessed red meat have similar quantities of hemoglobin, the processed red meat correlates more significantly to colorectal cancer than unprocessed red meat, which seems to indicate that factors other than red meat hemoglobin may be responsible for incidence of colorectal cancer. If there are further studies which conclusively link red meat hemoglobin to incidence of colorectal cancer in HUMANS, they should be properly cited as the source for these claims. If not, I think this should be removed from the article, because I don't think its a scientifically valid conclusion to draw from those cited studies. I'm going to continue researching the subject so maybe I'll see I'm completely wrong, but if thats the case hopefully I can provide a better source for the claim than what is currently provided.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.40.171 (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 

Needed for B-Class

• The precaution section should be made. If iron is the most common toxicological causes of death in children under six we need a precautions section. The point that the article Iron poisoning is not linked to the article is quite strange. (done)
• The applications section and the compounds section needs a transformation to pros. (done)
• Without a chemistry section this article is not close to B but more likly a C-Class. (done)
• Banded iron formation as the largest source for iron ore and the history of change in earths atmosphere from reducing to oxidizing conditions might be a point to be mentioned somwhere.
• The difference between iron(III) and iron(II) in biology has to be added. The bio availibility of reduced iron is mentioned in one sentence, but this is the key point for the bioavailibility.
• The applications section only gives the metalic iron applications, but there should be others applications.(someone added too much compound info, removed most of it)--Stone (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All made more valid considering this is a Vital article. Changed to C class and I copied your points to the assessment comments subpage. --mav (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

History section

Iron is such an ubiquitous metal that an enormous amount can be said. This is why the history sections of a number of metallurgy articles were combined into a single one. The section here has just been tagged "Expand". What is thought to be missing? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The history of iron should be at least twice as long and it should contain inline references. --Stone (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Iron in Religion

I have removed the link to iron in the Koran, unless the article should also have a link to iron in the Bible, the Vedas, the Avesta, Norse legends etc. It is partisan and illogical to have just one internal link about iron in religion. Aksel89 (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

why remove it if it is a fact? the Koran "exists", and the verse about Iron in it "exists" .. therefore it is a "fact" that there is a refernce to Iron as a metal created by stellar nucleosynthesis in the Koran .. and that it is in line with the scientific references in the article .. please retain it, and if you can find other references to iron in other religious scriptures, pls add them too.. If other references to iron are missing/not available from other scriptures, that does not mean that the reference to it in the Koran is not true/doesnt exist .. actually, in essence, removing the link IS partisan .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATantawy (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, unencyclopedic; lets keep it out. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was the reference to the religion of evolution not removed? Evolution is just as scientifically unsound and faith based as any of the previously mentioned religions.

Who gave you the right to remove it ? As ATantawy sated it's mentioned in the Qr'an and it's a fact !! Just because there are NO mentioning of the Iron in the other religions'books does not make it illogical !!! GET IT BACK !! 188.52.10.224 (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Preacautions" (sic)?

The "Preacautions" section seems rather unnecessary given it's empty and the content of the section right before it ("Regulations of uptake") covers the topic quite well. Plus it is misspelled. (I haven't edited enough pages yet to be allowed to edit the page myself.) LordEniac (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Nergaal is populating the article with sections that the article requires. I've fixed the spelling problem. Wizard191 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

"Iron provided by dietary supplements is often found as iron (II) fumarate, although iron sulfate is cheaper and is absorbed equally well."

This needs a citation, as does most of the article, but I can't seem to edit the page. AhsenM (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Anyone got a better picture of some iron? The photo at the top of this article is very poor quality! -- CharlesC (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Iron is so ubiquitous that a picture could be taken of anyting. A girder, a nail, a car frame, labaratory grade iron, iron powder, steel rope, a screw, etc. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The image has been very much improved since september 2009 (this version). The current image in the infobox is not bad. Materialscientist (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I could see that picture is very nondescript. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Question on Talk:History of ferrous metallurgy

I asked a question here but thought this page probably gets much more attention than that page, so thought I would note it here. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture of unit cell

Found a nice picture of the bcc unit cell on commons. The article is protected, maybe a registered user could add this image. 91.21.205.152 (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but we usually don't overload element articles with unit cell pictures as those are rather basic (fcc, bcc, hcp is almost the whole list). A link to the article works better in this case. Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

One Fourth?

Under the blast furnace section, China is quoted as producing one fourth of world production. One quarter is probably more commonplace language, especially to a layperson. 157.203.42.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC).

Agreed and changed. Materialscientist (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Catalysis

Iron is experiencing a surge of interest in the field of catalysis due to its high abundance and low cost. Specifically, iron analogues of existing ruthenium and osmium-based catalysts are being tested for activity due to iron being isoelectronic with the more expensive second- and third-row transition metals (and thereby exhibiting the same reactivity). Applications include Fisher-Tropsch and transfer-hydrogenation catalysis. (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 3317 – 3321). I don't yet have editing privileges on semi-locked articles. Bondith (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Bondith

Added, in rephrased form. Materialscientist (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, except it's not iron nanoparticles that are being used in catalysis. They're coordination complexes. Bondith (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Corrected (I had no access to the article yesterday and assumed nanoparticles because of my background :). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, there are nanoparticles in my background too. I've been hanging out on Wikipedia for a long while now and finally decided to pitch in. What else does this article need to move it up a grade in the ratings? Bondith (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you accumulate 5 more edits anywhere, you'll be able to edit semi-protected articles directly. Speaking of improving the grade, the applications need to be rewritten from a bulleted list into a smooth prose, and history needs expansion. I don't ask you to do that, as this might be a dull task, but we would appreciate your help in any directions which might interest you. Other chapters of iron are not perfect too and there are thousands of chemical articles around :). Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

iron tetrafluoride

The only mentioning I could find of iron tetrafluoride was Mass spectrometric and FTIR spectroscopic identification of FeF4 molecules in gaseous phase doi:10.1016/S1387-7003(03)00070-4 which is only a primary source. Is there a secondary source for that?--Stone (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is cited in this section as ref. 193, but for MnF₄. Also cited by doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2008.07.014, which is a large review, but I can't read it. Materialscientist (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2008.07.014 says: The highest iron fluoride characterized experimentally beyond doubt thus far is FeF3 .--Stone (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

barium ferrate(IV) or strontium ferrate(IV) might be better examples.doi:10.1016/0022-4596(91)90263-H, and HoWi --Stone (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

questions about diet

The health and diet section reads, in part

+ Iron provided by dietary supplements is often found as iron(II) fumarate, although iron sulfate is cheaper and is absorbed equally well. Elemental iron, or reduced iron, despite being absorbed to a much smaller extent (stomach acid is sufficient to convert some of it to ferrous iron), is often added to foods such as breakfast cereals or enriched wheat flour. Iron is most available to the body when chelated to amino acids—iron in this form is 10 to 15 times more bioavailable than any other, and is also available for use as a common iron supplement.

A few things jump out at me. First, "(stomach acid is sufficient to convert some of it to ferrous iron)" looks like original research to me, and should probably not be included if it can't be referenced. Also, in the journal article cited, i can't find any claim like is made in the article of 10-15 times. They do write, "Apparent iron bioavailabilities were calculated at 26.7% for FeS04 and 90.9% for ferrous bis-glycinate chelate." But never write, "ten", "10", "fifteen", nor "15" in the abstract or body of the article. Am I missing something? 0¹⁸ (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems a trivial fact that elemental iron dissolves in a strong aqueous acid like HCl to give Fe²⁺ (aq).--Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that on a bench top, you should be able to oxidize iron this way, especially with a concentrated acid and heat. As for bioavailability, I'm don't see how this is obvious. First off, the pH isn't that low in the stomach, and there is a lot of other things in the mixture other than HCl and water. I'm not saying an iota won't be absorbed, but it is not obvious this is an important process. 0¹⁸ (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it may not be "obvious," but it's a question that can be settled by experiment. In humans with normal acid production, various preparations of fine elemental iron are absorbed from 36% to 65% as well as the iron in iron sulfate. [1] Is that "significant," or not? That depends on your point of view. SBHarris 18:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a source! Now we can put it in the article and update, "to a much smaller extent" to 36-65%. 0¹⁸ (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

black iron

What is the black iron mentioned in many Wikipedia articles?[2].

Is black iron some specific kind of wrought iron or some specific kind of cast iron, or is it a generic term for any kind of iron that happens to have firescale or mill scale, the black oxide typical when iron is heated in air? Is there a connection between the terms "black iron" and "blacksmith"? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sentence structure

The last sentence under the section "Cast iron" within the sub-heading "History" may need revision. It reads, "Since iron was becoming cheaper and more plentiful, it also became a major structural material following the building of the innovative first first iron bridge in 1778."

The word "first" is used twice consecutively in the latter part of the sentence. Granted, "first iron bridge" is an internal-link. Apm963 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed "doubled first". The article is yet unshaped and thus the prose will hopefully be rewritten. Materialscientist (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This has been my third attempt in almost a year to add the British pronunciation. Please don't remove it once again! This is what it looks like now: (US /ˈaɪ.ərn/, US /ˈaɪrn/ and UK /ˈaɪən/). Two standard pronunciations in American English, one in British English. If you doubt me, consult Cambridge UP's Daniel Jones English Pronouncing Dictionary. --Akkolon (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been changed once again, at least in the infobox. Can someone please restore it to the /r/-less UK pronunciation? (I think the /r/ is pronounced in some dialects of Scottish English, but it's definitely a mispronunciation in RP). 46.115.1.226 (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The UK pronunciation hasn't been removed, but only one US pronunciation is given in the infobox. – anna 10:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Azurajalal, 24 February 2011

ok here goes... there is an entire chapter (the 57th chapter, 29 verses) in the Quran called al-Hadid: The Iron and I want to put this piece of info somewhere in the page.

Its bold, alright. And since there is a mention somewhere of a reference to the Book of Genesis, why not the Quran? Plus, this is the International Year of Chemistry 2011 :)

Cheers from Dunedin, NZ

Azurajalal (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The text already states that that iron is mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago, and the embedded pipelink for "Quran mentions" indeed goes to Al-Hadid. SBHarris 06:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Quibbles

1.a. Iron ores. Masabi Range in US. Mass precipitation of Hydrated Ferric Oxides by microorganisms after Oxygen release after photosynthesis began. Ferrous ion still being oxidized by microorganisms at "smoker" vents at undersea spreading centers.

1.b. Alluvial Magnetite concentrations. (China, Korea)

2. Edison Battery (Fe-KOH-NiO₂) reversibly plates out Iron on charging.

3. Primitive Man knew Native Copper and Native Silver and Gold metals probably also Meteoritic Iron.

4. "trace amounts of magnesium to alter the shape of graphite to spheroids," because flake graphite found in untreated iron propagates cracks along the flakes. And trace amounts is about 50PPM because Magnesium BOILS over 500 degrees C BELOW Iron's melting temperature. Cerium is also used (see ductile iron) at around 1000PPM in unrefined form Mischmetal.

5. The second paragraph about rust is inaccurate. Iron has a more heterogeneous surface than most metals; with Iron metal, Ferrites, and Carbon/Graphite having different surface potentials. Rust requires the formation of an electrolytic cell consisting of anodic pits with the surface mass acting as cathode. Due to current flow, soluble Ferrous ions travel out of the pits where they become oxidized to the more insoluble polymeric Ferric Oxide/Hydroxide which precipitates near the surface. This has NOTHING to do with the made up "iron oxides occupy more volume than iron metal". And not ALL iron oxides are Rust. Black Ferric Oxide created by strong oxidizer like Nitric Acid conforms to surface like Aluminum Oxide.

6. -40 degrees C winter temps in central US and Canada (even colder) and "Dry Ice" @ -78 C cause embrittlement of Iron alloys due to phase change. This is not noted.

Shjacks45 (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. If you have references for this stuff, go ahead and add it. WP:SOFIXIT. SBHarris 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

--Stone (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

/'ai.əɹn/? or, if accents are to be included:

US1: ['ai.əɹn] US2: ['ai.əɻn] US3: ['aiɚn] UK: [aiən]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starprizm (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hardness

In the Miscellanea section you have put the Vickers and Brinell hardness in units of MPa. It is true that the hardness is derived from an indent caused by stress, but this is not the proper way to report hardness. Vickers for example has its own scale and is reported as x HV y or just x HV where x is the hardness number and y is the load used. The hardness number itself is just a relative value reported with the rating scale used. HB for Brinell scale and HV for Vickers scale.Galdar84 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fe redirect

Does really Fe have to redirect to Iron? Ca, Hg, or Pb do not redirect to Calcium, Mercury (element) or Lead, for example. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. You have a point. Since there are two of us, I'll try to fix this unless we get massive objections from others. SBHarris 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss change in Fe at Talk:Fe. "Fe" might have a primary topic when "Hg" doesn't, for example. If the new consensus is that "Fe" no longer has a primary topic, Fe (disambiguation) will need to be moved to the base name, otherwise it's WP:MALPLACED. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion for people to discuss the problem on TALK:Fe. The problem is generic to two-letter wiki articles that happen to be the same two letters that stand for a chemical element if the first one is a capital and the second lower-case. Making iron (element) the "primary topic" for Fe also automaticaly makes it the primary topic for FE and fe, even though those are never used as symbols for the element iron. Thus, we have a WP:MALPLACED problem now. All two-letter-combos should have a dab as the primary topic. SBHarris 21:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Iron electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Iron electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 30, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-12-30. 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} 19:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Pure (99.97+%) iron chips, electrolytically refined, as well as a high purity 1 cm³ iron cube for comparison. Iron is the most common element (by mass) on Earth, forming much of the outer and inner core, as well as the fourth most common element in the Earth's crust.Photo: Alchemist-hp

Tempering

I am suprised that there is no reference to tempering or eutectic system to describe how iron may appear in different forms, in native lodes / ores or man-made (pig iron, grey iron, white iron, wrought iron, steel). Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Photon mass attenuation

In the figure of iron's photon mass attenuation, the X-axis should be MeV, not eV. The figure seems to be generated from a previous version with those units, and the photon attenuation processes only make sense if the scale is in MeV. I don't know how to fix this myself, otherwise I'd be doing that instead of writing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.25.232 (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Corrected, thank you (palm face - I should have noticed that when redrawing the original file). Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

grapghic

There is a problem in File:Carbon basic phase diagram.png. I wont believe carbon has a liquid state, as in null tangent efforts 2get act as liquids!paul. please unblock my account! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.54.245 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Fe(VIII)

This paper thinks iron hasn't been oxidized further than Fe(VI). Quite recent (2009), a respected author in the field. http://144.206.159.178/ft/243/588116/14862785.pdf Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, there may be Ag(IV) too...how I wish Ir(IX) existed! (Mt(IX) probably could, though.) I'll let you decide on Fe(VII) and Fe(VIII). (It's a bit hard to believe how a first-row transition metal like Fe could go up to +8 with FeO₄.) Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of Pu(VIII) in PuO₄? It's reported by the same guys who reported FeO₄. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, Ir(IX) is still possible, read http://www.chem.helsinki.fi/~pyykko/pekka/PT.pdf (found the paper while looking for info for Uus) And even an oxidation state of +12 may exist for element 148 (not in our lifetime, though)

Can't say a word on PuO4. I can't carefully examine the report, just copying others' words. Haven't seen a paper criticizing the oxidation state (haven't looked for plutonium's oxidation states paper).

The PuO4 original paper Double sharp (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed the Fe(VIII) - that paper states unambiguously that it doesn't exist. Chris (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

China

When did Iron first arrive in China. The article mentions Anatolia, Greece, the Near East, etc. but I came looking for China. (please answer on my talk page) Tibetologist (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June, 2013

The 4th sentence under the section "biological role" requires revision. It reads: "As illustrated by hemoglobin, iron often is bound to cofactors, e.g. in hemes." The words "often" and "is" should be switched so that the sentence, instead, reads: "As illustrated by hemoglobin, iron is often bound to cofactors, e.g. in hemes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.147.216 (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2013‎ (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to splitting infinitives, but why here? The meaning would remain the same. Do you think it reads better that way? Rivertorch (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a split infinitive, and I agree that the proposed text reads more naturally, so I'm going to boldly change it . Feel free to revert me if I missed something, and apologies for the pointy pun - couldn't resist...Begoon ^talk 04:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite right: there is no infinitive there to split. [scratches head] I'm not sure what I thought I saw, but I guess I was hallucinating! :) Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts

What the heck is this symbol: δ? Alien baby with an antennae? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.12.61 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Lower case Δ (delta), δ is often used to indicate change, but here it is the name of a specific allotrope indicating a transient crystal structure. Vsmith (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Phase diagram

Excuse-me , at low-pressure diagram, it is written 10^-4, 10^-2,1,10(10^1),100(10^2) ? 81.66.73.190 (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It may well be correct for the data, but in that case the diagram is not to scale. I'm not quite sure about this; can someone else look into this? (David A. Young's Phase diagrams of the elements (1975), showing the diagram up to 25 000 bar, makes me think that the given diagram's scale is correct, as otherwise the temperature boundaries would not be as nearly flat as they are in the picture in the article.) Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Magnetism

I like Wikipedia and I like this page but there is a GLARING omission, no mention of the special property of iron called magnetism, this is fundamental and deserves at least a paragraph with a bold heading I think. 67.210.40.116 (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the "Phase diagram and allotropes" section? Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

with your prompting, yes, and, in my opinion, there is no question of the high standard of technical content and presentation here, the scope, detail and presentation of the iron page are exemplary except for the neglect of magnetism. The issue is one of priorities, the magnetic properties of iron have given us the electrical industrial revolution, still in progress. As presently arranged neither magnetism nor ferromagnetism has an entry in the contents for the iron page. There is no mention of magnetism in the introduction but many chemical appearances are mentioned. This is Wikipedia, not a chemistry reference book. The importance of electricity to our world requires the contribution of the element iron to electromagnetism to be recognized. In my opinion for appropriate balance the iron page needs a reference to magnetism in the introduction, a contents heading for magnetism, a paragraph that introduces the magnetic properties of iron, links in the text to other magnet topics in Wikipedia, links to electromagnetism in the "see also" section and an entry in the physical properties table on the right for relative permeability. I hope someone can improve this already excellent page along these lines. Ted 67.210.40.116 (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't normally follow requests, as there is a huge backlog of important missing information and people prioritize what they want to spend their time on adding differently. If you want to add a subsection under the Applications section on the ferromagnetic properties of iron and a line about those properties in the lead then that would be appreciated.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Iron Filings in General Mills Cereal

General Mills "fortifies" their cereal with industrial iron filings. Kellogg's uses "reduced iron" to "fortify" their cereal. This should be mentioned in the Health section. 2602:306:C518:6C40:D4ED:EBE5:D5D7:86A5 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Many companies fortify their products with iron; to list what every company uses as an iron fortification method would take up unneeded room in an article intended to talk about iron. The article adequately explains the methods used by companies in general. If you want to make a separate article titled "List of iron fortification methods used in company's food products" go for it.Chhe (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that iron fillings are nutritionally inert.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2014

This section in history: "The Hittites appear to be the first to understand the production of iron from its ores and regard it highly in their society. They began to smelt iron between 1500 and 1200 BC and the practice spread to the rest of the Near East after their empire fell in 1180 BC.[37] The subsequent period is called the Iron Age"

is contradicted by this statement on the "ferrous metallurgy" page

"The development of iron smelting was traditionally attributed to the Hittites of Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age.[14] It was believed that they maintained a monopoly on ironworking, and that their empire had been based on that advantage. According to that theory, the ancient Sea Peoples, who invaded the Eastern Mediterranean and destroyed the Hittite empire at the end of the Late Bronze Age, were responsible for spreading the knowledge through that region. This theory is no longer held in the mainstream of scholarship,[14] since there is no archaeological evidence of the alleged Hittite monopoly. While there are some iron objects from Bronze Age Anatolia, the number is comparable to iron objects found in Egypt and other places of the same time period; and only a small number of these objects are weapons.[13] A more recent theory claims that the development of iron technology was driven by the disruption of the copper and tin trade routes, due to the collapse of the empires at the end of the Late Bronze Age.[14] These metals, especially tin, were not widely available and metal workers had to transport them over long distances, whereas iron ores were widely available. However, no known archaeological evidence suggests a shortage of bronze or tin in the Early Iron Age.[15] Bronze objects remained abundant, and these objects have the same percentage of tin as those from the Late Bronze Age."

The contradiction needs to be resolved. Keelyellenmarie (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thank you for bringing the discrepancy to the talk page. Any suggestions on how to resolve it would be appreciated, but there's no need to make a formal edit request unless you're actually going to propose specific changes. Rivertorch (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Magnetic saturation

I removed parameter |Magnetic saturation at r.t.=1707 T (not used, not shown in infobox element). -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Linguistic evidence

Words for iron in Indo-European and other languages would throw some light on pre-historic times. This will make the article very long, I agree.