Talk:Aluminium

Magnetic properties of aluminum

Aluminum is paramagnetic, not nonmagnetic. I think this should be fixed. 23:30, 21 March 2016 (EET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexterelu (talk • contribs)

References

I agree. Aluminum is paramagnetic. Therefore, the first sentence contains an error about a basic scientific fact, which does not inspire confidence for the reader in the rest of the article. Someone with access please fix this! 192.195.76.57 (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Aluminum is paramagnetic, but does writing so in the first sentence of the article help or confuse more poeple? Most readers do not know what paramagnetism is, so will instead be tricked into believing it is ferromagnetic since that is the only magnetic classification they know of. Those who know what paramagnetism is probably also know that the only useful meaning of non-magnetic is not ferromagnetic. From our magnetism article:

The force of a magnet on paramagnetic, diamagnetic, and antiferromagnetic materials is usually too weak to be felt, and can be detected only by laboratory instruments, so in everyday life these substances are often described as non-magnetic.

To avoid confusing anyone I think we should avoid the word paramagnetic in the first sentence even if it is linked. I would prefer to write nonmagnetic, but think that not mentioning magnetism in the lead is also an ok solution. Ulflund (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that the not confusing, and true, thing to say is that it is not ferromagnetic. As well as I know, paramagnetism can be detected without fancy instruments, though not quite so easy as ferromagnetism. I do remember a physics demonstration of paramagnetic oxygen, pouring liquid oxygen between the poles of a strong electromagnet. Also, as well as I know, paramagnetic is less common than diamagnetic, so probably should be indicated somewhere in the article. Gah4 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The infobox has an entry for magnetic ordering saying it is paramagnetic. I think that essentially everyone who knows what ferromagnetic means also know that aluminium isn't. Those who are interested specifically in the magnetic ordering or aluminium will probably go directly to the infobox. Ulflund (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. So, should the text say not ferromagnetic, leaving paramagnetic in the infobox? Gah4 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thinking about it again, yes it is paramagnetic, but it is much less paramagnetic than neodymium and oxygen, so probably nonmagnetic is fine. (Those are the two I looked at.) For those, one should try harder to make the distinction, as it is likely noticeable without special instruments. (And I didn't check.)Gah4 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

aluminiosilicates

Since this article uses aluminium for the name of the element, shouldn't it also use the appropriate names for compounds, such as aluminiosilicate? (Even though my spell check wants to correct both of those.) Gah4 (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it is still aluminosilicate even if the name of the element is aluminium, just like how Cr
₂O²⁻
₇ is dichromate and not *dichromiate. Double sharp (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Not the same. Yes the anion is aluminate, not aluminiate. But if you Google for aluminiosilicates, there are enough hits. See for a Canadian article. Gah4 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is aluminiosilicates in aluminium countries. Others, like aluminate, don't change. Gah4 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL, how long is it until we can finally just stop propagating the mistaken extra vowel, as somebody did to protect their ridiculous ego a long time back, and throw away the resulting confusion with it? Doesn't the Latin origin bear this out? 69.63.1.48 (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gah4: Sorry for missing this, but this is interesting! Searching Google Scholar gives me about 286 hits for "aluminiosilicate" but about 206000 for "aluminosilicate" (it also thinks the former is a typo). This 2013 paper (published in an RSC journal) has "aluminium" but "aluminosilicate" in the abstract – although some of the table and figure captions have "aluminiosilicate", so maybe they weren't sure how to spell it either. I guess we should really just check what IUPAC recommends. As for etymology (responding to the IP): sure, I agree "aluminum" makes more sense, as long as we also agree to keep "caesium". ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks. Yes, I a little tried to figure out what IUPAC says, but didn't figure out how to do that. I suspect that most paper authors don't bother to check, either. It might even be that no-one asked IUPAC before! As above, I believe that aluminate doesn't change. Gah4 (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Aluminum affects on Plants

Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry it took so long for me to reply! The reason I asked why the information was taken out concerning the corrected lime potential is what was replaced is incorrect as I read it. The current information states, "Aluminium is primary among the factors that reduce plant growth on acidic soils. Although it is generally harmless to plant growth in pH-neutral soils, in acid soils the concentration of toxic Al3+ cations increases and disturbs root growth and function.[158][159][160][161]". Aluminium toxicity decreases root growth, not increases it. You can google many research papers that does explain this (https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=aluminum+toxicity+and+plant+growth&btnG=). As was formerly referenced before the change was made, in the book, One Hundred Harvests Research Branch Agriculture Canada 1886-1986, "For some time, soil scientists have recognized that most acid soils are saturated with aluminum rather than hydrogen ions. The acidity of the soil is therefore a result of hydrolysis of aluminum. Canadian soil scientists, particularly at the Land Resource Research Institute, have studied this phenomenon in relation to the liming of soils. Turner and Clark (98) gained international reputations in 1966 for introducing the concept of "corrected lime potential" to define the degree of base saturation in soils. This became the basis for procedures now used in soil-testing laboratories to determine the "lime requirement" of soils." (http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/301/ic/cdc/agrican/pubweb/hs270060.asp). I feel this is very important information to include on the Aluminium page as Aluminium has a huge effect on our agriculture. Right now on the page, there is reference that a wheat has become more tolerant, but not enough information on the problem with the soil itself - the acidity of the soil caused by aluminum. Please get back to me with any further questions. Ddurant (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding for quite a while. I saw your post back during the first days of January. I left it unanswered because I couldn't (and still can't) get to it but I thought I would've done that by now. For now, I'd like to reassure you that I will eventually get to it, I've added this to my to do list.--R8R (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ddurant: I have read your argument, and it appears that you insist that we should say that aluminum is the reason why soils are acidic in the first place. I see that it was indeed previously mentioned. I will check on whether that's true and if it does prove to be the case (I expect that it will, since you're saying that so confidently and provide sources, but it won't hurt to check), I will reflect that. Note to self: need to figure out whether soils are acidic due to aluminum only in Canada or in other parts of the world as well. Regardless of whether I will find that or not, I'd like to thank you for pointing to whatever you think that needs improvement and encourage you to do so in the future.

I do not, however, understand what is exactly wrong with the quote from the article that you provided. Back before I first edited the article, this very quote, almost in these very words, was in the article. Compare:

Aluminium is primary among the factors that reduce plant growth on acid soils. Although it is generally harmless to plant growth in pH-neutral soils, the concentration in acid soils of toxic Al3+ cations increases and disturbs root growth and function. (as of September 25, 2015)

Aluminium is primary among the factors that reduce plant growth on acidic soils. Although it is generally harmless to plant growth in pH-neutral soils, in acid soils the concentration of toxic Al3+ cations increases and disturbs root growth and function. (today)

Is there any kind of mistake in this phrase, old or new? It appears to me so (since it is not acidic soils that attract poisonous aluminum, but rather it is poisonous aluminum that makes soils acidic), but you have specifically mentioned the mistake was introduced recently.

I still don't understand why the term "corrected lime potential" should be mentioned at all. I see why it is mentioned in liming (soil), makes perfect sense to me. However, we are writing an article on aluminum, and there is no direct link between it and the specific way to measure acidity in soils. We need to know that it makes soils aсidic, which is detrimental to yields of soils, which is therefore combated. How exactly the need for combating is measured is seemingly outside of the scope of this article, since the focus is on combating, not on aluminum. Again, we don't need to overstretch the article.--R8R (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Alzheimer's

Haven't really closely read it yet, but from what I just encountered in the news, it appears there is a breakthrough in understanding of Alzheimer's. I need to establish whether aluminum actually is a part of this or not and how recognized the news is in the research community. I can't do it now and probably won't be able to for a while, but this is certainly to be done in the future. (If anyone familiar with the topic could contribute a few words, that would be awesome.)R8R (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Adding another signed comment to prevent this from getting archived just yet)--R8R (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

North American English

Shouldn't the lead say North American English, since it's aluminum in Canada also? 216.8.144.133 (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's such a thing as North American English. However, we could say, "in American and Canadian English." From what I've seen, though, it appears to me that both spellings are in place and Canada and some sources even say -ium is actually more common. The thing is, though, I'm not from Canada and I can't judge. So tell me, how do things stand over there? Depending on what the situation is, we might need to reflect on this. Of course, we will need to back that with sources or at least know there are such sources. They say different dictionaries takes different stances on this ones.--R8R (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It is said to be the official IUPAC spelling. They are the official group for chemical naming, and that seems reasonable to me. Though on some other articles, I have tried to use IEEE names, and been told that WP:COMMONNAME applies instead. Naming in chemistry is pretty important, as there are a lot of chemicals, and even more, a lot of similar chemicals. Consistent naming is pretty important. IEEE does also do naming, but not quite as much. I suspect that one could also argue for the OED spelling. Gah4 (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing for changing any spellings. The issue that was raised is that aluminum, mentioned in the first sentence as an alternative spelling, is said to be present in American English in that very sentence, and the IP is suggesting the fact that this spelling is also in use in Canada be represented somehow. That's all there is to it.--R8R (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There is an article at North American English. I'm from Canada and in my experience it would sound ridiculous to pronounce it "aluminium", either in a laboratory or a factory (unless, of course, you had an authentic British accent). 216.8.144.133 (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)