Talk:Boron/Archive 1

Untitled
Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 13:26, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:10, 18 Jun 2005).

Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Boron. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Boron, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units. --

Talk
- What the hell is "continental pizza crust"? (Isotopes section) ;Bear 04:26, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * Funny vandalism. Reverting. JRM 05:57, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

"never" found as a free element in nature?
The statement near the top of the article "Boron is never found as a free element in nature" is not correct. In fact, we know that Boron does occur naturally in atomic form (sometimes neutral, sometimes ionized), in space. For example, the Sun contains each of the naturally occuring elements in atomic form. Whoever added the above statement was probably thinking only in the context of planet Earth, and as such the statement should be corrected or removed.

I have seen similar statements in other wikipedia entries about the elements, such as this on the magnesium page:

"The free element (metal) is not found in nature."

I can see a lot of work has gone into producing these wikipedia pages, but it is disappointing to find inaccuracies like this in scientific pages. From reading other talk page comments, I can see that there are many people who are keen to improve and look after the wikipedia elements pages - please could somebody go through this page and also the pages discussing the other elements, to correct the 'never found as a free element in nature' type statements? From scientists everywhere, thanks! AJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.98.27.91 (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

possible Grafitti?
In the external links, the last one is for 'zeroman' - seems to have no relation to Boron whatsoever. Is this a Wiki version of tagging?
 * Yup, vandalism. Good catch, thanks. --fvw *  17:06, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Umm, for the phase of boron, is it really supposed to be dick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.43.86 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Amorphous Boron: green or black?
In the first paragraph, it says that amorphous boron is a black powder. Later it states that amorphous boron is used in pyrotechnics du to its distinct green color. Which one is true? (129.132.168.19) --- (flame color, article been updated since then) Femto

Boiling point
I've seen it stated as 4000 °C, 4200 °C, and 3864 °C. Also that boron sublimates at 2550 °C, which is not mentioned in the article. Which is correct? Or does boron have both a normal boiling point and a sublimation point, or what? Femto 14:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You forgot this article, which lists it as 4200 K (which doesn't agree, even with rounding, with any of the values you mentioned). Gene Nygaard 14:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yikes. (that's all) Femto 14:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This sentence from the article is hard to understand, perhaps even meaningless: "The latter effect species preferential removal of the 10B(OH)4 ion onto clays results in solutions enriched in 11B(OH)3 may be responsible for the large 11B enrichment in seawater relative to both oceanic crust and continental crust." Perhaps it should be: "The last effect, the preferential removal of 10B(OH)4 ions  onto clays resulting in solutions enriched in 11B(OH)3, may be responsible for the large 11B enrichment in seawater relative to both oceanic crust and continental crust." Or something like that.

Bulk modulus
Where has the bulk modulus figure (320 GPa) come from? Several papers [eg PRB 47 (1993) 7668, Comp. Mater. Sci. 17 (2000) 127, PRL 89 (2002) 245501, PRB 67 (2003) 174116] list it as closer to 200 GPa, though there's some spread in the numbers. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.229.116.34 (talk • contribs).
 * Reference is elastic properties of the elements (data page), we mostly rely solely on WebElements.com there. Any references welcome. I have expanded it with http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.47.7668 (have no access to the data of other refs) and changed this article to the 185 GPa of &beta; boron from there. Femto 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is good
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html 159.134.175.205 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Elemental Boron
Any idea how this is produced? It has seen some research as a high-energy rocket propellant, in eg the Blackstar spaceplane.

THis is utter speculation and should not be included in Wikipedia

Boron: Electron eater?
I don't know if this is vandalism, but is certainly waxing melodramatic; "in an attempt to quench boron's insatiable hunger for electrons." CompIsMyRx 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Only Non-metal Usually Oxidized
"Also, boron is the only non-metal that usually is oxidized (losing electrons) in reactions."

Is this true? Usually is unclear. Sulfur is often oxidized, so are phosphorus and selenium. Borides (reduced boron compounds) do exist. Boron is, however, the least electronegative non-metal. I will replace the statement with, "Also, boron is the least electronegative non-metal, meaning that it is usually oxidized (loses electrons) in reactions." --71.227.190.111 04:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Name origin
The origin given seems to be for borax. I read that boron was a contraction of bor ax and carb on, due to the similarity in appearance of the latter to amorphous boron. This origin is given in both the book Life Science Library: Matter and the book Nature's Building Blocks by John Emsley. --71.227.190.111 05:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The contraction of Borax and Carbon sounds suspect to me. There are quite a few elements whose names end in 'on', yet their appearance is not necessarily anything like that of Carbon. AJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.98.27.91 (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Periodic Table
So, uh... What's the deal with the weird-looking periodic table? Couldn't someone just go find a regular one? Similarly, I've noticed about five different forms of the table floating around Wikipedia -- wouldn't it help to stick to one design, for the sake of consistency (not to mention headache prevention)? 71.219.51.225 06:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The tables in the infoboxes? It's a regular wide version, what is weird about it? If you want to contribute to standardization efforts, there's WikiProject Elements and its talk page. Femto 11:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Argument against merging "boriding."
It's just one more use for boron. What are we going to do, merge "burning" into "oxygen"? Boriding deserves to keep its own stub (although we can mention it as a use here, also). S B Harris 00:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonmetal or metalloid?
The article states that boron is a nonmetal, but the periodic table coloring indicates that it is a metalloid. Leon math 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Metalloid?
Isn't Boron a metalloid? Originally it was listed as a metal, but it can be redirected from the metalloid page, and it is also a well known fact that it has properties of both metals and nonmetals, therefore making it a metalloid. Am I right?


 * It's definitely not a metal. Sometimes people call it a nonmetal, and sometimes a metalloid. There is no One True Answer. --Itub 10:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect atomic number on image
The periodic table image in this article (B-TableImage.svg) has the wrong number of protons and neutrons for Boron. The correct number should be 5 protons and 6 neutrons (for the most common isotope), not 4p and 5n as illustrated. Possibly a transcription error from the Beryllium image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.20.35 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty glaring error and still persists 5 months later. Whoever has the capacity to generate these images should update it.--Lucent (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I finally fixed this myself using 5's and 6's culled from the text of the SVG of other elements' images. --Lucent (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Added Google Video Reference
"Google Talks video featuring the late Dr. Robert Bussard, former Asst. Director of the Atomic Energy Commission and founder of Energy Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC2)" see [Boing Boing] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.152.39 (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Boron Compounds
Borane is an important compound for the semiconductor industry and needs the attention of an expert. 11Boron is used to make semiconductors radiation resistant. I also have heard of borazine, whatever that is. Here is a good link to a company specializing in boron compounds, [].

Doesn't make sense

 * "Boron-10 content may be as low as 19.1% and as high as 20.3% in natural samples."

This statement seems to be mistaken, as the average content is given as 18.8%. Please correct this statement. --132.230.1.27 (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-boron agenda
The title item "Boron compounds show promise in treating arthritis." in the section named "Of the several hundred uses of boron compounds, especially notable uses" is hardly a notable use. I think the language for "of the several hundred uses of boron compounds, especially notable uses" also reveals far too much of a pro-boron agenda on the part of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.137.179 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Discrepency: "vacant p-orbital"
I believe that there is a incorrect statement in the "Characteristics", 4th-paragraph, 1st sentence. It reads: "Chemically boron is electron-deficient, possessing a vacant p-orbital." But Boron's electron configuration with 5 electrons is 1s2 2s2 2p1.

Therefore, Boron should not have a vacant p-orbital.

Also, can someone expand more in this section about how Boron does not follow the octet rule. bdodo1992 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This refers to boron in compounds such as BH3, where boron only has six valence electrons and hence it is called electron deficient. (BH3 in particular can actually dimerize to form B2H6, where one could argue that there are eight valence electrons due to the formation of three-center two-electron bonds.) --Itub (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In its ground state electron configuration, 1s2 2s2 2p1, boron has two vacant p-orbitals! The 2p subshell consists of three p-orbitals, px, py and pz (although there are more complicated ways of looking at it). Boron's electron config. can therefore also be written as 1s2 2s2 2px1 2py0 2pz0. It doesn't actually matter which of the three 2p orbitals is filled first, they're degenerate, so I could equally have written 1s2 2s2 2px0 2py1 2pz0 or 1s2 2s2 2px0 2py0 2pz1.

Ben (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor Error to Amend
As I do not like signing up for sites I rarely use (not to disparage Wikipedia, nor those who regularly contribute to such) I had no desire to join merely to edit this small oversight, but felt simply pointing it out would likely suffice: In the "History" section it reads "...isolated by Sir Humphrey Davy..." which is an obvious mistake as his first name is correctly spelled without an e ("Humphry"). By all means, feel free to delete this once the error is amended.
 * Right. Done.--Stone (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Misleading statements that need to be corrected
Section "Characteristics" contains several wrong statements. $ First, there is a confusion about the tetragonal phase of boron (the one with 50 atoms in the cell is not pure boron, as was proven some 30 years ago... there is another tetragonal phase with 192 atoms in the cell, and this is pure boron). Second, the new dense(st) boron phase was synthesized for the first time much earlier than in the reference of Zarechnaya (see recent Nature paper of Oganov, submitted in January 2007, furthermore, the same group published an even earlier paper on the new phase of boron that also needs to be cited. Oganov et al. proved that the new phase has unusual properties due to charge transfer and it is the first ionic form of a pure element observed experimentally. Zarechnaya paper was published later and did not add anything new). With these changes, the text should really be as below:

Crystalline boron, a very hard, black material with a high melting point, exists in many polymorphs. Two rhombohedral forms, α-boron and β-boron containing 12 and 106.7 atoms in the rhombohedral unit cell respectively, and 192-atom tetragonal boron are the three most characterized crystalline forms. The densest (2.52 g/cm3) and the hardest (Vickers hardness 50 GPa) boron phase has been recently synthesized at high pressures and temperatures (12-20 GPa, 1500-1700 0C) from β-boron powder. Its structure was for the first time solved with the evolutionary algorithm USPEX for crystal structure prediction. This phase, called by its discoverers γ-B28, has orthorhombic symmetry (Pnnm), lattice constants a = 5.054, b = 5.620 and c = 6.987 Å and 28 atoms per unit cell. The structure of γ-B can be described as a NaCl-type arrangement of two types of clusters, B12 icosahedra and B2 pairs. There is significant charge transfer (~0.5 electrons) between these clusters, making γ-B the first discovered elemental solid with significantly ionic type of bonding. Dian john1 (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Will have a look in your references! Thanks--Stone (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted this information into the main article with some edits, which I hope you will understand and agree with. You probably understand scientific scepticism to phrases like "for the first time". There was (is) a clear priority battle between Oganov and Dubrovinskaya and despite all odds, Dubrovinskaya got an early publication date. But. The original phase was probably reported by Wentorf R H 1965 Science 147 49 and who knows who else made it in that time of HPHT boom, but never reported. Anyway, let us focus on science rather than history. Best wishes.NIMSoffice (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In the new version, two things are dubious or wrong. First, Wentorf's phase may or may not have been boron. There have always been heavy doubts that it was boron carbide or nitride. For this reason it was technically "disqualified". Wentorf himself never did chemical analysis of this phase, and the likelihood of contamination is high, given how readily boron absorbs impurities. Wentorf did not solve the structure and thus his material was basically uncharacterized. I suggest to remove this controversial reference. By the same token it's OK to remove "synthesized for the first time".

Small comment - synthesis from alpha-B is less interesting, as alpha-B is less stable that beta-B and products of transformation may be metastable. Synthesis from beta-B, which is the stable form, does prove that the new phase is stable. In context of synthesis, we also should remove the word "powder". I also added a few things, for example on the highest-pressure phase. So, with this in mind, I suggest the following text:

Crystalline boron, a very hard, black material with a high melting point, exists in many polymorphs. Two rhombohedral forms, a-boron and ß-boron containing 12 and 106.7 atoms in the rhombohedral unit cell respectively, and 192-atom tetragonal boron are the three most characterized crystalline forms. The densest (2.52 g/cm3) and the hardest (Vickers hardness 50 GPa) boron phase has been recently synthesized at high pressures and temperatures (12-20 GPa, 1500-1700 0C) from ß-boron. This phase, called γ-B by its discoverers, has orthorhombic symmetry (Pnnm), lattice constants a = 5.054, b = 5.620 and c = 6.987 Å and 28 atoms per unit cell. The structure of γ-B can be described as a NaCl-type arrangement of two types of clusters, B12 icosahedra and B2 pairs. There is significant charge transfer (~0.5 electrons) between these clusters, making γ-B the first discovered elemental solid with significantly ionic type of bonding. γ-B has a large stability field on the phase diagram, extending almost up to 80-90 GPa. At pressures above 80-90 GPa, theory predicts stability of a superconducting phase with the alpha-Ga type structure. Dian john1 (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dian john1 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please reply in right section.
 * Your comments 1 and 2: Please let aside 2008 Oganov-Zarechnaya priority dispute. This is not a right place for it. Our purpose is to describe basic stable boron phases. Ref. on Wentorf (1965) is specifically added to avoid the priority issue. Wentorf's density (2.52 g/cm3) is remarkably same to that reported in 2008 and blaming him for dirty samples without evidence is not nice.
 * Comment 3: Alpha-boron might be less stable than beta, but it is still regarded as the major phase, thus why deleting it ? (by this logic we should erase diamond).
 * Your second correction contains more bad than good: "called by its discoverers" goes back to priorities; "At pressures above 80-90 GPa, theory predicts stability of a superconducting phase with the alpha-Ga type structure" sounds bad in many ways (i) no reference; (ii) not supported by experiment; (iii) high-pressure phases are too exotic for text on basic structures in a general-purpose article. Best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The text is incorrect
I agree with Onorem that this discussion starts repeating its arguments (and eating up space), thus I have moved this thread to the talk page of Dian john1 (talk). NIMSoffice (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

On novelty of gamma-Boron
A certain individual, using multiple sockpuppets is trying to push through a statement that gamma-Boron was discovered in 2007 by group-1 and results plagiarized by group-2. This discussion should be closed in favor of third party (Wentorf) who has synthesized this phase back in 1965. This fact is acknowledged by group-2 and neglected by group-1. NIMSoffice (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another option to to cite a reliable secondary source. We should avoid citing primary sources whenever there is a controversy like this since we are not a place to resolve such controversies. The primary purpose of referencing in Wikipedia is to assist in verifiability. Beyond that, let somebody else work through issues of priority and credit. --mav (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Boron also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ?
Shouldn't Boron also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

please correct mistakes


1. Phase diagram of boron is taken from our work (Ref. 11), but credit is not given. Most of the phase equilibrium lines on this diagram were calculated by me, the rest were constrained by our experiments, previous experiments and our calculations. To construct this diagram we used information that comes 90% from our own data and 10% from previous works, and this diagram only appeared in our work (Ref. 11).

2. Discovery of gamma-B should include Ref. 11 and probably Ref. 10. Ref. 12 should be deleted from the "discovering" papers, since it was done much later (submission 2 years after Ref.12) and not independently from Ref. 11 (see http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/filinchukmisconduct).

3. Sentence "It is not clear yet whether the chemical bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]." does not make sense - the phase is mixed ionic-covalent and I suggest the following text instead:

Chemical bonding in gamma-B has been described [11] as mixed ionic-covalent. Significant ionicity is unexpected for a pure element, but it has been shown that some effects characteristic of ionic crystals (e.g. the LO-TO splitting) are present in gamma-B


 * The phase diagram has been removed from the article and a notice of dispute has been added to that section. I'll start reading my references on boron to get up to speed and report back. --mav (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Although adding the citations to the caption in this article will be useful (and maybe satisfy the orginal creators), the primary requirment is that the source information should be on the image page. That also allows as many sources as needed to be added in greater detail, as has been done AFAIK, there is no more legal requirment for attribution, as the attribution is on the trancluded image page.YobMod 13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Started a artcle on Allotropes of boron .--Stone (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Filter
The article says boric acid in reactor water is slowly filtered out. Doesn't it dissolve in the water, in which case, how could it be removed by filtration? Unfree (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading through Google books on that I realize that "filtering" here is a simplification of a complex process, which involves ion-exchange resins and multi-stage evaporators. No mistake though. Materialscientist (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Colour
I seem to vaguely recall reading once that the colour of absolutely pure boron was uncertain (due to the difficulty of preparing it) and that the conventional black/brown colour may be due to impurities. The article doesn't seem to mention this; have I remembered incorrectly? 86.134.90.61 (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. The article mentions the band gaps, which correspond to a deep-red/brown color (pure boron). Impurity might easily change that to black, gray, but not lighter color. This situation is more annoying in silicon carbide, which should be colorless or yellowish when pure, but in reality is usually gray, green or brown. Materialscientist (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Two Questions
1. How IS Boron enriched?

2. Can it exist in a liquid form? JeepAssembler (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. I have read an article, where it is done by column chromatography. Several hundred meter long columns.--Stone (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. enrichment--Stone (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2. As a element, yes, but only above the melting point of 2349 K,  2076°C. There are several chemical compounds of boron which are liquid.--Stone (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't remember by heart how it is done with boron, but most pure semiconductors are enriched by growing them from an isotopically enriched compound - not by directly enriching the pure form. For example, enriched germane/silane/methane for germanium/Si/diamond. Same should be for boron. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right it is not enriched in pure, but as compound. A column chromatography at 2000°C would be challenging, but not economic.--Stone (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Miss-Identified Mineral picture
The picture in the Characteristics section under occurrence is improperly identified, as it displays the mineral "Tincalconite after Borax" and not actually borax as it is labeled. This miss-identification is common but is not correct.

http://www.galleries.com/minerals/carbonat/tincalco/tincalco.htm "Tincalconite is a mineral that is closely related to and often intimately associated with the mineral borax. Most old mineral specimens of borax are chalky white due to a chemical reaction from dehydration. They have actually altered (at least on their surface and ultimately throughout) to the mineral tincalconite with the loss of water molecules. This kind of alteration from one mineral to another, can leave the shape of the original crystal intact. Mineralogists refer to this as a pseudomorph, or "false shape", because the tincalconite has the crystal shape of the predeceasing borax. Most all specimens of borax in museums and collections should technically be labeled "Tincalconite" or even more accurately "Tincalconite after Borax". " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.46.172 (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Could you please explain why this picture is of tincalconite and not borax? We don't know its age, and the surface doesn't seem to show any water-related erosion. Materialscientist (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

boron is not a plant nutrient
"Boron is an essential plant nutrient"? Plants can do not eat boron because these element does not dissolve in water. Plants consume boron in dissolvable formes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.94.195 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This makes me sad. — raeky  T  16:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By this argument, iodine and iron are not an essential nutrients either, since we do not drink iodine solutions, nor do we eat rust for the iron. This is a nonsensical argument.&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

the article is not really informative
Very many questions of interest to the ordinary reader are not there. What is the etymology of the word "boron"? Not many people may perhaps know that Burack was the name of the white horse of Prophet Mohamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.209.33 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So what? That fact is relevant only if it had something to do with boron. Did he name the horse for borax, or is the word borax from the same color as the horse? Is this a general Arabic or Persian stem/root for "white"? In which case Mohamed just named his horse "Whitey", which is a boring bit of trivia that might belong in the article on the prophet, but not here. We're not a madrasah. The article states, as is: "The name boron originates from the Arabic word بورق buraq or the Persian word بوره burah; which are names for the mineral borax."  S  B Harris 21:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

+4 Oxidation State
Boron can form compounds whose formal oxidation state is not three, such as B(IV) in boron carbide BC. What does it mean? If so, we may be able to obtain a helium compound very easily because it has only 2 protons and so the 2S electrons will be much less tightly bound!--Anoop.m (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The formula for boron carbide is B4C. Your question assumes facts not in evidence. S  B Harris 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

B(IV) is mentioned several times in the article - I believe this is a mistake. [B(OH)4]−, for example, contains B(III), but the article implies it is B(IV).

Ben (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only evidence for B(IV) in the article is BC in the infobox. The recently added unreferenced part on B(IV) has to be fixed or removed - oxidation state IV does not derive from coordination IV. We don't say Cd has oxidation state IV only because it forms zincblende CdS. Charged species don't count here. Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, you're both right. Coordination number 4 with oxygen remains oxidation +3 so long as there's a formal -1 charge on the boron (the fourth bond is a coordinate bond). So both B(OH)3 and B(OH)4- are boron (III) = +3. The oxygens are always -2 and the oxidation number of the boron has to make the ion charge come out to what it is. All the borons in tetraborate are +3 also: there we have 9 oxygens (-18), 4 hydrogens (+4), and 2 negative charges, which leaves us +12 for the 4 borons, which gives them +3 each. Wups. I'll fix this. The oxidation number for MgB2 is wrong also. The borons bonding to each other have no oxidation state. The only electrons are lost from the magnesium, one per boron, so the formal oxidation state for B is -1 in that compound. If we assign nitrogen -3 in BN compounds, the boron is always +3 in these various structures also. That leaves me with no +4. Ideas are welcome about what do do with BC compounds. B4C isn't quite stoichiometric anyway, as noted. If it were, and carbon were assigned +4, the boron would come out -1 as in MgB2 again. But I'm not sure it's fair to assign carbon as the electropositive element here, any more than to choose boron as electronegative in all the hydrides, which are analogous to hydrocarbons. What do you think? S  B Harris 02:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually referring to the BC molecule. As to B4C, it is a complex lattice with B12 icosahedra connected by carbon chains. There is an "explanation" here why it is non-stoichiometric, and I am just reading it. Anyway, the structure of B4C seems uncertain and can hardly indicate B(IV) state. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the icosahedra are fascinating, and these compounds go up to B(6.5)C stoichiometrically. They should be neat things to make 10B containing composites for spacecraft with maximum B-10-enriched-boron per structural weight. I don't know of any BC molecules except as isolated gases or free radical trapped in argon. BC. would be a free radical, and BC: with the extra electron would have a negative charge. There should be a compound HCB, rather like HCN:, except the electrons in the sigma lobe of HCN: would be missing in HCB, due to boron's smaller charge by 2. In all cases the bond order is about 3, but (again) I'm not sure how to assign C or B as the negative or positive here (they are nearly the same electronegativity), so the oxidation state of the B is a mystery to me. I guess it's either +3 or -3. If you must have your carbon negative, then the B is still +3. And yes, B(+IV) was my mistake. I admit it! Moving on...  S  B Harris 08:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding a bit to the lede
The lede/lead for this article is one of the shortest for a major element, so I've added a bit, since there is a lot in this article to summarize.

Boron is really rare in the universe, being produced only by spallation and a bit in the Big Bang. It's rare on Earth also, but luckily the salts disolve in water and are concentrated in evaporate ores. So all that works well in the the first paragraph.

The second paragraph is about the pure stuff, as is traditional.

The third paragraph is about the compounds. The major industrial uses of boron are actually as perborate bleaches and borax in fiberglass. But it has a big future in supermaterials, I think, as people learn to work with the nitrides and carbides.

The forth paragraph, as also traditional, is the biological role, which is not an important one for life, but at the same time isn't indifferent. Boron is a bit like sodium and iodine-- it's so rare that you wouldn't think life would need it, but the ability of the ocean to concentrate it has made it more used than its crustal concentration would cause one to guess. S B Harris 01:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Add a link?
Shouldn't borax be wikilinked in the "etymology" paragraph? JCM83


 * It's already linked first in the lede and also later in the mineral section. I put in a third link, but that's three. Number of links for the same term in an article should be limited. Here it's when used for the first time, then then maybe when needed to stimulate the memory. A new one in etymology is okay with me, and then the section about borax minerals--- but that's it! S  B Harris 05:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Boron Shielding and other errors and Omissions
Sorry but although Borate solutions are used to SRAM reactors and a small amount of Boric acid added to stabilize "swimming pool" reactors (evap or water boil concentrates Boron-10), Boron shielding is ineffective for x-ray and gamma radiation generated due to low mass) and less expensive steel or concrete typically serve both purposes. Note that B0ron-10 generates high energy He and Li particles on absorbing a neutro, and Boron-10 plus alpha gives C13 and neutron as well as alpha plus Boron-11 (80% of Boron) also yields neutron, in fact Boron can be part of a neutron generator when admixed with Polonium-210 or Radium or other Alpha emitter. . No reference to using Boron shielding in a real reactor.

By the way, Borax is a condiment in the Middle East and Asia, and can be found in Hallal grocery stores for want of another reference.

Shjacks45 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Boron-10 is useful in theory as a neutron shield in places where weight is a premium and shield materials need to do double duty and structural support and radiation shields. That would be especially the case for boron and boron composites (like boron carbide) in interplanetary manned spacecraft. Secondary neutrons from cosmic rays are very difficult to stop without some type of neutron absorbant. This doesn't take care of the whole problem (the cosmic rays themselves, which are mostly fast protons plus a few heavier nuclei), but it does help with the cleanup. A reference is given. S  B Harris 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Former use as a food additive and health implications
What about the use of Borax as a food preservative, it was very common at one time - THE USE OF BORIC ACID AND ITS SALTS AS FOOD PRESERVATIVES.(1902) The Heinz food company funded Harvey Washington Wiley and his campaign against Borax Pure ketchup: a history of America's national condiment, with recipes

I'm not sure boron is so harmless Experimental Study on the Estrogen-Like Effect of Boric Acid

The National Acadamies are authorative Although not observed in humans, animal studies have shown that high doses of borax or boric acid produce adverse effects in the testis and affect male fertility —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, under Biological role is the unreferenced "U.S. Department of agriculture conducted" experiment, with results showing that boron "activated estrogen and vitamin D". According to my gynecologist, estrogen is created in ovarian egg cells or by conversion of androgen in fat cells, it is not lying dormant in postmenopausal women waiting to be "activated". The possible reference states that "Boron Enhances and Mimics Some Effects of Estrogen Therapy in ..." Journal of Trace Elements in Experimental Medicine 5:237-246 (1992). Gnach (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

discussion of gamma-B is mislead by NIMSOffice
The phase diagram reproduced here comes from our paper - Oganov et al. (Nature 2009), but NIMSOffice incorrectly gives references to lots of papers to diminish credit to Oganov's Nature paper. Discussion of chemical bonding in gamma-B is also wrong - our paper (Oganov et al., Nature 2009) explicitly stated that the bonding is "partially ionic" (or, equivalently, and also explicitly stated "polar covalent"). There is conclusive evidence supporting this picture. Therefore, the phase is both ionic and covalent - as shown by us. There is nothing novel in a covalent bonding in an element, but a significantly ionic bonding was unexpected for an element. That was a big surprise. This page is closed for editing, so I cannot correct these mistakes. I suggest the editors put the following text: "Gamma-B is peculiar from the chemical viewpoint in that its bonding is not purely covalent, but contains a significant ionic component. This is the only so far known elemental phase that has a significant ionic fraction of chemical bonding (Oganov et al., 2009)".

Note - my investigation shows that NIMSOffice is directly involved in the controversy on discovery of gamma-boron and is either a coauthor of the Zarechnaya-Dubrovinskaya-Dubrovinsky-Filinchuk papers, or their collaborator on other papers.

I suggest an investigation on the identity of NIMSOffice, who in my opinion should be banned from editing Wikipedia for vandalism and pushing a personal agenda.

Artem R. Oganov

It's hard to argue with NIMSOffice (now I think he calls himself Materialscientist). He does not have good arguments, just insistence. I am surprised why he needs this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User should not be deleting the useful references from Wikipedia
I inserted references to the latest papers, which I found useful and sure that others will find them useful too. User Materialscientist deleted them without explaining why. This indicates he has not read the papers I refer to, or has the conflict of interest. Reading comments on the Talk page I see how this article on Boron was before suffering from the deleting of articles and references and some conflicts of the interests. Please don't delete useful articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Each piece of knowledge is precious. Deleting knowledge as Materialscientist does it, without reasons, helps nothing. If I found these references useful, other readers will find them useful too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You could use the information in the paper to add something useful to the article instead of just putting it in the External links. AIR corn (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion for improving. But Materialscientist just deleted references that I add and does not explain why. And now the article is not editable. What can I do? I think Materialscientist should explain himself or else he should be stopped or banished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The added reference is a mini-review of the work by A. Oganov, written by A. Oganov. Particularly, it contains explicit stings of the group of Dubrovinskaia, partly sourced to non-peer-reviewed work by A. Oganov (ref. 38). user:Aoganov (renamed to user:Luebuwei) has been blocked and banned from this site for this behavior, namely using all means possible to promote his work, discredit the group of Dubrovinskaia, and attempt to remove anyone who opposes that. (SPI case, block log, "unblock and ban" ANI thread). Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Materialscientist, but you are telling untruth. I have read this article and suggest anyone to read it. It is a general review of discovery of the element Boron and its studies. It reviews works starting from XIX century. It is published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you have the conflict of interest with Prof. Oganov, you should say so and abstain from editing pages related to his work. If you are friends with Dubrovinskaia, you should again say so and not defend her through Wikipedia. In any ways, I don't see how a careful review of works from XIX to XXI centuries by Prof. Oganov and Prof. Solozhenko harms your interests and interests of Dubrovinskaia. Please abstain from making incorrect statements and editing Wikipedia subjectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I also now check that you, Materialscientist, seems to be the same user as NIMSOffice who made arguments with Prof. Oganov on this talk pages. Do you also have similar arguments with Prof. Solozhenko, Prof. Macchi, Prof. Rulis, Prof. Zhou, Prof. Veprek, and all other whose papers I cited and you deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Watch it 218. Ascribing nefarious motives to other users and then insulting them is a personal attack and is not considered to be a constructive use of article talk pages. Please do not do that again. --mav (reviews needed) 16:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear user Mav, when you read the Materialscientist comments it is shocking that he has so much hatred and acts by subjective motives. There are no objective reason for not referencing peer-reviewed publications.
 * Stop that, now. There is no reason or justification for attributing such motives to a fellow editor. As you have been told seveeral times now, we use Secondary sources for a reason: authors must be independent of the work being reported in order to objectively assess its significance. Obviously Oganov is not independent of Oganov. That is not a "subjective movtive", it is responsible editing. LeadSongDog come howl!  13:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

consider useful references for referring
I cited several recent papers that I found useful, but the Materialscientist user deleted them for apparently some of his personal reasons. I spent a bit too much time trying to restore these references and he just deleted them back. I don't want to do this forever. In fact, I don't want to help Wikipedia any more if destructive people like Materialscientist can do here what they want and noone stop their acts. May I recommend the community to consider including these references.

I suggest to add the reference to:

Discovery and studies of boron encountered many complications due to its unique electron-deficient chemistry {Oganov, A.R., Solozhenko, V.L. Boron: a hunt for superhard polymorphs. Journal of Superhard Materials, vol. 31, 285-291 (2009). http://www.springerlink.com/content/fv826k1718673661/}

The I recommend a special issue (http://www.springerlink.com/content/1063-4576/33/6/) dedicated to boron with following leading expert articles:

A critical reappraisal of the structure, bonding, compressibility and hardness properties of gamma-B28 phase is given in: The high-pressure phase of boron, γ-B28: Disputes and conclusions of 5 years after discovery. A. R. Oganov, V. L. Solozhenko, C. Gatti, O. O. Kurakevych and Y. Le Godec. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 380-387 (2011). Careful analysis confirmed large charge separation (Oganov et al., Nature, 2009) between boron atoms in gamma-B28: On the nature of chemical bonding in γ-boron. P. Macchi. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 388-393 (2011). Comparative review of theoretical and experimental equations of state of orthorhombic boron γ-B28. Y. Le Godec. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 394-400 (2011). gamma-B28 has an unusual electronic structure: Spectral analysis of the electronic structure of γ-B28. P. Rulis, L. Wang, B. Walker and W.-Y. Ching. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 401-408 (2011). gamma-B28 superhardness is confirmed by theory studies: Large shear strength enhancement of gamma-boron by normal compression. X.-F. Zhou, Y. Tian and H.-T. Wang. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 409-420 (2011); Mechanical properties and hardness of boron and boron-rich solids. S. Veprek, R. F. Zhang and A. S. Argon. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 421-428 (2011). Boron rich solids are frequently structurally similar to element boron and also supehard: Experimental study and critical review of structural, thermodynamic and mechanical properties of superhard refractory boron suboxide B6O. O. O. Kurakevych and V. L. Solozhenko. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 421-428 (2011). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Materialscientist is definitely not right in imposing his opinion and, especially, rendering the valuable reviews/papers unknown. Instead of deleting the references, it would be better to cite the similar reviews from the opposite group, which, according to him, seems to be less aggressive. So everybody could compare the opposite opignions and learn a lot about the history of boron discovery. --Extreme cond (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on registering an account, you'll find it helpful. But please do not assume bad faith in fellow editors. What evidence do you have that Materialscientist is "imposing his opinion", as opposed to following policies, which are established by broad community consensus? Do we have independent reviews (ones that someone unconnected with Oganov) to establish that this work is worthy of note in the article? LeadSongDog come howl!  16:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 June 2012
In the first paragraph, a change from: These are mined industrially as evaporate ores

to

These are mined industrially as evaporites

or perhaps: These are mined industrially as evaporate ores

Wikihalf (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrected, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word "enriched"
To the lay(ish) reader (me) this bit confused me at first.

Given that we are talking about B10 and B11 to use the word enriched boron for B10 and depleted boron for B11 is counter-intuitive with out a close read of the article and even then some might miss it. At first read I am thinking how can 10 be greater than 11?

IE we are talking about a process that alters the natural abundances of the two isotopes.

To talk about 'enriched' boron is also a bit silly, can it be humored as well?

Seeing as this page is "semi protected" I suggest changing the title

Enriched boron (boron-10)

To

Boron Enrichment

As what this section is really talking about is not just boron BUT really a process for the purpose of producing a product for either the nuclear industry or the space industry.

IT may then be possible to combine the two sections (ie Enriched boron (boron-10) and Depleted boron (boron-11)  with a discussion of the direction of enrichment of the different isotopes for different end uses.

You can then link off to Isotopic Separation (which I note used to be Isotopic Enrichment - maybe the same discussion was had?)

And really, why would you call it Depleted boron (B11) when it is the most abundant isotope as stated in the article! Another potentially misleading use of the word depleted for the lay reader?

What you are saying is that the isotope used in these space applications (B11)is the product that remains after the B10 has been removed. Now 'enriched', surely?

Really, ask yourself the question which one we would call enriched and depleted if the first use of Boron was spacecraft and not nuclear reactors? And there are currently more spacecraft than nuclear reactors anyway....

IF NEEDED maybe state that B10 is commonly referred to in the Nuclear Industry as enriched Boron.

Thats what Id do... then this article might be worth its 'accolades'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.112.41 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * U-238 (depleted uranium) is the more common isotope. It's depleted because what we want to use (enriched uranium, U-235) isn't in it. It's the same thing for B-10 and B-11. Double sharp (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Boron the Moron"?
It is interesting to note that unlike the other elements, boron's chemical reactions don't necessarily tend toward filling the outermost electron shell with eight electrons. "Boron the Moron" is a nice mnemonic to use to remember this. I believe it is the only element that violates the octet rule - even the group 14 elements will fill their outer shell with eight electrons by ionizing or making covalent bonds. Kyoobur9000 (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is certainly not the only element that violates the octet rule! Consider BeF2, NO, PCl5, and SF6, for example. Even the common aluminium violates it sometimes. The octet rule is just a rule of thumb and isn't followed much when you get beyond the elements most often studied at the level when the octet rule is useful. Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Remember - just because it loses electrons instead of gaining them doesn't mean it is ignoble! BeF2 is an salt involving the Be2+ ion, and that ion has an electron configuration of 1s2, the same configuration of noble helium.  Perhaps I should have said "noble" instead of "octet", because elements 3 and 4 tend to lose their outermost electrons to have a 1s2 electron configuration, which is still noble because no 1p orbitals exist.  Also, NO is an intermediate and quickly undergoes chemical reactions that make the nitrogen atom noble (e.g. 2 NO + O2 → 2 NO2).  As for PCl5, I can't argue with you there; that does in fact violate the nobility rule.  Perhaps you would like to tell me when aluminum violates the octet/noble rule? Kyoobur9000 (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * AlCl3, which is actually a molecule (well, a dimer)? (BeF2 isn't completely ionic either, which you can read about on beryllium, fluorine and beryllium fluoride.) Also AlI, which is even more obvious. Double sharp (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * More octet violations: H3PO4, ClF3, XeF2, IF7, IBr5. Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with those last five or AlI. I am currently reading up on the first two.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyoobur9000 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for giving the solid density of Boron
For the solid state no density is given in the table on the right. Here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/entities/elements/boron/to/45/hf/ it says: 2.46 g/cm3 But this one seems to be more reliable: http://www.springermaterials.com/docs/info/10681727_595.html 2.354(5) g cm–3 (293 K) I suggest to take the last value, or give 2.4 as the density at ambiant temperature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.180.39.174 (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are four allotropes, thus the density is given for them all in a table in the "Allotropes" section. Materialscientist (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The solid density should still be in the physical properties table, like in the carbon article.--Klausok (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Compounds of boron(I) and (II)
The hydrides, usually called boranes, (no link to this article by the way) lots of them, have a formal oxidation state of less than +3 but it isn't always a nice whole number- a heading along the lines of oxidation state < III would be more accurate. Also carboranes, a lot of those too, all pretty clusters, not mentioned at all. Axiosaurus (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've put in a few paragraphs and a main article reference on the important boranes and their boron formal oxidation numbers, which are simply the mean H/B ratios. I added something about carboranes also in the organoboron section. We still need to add a pic of the unusual diborane plus at least one of the compounds with dodecahedral or icosahedral structures. Thanks for pointing out this hole. S  B Harris 00:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Who discovered Boron?
In the article it states that in 1808 'Boron was not recognized as an element until it was isolated by Sir Humphry Davy and by Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac and Louis Jacques Thénard.' then later it states that boron was only recognised as an element by Berzelius in 1824. This is clearly contradictory. VenomousConcept (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems part of the problem may result from the use of primary sources. Both the Davy and Berzelius references are primary. What do solid second or tertiary sources say? Vsmith (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * de.wikipedia says that Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac and Louis Jacques Thénard isolated the boron, followed by Sir Humphry Davy. But Berzelius recognized its status as element 1824. You have to isolate first a substance, before you can recognise it as an element. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Making correction of nonsense
"the borax component of fiberglass insulation. " is nonsense. Owens-Corning makes Borosilicate glass which it trademarked as Pyrex, with superior strength and breakage resistace (thermal shock resistance) than ordinary soda lime glass. No reference specifically to borosilicate and fiberglass except both are Corning products. See Fiberglass and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiberglass_batt#Fiberglass_batts_and_blankets Shjacks45 (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Turns out this is complicated, and only the idea that borosilicate glass is in fiberglass is nonsense. But the article doesn't say that. Most boron use world-wide is indeed now used in glass fiber and both insulating and structural fiberglass, but not all fiberglass uses boron-containing glass fibers. Worldwide, it appears that most of it does, however, as it is especially popular in Asia. Boron is added to glass fibers for fiberglass as a fluxing agent, as borax hydrate or (different) boron oxide. It's not nonsense. The glass in fiberglass does not have to be the borosilicate glass used by Corning in Pyrex, or by other glass companies for glassware. That is a different glass. Most of boronated glass fiber is simply high-boron glass where the boron compounds are added as fluxing agents.   About 10% of global boron compounds are used to make borosilicate glass for as glassware. Ceramics add being 15%, agriculture 11%, detergents/whiteners 6% and other uses the rest. I'll update the article, and provide refs.  S  B Harris 01:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Boron chemistry
A talk on boron started at Talk:Metalloid. Please contribute there (not here), to keep it single-place. -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Some updates
See my comments in the section above plus one, on corrections and nonsense. The world market stuff hasn't had a look for a while. In the meantime Eti Mine Works has taken over half the world's boron production, and Rio Tinto is down to a quarter. Half of world boron is used in borosilicate glass, but 5/6ths of this is glass fiber and fiberglass that uses E-glass. Bulk borosilicate glassware is the rest. Ceramics (15%) and agriculture (11%) are next, with detergents and bleaches 6%. World production and consumption is now up to about 4 million tons. I'm going to put this in, and fix it up. References are above and will be put in as I do it. S B Harris 02:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * White, Cerqueira, et al in Ang.Chem.Int.Ed. (online prepub Jan 23, 2015) note that β-Boron (rhombohedral) is the most stable form (at STP) but is unique in that the structure contains a variable number of interstitial boron atoms (in order to fulfill valence requirements). That is, the structure is not definite (or a unit cell doesn't have a specific structure and atom count, ie. is variable). They also note (but full article is behind a pay-wall) that the fullerene B40 has recently been discovered and that MgB2 surprizingly is a superconductor. FWIWAbitslow (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Allotropes list in infobox
I started filling the (new) label Allotropes in the infobox. I do not know exactly which are most relevant for boron. Boron has a separate article allotropes of boron (Interesting; any more elements have?).

But my basic reader's rule is: if it is mentioned in the article or infobox, it must be there. I find it bad writing if a word "β-rhombohedral" pops up in the crystal data, and it has not been introduced yet. And from there, any reader expects an alpha to be somewhere, to state the obvious) -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * allotropes of boron lists
 * α-R 	α-T 	β-R 	β-T
 * which makes more sense to me (and shows that "T" might be ambiguous). -DePiep (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And there are γ, borophene, borospherene, amorphous, and a few odd forms - too many to list, and not that easy to argue why excluding some of them. Materialscientist (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure.
 * Now allotropes are mentioned in boron, as they are in this interesting list.
 * Once are mentioned in article boron, we cannot deny them (this is the lower edge). And yes, there are many, so there is an upper edge. Also, quite logically allotropes of boron and boron should say the same.
 * The only thing I require is that they are listed and mentioned and named properly in article boron (that includes the infobox] of course), and walking in poace with the allotropes page. Writing "See page x" in an infobox I do not accept.
 * Why don't you just write your proposal of that list? How would you list the (main) allotropes of boron for our reader? -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As to infobox, simply linking to allotropes of boron will do better (the situation is similar for sulfur). Materialscientist (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The infobox shall not be a "See also" link list. Now what is your allotropes list proposal for boron? And, while we are at it, what to do with that "T" reference I tagged in the text? I am getting confused, by what you do *not* say about the "allotropes of boron" topic. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorted out T. When the field is unstable, leave it be. γ, borophene and borospherene forms were (re)discovered recently. At the moment, they are not major - they are lab. forms, not industrial forms (which are typically alpha-beta-amorphous mixtures), but the situation may change quickly, as γ is the hardest, borophene is similar to the world-famous graphene, and borospherene is similar to fullerene, which also used to be a hot topic. γ and T forms will probably go into obscurity, but the situation with the other two is uncertain. Also, the high-pressure phases will likely be studied, as there are always scientific interests there. However, these are just my personal speculations - anyone can argue to have a lengthy full list or trim it to the bulk forms only - this could be a matter of a healthy debate, so please wait for others. Materialscientist (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, User:Materialscientist, you are a dick. This talk (I started, after some of your low-level edits) you did not contribute to pursue a result, and meanwhile you disrupt other pages. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The reference at the end of the sentence which has been tagged with clarify states: In fact,  probably  only  three  of  the reported boron phases correspond to the pure element rhombohedral, α-B12, β-B106 (with 12 and 106 atoms in the unit cell, respectively) and tetragonal T-192 (with 190–192 atoms per unit cell) It migth be good to divert from the cited source by writing α-rhombohedral β-rhombohedral β-tetragonal γ-orthorhombic?--Stone (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A while back I spent a fair amount of time researching and then updating the allotropes of boron article. The situation seems reasonably concise to me: α-R; α-T; β-R; β-T; γ; borospherene (B40); amorphous (powder; glassy). I left out borophene since I understand it hasn't been made yet. Sandbh (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For carbon (and sulfur, and the like) you could try something like, "graphite; diamond; buckminsterfullerene (C60); graphene; amorphous, and other forms." Sandbh (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

One week after, I recap. The article today says, somewhere in section "Boron" -- not in top: "It exists in four major polymorphs: α, β, γ and T". But the main article allotropes of boron does not mention any "T" allotrope (not-at-all). Then, if "T" is to mean "Tetragonal", this article must say so, and resolve the disambiguity. I want that the two articles are congruent and that article boron does not use unspecified or non-existing symbols.

(I also note that early rattler and edit warrior did not contribute any more.) -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's simple: this article was written from refs ([22,28,30,31]) that ignore the alpha-T phase and call beta-T as T; most other refs don't deal with the T phases. Few authors recognize alpha-T boron as a pure phase, thinking it is a BN or BC alloy. I've quickly tried to synchronize this and allotropes articles. Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Review

 * Four weeks later. Today allotropes of boron says:
 * two amorphous forms (powder, glassy)
 * α-rhombohedral, β-rhombohedral, β-tetragonal
 * And in special circumstances, boron can also be synthesized in the form of
 * α-tetragonal, γ-orthorhombic

This I understand. That's five allotropes. (If the two amorphous's should be counted too, please correct me). At the same time, Boron says: ''It exists in four major polymorphs: rhombohedral α-R and β-R, γ and β-T; α-T phase also exists, but is very difficult to produce without significant contamination. Whereas α, β and T phases are based on B12 icosahedra, the γ-phase[?4] can be described as a rocksalt-type arrangement of the icosahedra and B2 atomic pairs.''

This text is utter nonsense. For example, still the "γ" is isolated, the "T" is not explained at allnor is the "R"), the "α, β and T phases" are ambiguous as a child could say. I propose to edit the boron article harshly to follow the allotropes' page 1:1. -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Better fix the allotropes article, which is written in a spirit "if it was synthesized, it exists". I saw no evidence that γ phase (an maybe T) actually exists in nature in appreciable amounts. Materialscientist (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever: they do not sync. And again (sigh): "T" is not an allotrope id. -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Now they are. One thnig left to be clarified. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See my comments under Updates, above. β-Boron (rhom) structure is described as being 105 - 106.5 atoms and VARIABLE (4 icosahedrons at corners/edges and 3 more fused internal with varying occupation). That is two 'unit cells' may not have identical atom positions OR number of atoms. (If I am correctly interpreting what I read). This apparently makes Boron 'structure' unique.Abitslow (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Fusion"?
11B is also a candidate as a fuel for aneutronic fusion. When struck by a proton of about 500 keV, it produces three alpha particles and 8.7 MeV of energy.

5P + 6N add 1P → 3 alpha particles (3 x 2P+2N) + energy. This sounds like fission to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.223.141.144 (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just had the same conversation elsewhere. Our conclusion? 'Aneutronic fusion' avoids the word 'fission'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.112.41 (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually all Fusion is Fission and all Fission is Fusion. "Classic Fission": 235Uranium fuses with a neutron to give a high energy state of 236U, which being unstable it (18% of the time) gives of a (few MeV) gamma ray becoming low energy 236U or (82% of the time) it undergoes Spontaneous Fission (breaks up) into two smaller (unequal) pieces and neutrons. "Classic Fusion": two Deuterium (2Hydrogen) fuse to form 4He + many MeV of energy, rarely emitting the energy as a gamma ray but usually fissions to a 3He and a neutron. 10Boron fuses with a neutron but the resulting high energy 11Boron fissions into 4He (alpha particle) and 7Lithium. If 10B fuses with Deuterium (same as 11B plus proton) you get a high energy state of 12Carbon (unstable, again rarely emitting the energy directly) which splits the energy betwee an Alpha (4He, highest stability [binding energy] until Oxygen) and 8Be, which has a higher energy than 2 4He, so that splits into two. Shjacks45 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that same as "Focus Fusion"
as disussed there > http://lppfusion.com/about/ ? ... feel free to update main page if anything of interest can be found there ... my point being about the scarcity of boron versus their claim of - what else - "unlimited energy" ! thanks - Zigomar7 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Boron. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://bibliothek.fzk.de/zb/berichte/FZKA6746.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Boron-containing antibiotics
The article named boromycin as the only boron-containing antibiotic, but elsewhere there was a ref to another "only" boron-containing antibiotic, tartrolon. There are several: boromycin, (+)-aplasmomycin, tartrolon B (tatrolon A doesn't contain boron), etc. There are articles on boromycin and aplasmomycin. I'm going to try to fix the references.HowardJWilk (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The tartrolon reference names boromycin and aplasmomycin also so it suffices for "several".HowardJWilk (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Boron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000304181849/http://www.marchfield.org/sr71a.htm to http://www.marchfield.org/sr71a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No mention of low carbon boron steel
Should mention low carbon boron steel (as used eg in high tensile bolts. See low carbon classes in ASTM F568M) ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120918084003/http://www.riotinto.com/ourproducts/218_our_companies_4438.asp to http://www.riotinto.com/ourproducts/218_our_companies_4438.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017
Someone vandalized the page so that it reads "Pornhub.com" rather than "Boron". 69.204.133.28 (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Vandalism reverted. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

there is a dead ext link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.163.232 (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017
Boron carbide is a ceramic material which is obtained by decomposing B2O3 with carbon in the electric furnace: 'in the electric furnace' is poorly worded, should it not be replaced with 'in an electric furnace' or equiv. Cosumu (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2017
Boron is edible and in many edible plants Superfighter95 (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Quantification or Qualification?
Boron Should this really be "Analytical Qualification" as it (seems to be a) qualitative test rather than a quantitative one? --RProgrammer (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2018
Change the fiber section under the applications heading to the following, which incorporates the text presently included in the section: The primary use of boron fiber is as the fiber reinforcement in PMCs (Polymer Matrix Composites). It is used in high-strength, lightweight materials that are used chiefly for advanced aerospace structures such as F-14 (horizontal tail skins), the F-15 (horizontal and vertical tail skins and rudder), the B-1 bomber (dorsal longeron), the Blackhawk helicopter (stabilator), and the Predator B (top wing cap). Boron fiber has also been used in consumer and sporting goods such as golf clubs and fishing rods. Boron fiber has also been used in MMCs (Metal Matrix Composites). While boron fiber MMCs can have remarkable strength and stiffness properties, the cost is now too high to compete with the SiC and alumina powders that now dominate that market. At the present time there are two production processes for making boron fiber. The most well established one is a CVD process that deposits, elemental boron on a tungsten wire substrate. Depending on application the process is used to produce fiber diameters of 4.0 mil (102 micron) to 5.6 mil (142 micron). The finished fiber consists of a fully borided tungsten core with amorphous boron. Prepreg tape is the preferred format for boron fiber made with this process. Tows and cloth, common forms for glass and carbon fiber, aren’t practical due to the relatively large diameter and stiffness of these boron fibers. The second approach uses LCVD (Laser Chemical Vapor Deposition) to grow pure boron fibers directly out of the precursor gas. . Free Form Fibers LLC (Saratoga Springs, NY) is commercializing this process. Boron fibers and sub-millimeter sized crystalline boron springs are produced by laser-assisted chemical vapor deposition. Translation of the focused laser beam allows to produce even complex helical structures. Such structures show good mechanical properties (elastic modulus 450 GPa, fracture strain 3.7%, fracture stress 17 GPa) and can be applied as reinforcement of ceramics or in micromechanical systems.

Slhfff2012 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Slhfff2012

Slhfff2012 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please format your citations using ref tags to match the format in the rest of the article. This help page will help you get started. (Also, since this article is only semi-protected, you'll be able to make the changes yourself without submitting an edit request after you make at least 10 edits and accumulate 4 days of experience on your account. Since you already have 8 edits, you only need 2 more to meet this requirement.) —  Newslinger   talk   22:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020
Elemental boron synthesis section must be added to this article. That's a huge missing part in boron article Selog82 (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020
James.aminian (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

this user "Viaros17" changed the "Persian alchemist" to "perso-arab" alchemist. there is no such a word in the dictionary as "perso-arab". so I think we should revert it back to the Persian alchemist. James.aminian (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Have removed, his article does not mention his ethnicity in the intro since, so it's probably enough to just link to his article. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Boron is not such a "Boron" element
Boron smells like cheese, cheese is life, life=cheese,cheese=happy,boron=cheese,oron=happy,bron=hsppy life An0nym0u$ edit0r unk0wn (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021
run-on sentence/phrasing/grammar

Please change "Borax, its mineral form then known as tincal, glazes were used in China from AD 300, and some crude borax reached the West, where the alchemist Jābir ibn Hayyān apparently mentioned it in AD 700." to "Borax (then known as tincal in its mineral form) first saw use as a glaze, beginning in China circa 300 AD. Some crude borax traveled westward, and was apparently mentioned by the alchemist Jābir ibn Hayyān around 700 AD."
 * ✅. Slightly changed the wording. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Additionally: While the ethnicity of Jābir ibn Hayyān may be disputed/controversial, I think some sort of geographical datum is needed here beyond the vague and ethnocentric "The West". Also, mentioned in what, and why only "apparently"?
 * I'm not sure. Do you have a suggestion for how to change it? &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Please change "In 1777, boric acid was recognized in the hot springs (soffioni) near Florence, Italy, and became known as sal sedativum, with primarily medical uses. The rare mineral is called sassolite, which is found at Sasso, Italy." to "In 1777, boric acid was recognized in the hot springs (soffioni) near Florence, Italy, at which point it became known as sal sedativum, with ostensible medical benefits. The (boric acid mineral?) was named sassolite, after Sasso, Italy."
 * ✅. Fixed a minor detail. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Any claim from the 18th century regarding the health benefits of X substance from Y hot spring should be treated with a grain of salt (no pun intended) and qualified appropriately. The second sentence here segues terribly from the preceding one, mostly due to, "'The rare mineral'? What rare mineral?" The last mineral mentioned was borax, a paragraph and 1400 years ago. But sassolite is not borax, it's boric acid? Are they the same thing?  The current sentence also makes it sound like sassolite is, by definition, only found in Sasso, which does not seem to be the case.

173.72.124.221 (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: What should these paragraphs be changed to? Deauthorized. (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They did add that, (the sentences are separated by "to"), though it may be hard to see at first glance because the sentences are long. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Answered above. Agreed about the issues, but I don't know enough about the subject matter to offer solutions. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this section originally was just copy and pasted from by you way back in 2009. Do you have any suggestions on how to clean all this up? &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021
Boron causes very rare blue diamonds 2A02:C7F:EAE9:7200:1D3C:4DCB:7EE0:EC4A (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

edits today
Today new, boron-only editor made three edits to boron:. In these:
 * Ullmann's Encyclopedia was removed
 * Two references were added https://borates.today/ The site does not look like a peer-reviewed paper, more like an industry-promoting site.
 * Larger paragraphs on medical application were added (including bolded "Boron helps women:").
 * Edit summaries were not very precise (eg, removal of reference not mentioned)
 * In Electroless nickel-boron plating, also a source was removed & replaced with https://borates.today/
 * I'd say, shouldn't we take an otherlook at these changes, and RS-quality of the new site? And doesn't this have too much smell of promoting? -DePiep (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Resolved, case closed. -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomenclature for dates
In the History section, there are numerous references to dates using the "AD" suffix. As far as I am aware, "AD" has fallen out of use in favour of "CE" (particularly for scientific literature). Is this worth changing? I thought I'd run it past the good folks here before I made any edits. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)