Talk:Helium/Archive 2

Natural Occurance?
Can some-one clarify if the sentence under Discoveries ''An oil drilling operation in Dexter, Kansas created a gas geyser in 1903 that contained 12% by volume of an unidentified gas. American chemists Hamilton Cady and David McFarland of the University of Kansas discovered it was helium contradicts the line further down under Production that says Thus the greatest concentrations (trace amounts up to 7% by volume) of helium on the planet are in natural gas fields''. --Brother William 11 January 2006
 * It contained 12% of an unidentified gas but only 1.84% of the total was helium, so the remaining 10.16% must have been something else. -- Centrx 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that....
By the year 2010 the earth will run out of helium gas? I heard somewhere and have been trying to prove or disprove it since. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.97.145.132 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 January 2006.


 * The most significant market source of helium is natural gas fields, so it is unlikely helium will run out before natural gas does -- natural gas will not run out in 2010.Badocter 03:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the world will run out of helium by 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.215.33 (talk)


 * Helium is only present in viable quantities in some gas fields. There has been some concern about future supplies which might be worth mentioning in the article. I found some sources-    211.28.57.101 14:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

65% of H
I believe that number is wrong.

The correct value might be, out of a wild guess, 0.618.

Can anyone confirm this?

--Cacumer 21:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Helium flash
Currently, if you search for helium flash (astronomical) you are redirected to this site. Users who search for helium flash should not be redirected to this entry as this contains nothing on the subject. The status of a helium flash entry should be placed as "article not found". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.233.90.1 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 March 2006.
 * I made it into a single sentence stub. Hopefully someone can expand it.  (Feel free to do so yourself if you can!)  Edgar181 15:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Helium is the second most abundant?
The first sentence in the second paragraph states "Helium is the second most abundant and second lightest element in the periodic table". Abundant where? Other articles related to the elements I have read make a distinction between abundance on earth and abundance in the universe. On my first reading of this sentence I felt confused. The next sentence talks about the universe which helped to clarify the context but I still think the sentence I quoted is confusing. Since this was once a Featured articles I am not sure I should edit it. --Droll 03:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the edit based on information from the section on "Occurrence and production" later in the article. --Droll 04:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Second most abundant in the universe. Hugo Dufort 08:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Does it really remain liquid at absolute zero?
Hi, the article states that under normal pressure helium cannot be solid under whatever temperature, not even at absolute zero. That seems highly unlikely to me. I learned that absolute zero is when all molecules are motionless, so a compound at absolute zero MUST be solid, or am I very wrong? Caesarion 10:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolute zero is a theoretical limit that can't be reached, there's always some energy left in real matter. The relevance of helium is that you may take away as much energy as you can (thus cooling it arbitrarily close towards absolute zero), it remains superfluid. Femto 11:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's about what I expected: its melting point is very close to absolute zero and can't be reached in any laboratory. Thanks a lot. Caesarion 12:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonono, there is no solid state to reach, even as a theoretical limit. You just run into some weird quantum effects long before the energy gets low enough to allow the formation of a neat crystal lattice. Femto 14:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this goes slightly beyond my knowledge/imagination/whatever. Let me think a little... you reach something you can't call liquid but isn't solid either and does not obey the laws of classical mechanics but can only be explained in quantum mechanics... I think this should be mentioned/clarified in the article, for I've been curious about this for a long time. Caesarion 21:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This may help. Absolute zero is NOT the temp at which atoms are motionless. If they sat still they would violate the uncertainty principle, which says that things cannot be perfectly localized in space (due to their wavelike nature, essentially). As their energy and specifically their momentum drops, their spacial extent as wave-packets broadens. Even at absolute zero all atoms have a zero-point energy which is the residual kinetic energy that cannot be removed as heat, and exists as an undertainty in their momenta due to their uncertainty in location in space, again due to their wave nature. For most elements, the bonding energy between atoms is enough to "pin" the individual atoms (location of their nuclei) to locations smaller than their "size" (how big their electron cloud is). However, at really cold temperatures, atoms which bond poorly find themselves with waves that overlap. If the Pauli principle doesn't prohibit it, all these waves just cohere into one condensate, and the location of the individual atoms no longer has meaning. This stuff is not a solid. It's a fluid, and specifically a superfluid (there is no friction because there are individual particle to slide past and interact with each other). That's what happens in cold helium. S  B Harris 19:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Helium as cognate to "Sun"
The article notes that the Greek "helios" is 'surprisingly' cognate to the English word "Sun". I'm not sure about 'surprisingly'--Helios was the Greek god of the Sun, and isn't the element named after him since it was first observed in a solar spectral line? I'm not sure this line explains the naming of the element at all, since it looks like the correspondence is coincidental rather than deliberate. 128.104.161.17 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It thought that was odd too, so took it out. --mav 15:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutron number
Anyone kind enough to make the "He is stable with 1 neutronS" singular? --Starryboy 18:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Never bothered me, but substed and changed. Femto 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Spin sentence
Taken from article:


 * Depending on the spin orientation of the two electrons in the helium atom, one speaks of parahelium for two anti-parallel spins (S=0) and of orthohelium for two parallel spins (S=1). For the orthohelium one of the electrons does not sit in the ground orbital (1s). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maveric149 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 21 May 2006.

I'm not sure where this should go. It was in its own stub section, but that can't stand by itself... --mav 16:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Abundance and Production
What is the reason for combining these two sections as subsections in an empty supersection? Why is it not reasonable to cleanly divide it into natural abundance and occurence, and artificial production? It does not make sense to explain the cause of natural abundance in the crust in the same section that talks about the extraction of the retrieval from natural gas, and laboratory synthesis of the element (and note that this radioactive explanation repeats what is explained more fully in the Abundance section above). Please do not revert, and totally at that, simply because the sections and text look different than before. - Centrx 18:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they are closely related sections ; abundance in the real world leads to the ability of humans to extract that abundance for their use. Per WikiProject Elements convention, those two aspects would be treated directly under an ==Occurrence== section, but here, there is enough text to subdivide that section into two subsections. --mav 13:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Introduction
Reason given by User:Maveric149 in edit summary: "see Lead section ; the lead needs to be a concise encyclopedia article in its own right ; also part of FA stnadards ; this is also the lead that passed FAC"

First of all, this article became featured more than two years ago and standards have certainly changed since then. Still, when the featured tag was added to the Talk page on March 15, 2004, the introduction was in fact short and to the point. The same is true when the article was featured on the Main Page on May 31, 2004.

The shorter introduction is a concise article in its own right. It does, as the Featured article criteria also state, "summarize the entire topic". If there is some deficiency that it should cover but does not, then that deficiency can be remedied without reverting the entire introduction to a previous state. Note also that Featured article criteria states that the lead summary "prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections" (emphasis added). How are fractional distillation, a general method, and the specific maximum concentration, both tangents to the main point about the source as natural gas, appropriate for the introduction? There are numerous other unnecessary particulars that are not appropriate for the introduction. Why are the introductions for United States and New York City both shorter than your introduction here, when both articles are twice as long as this one?

The reasons you have given actually indicate that the shorter introduction should be used. Please provide some good reasons why it shouldn't be. Also, what is not in the shorter introduction but should be, and why can it not be added to the shorter introduction. —Centrx→talk 21:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, see lead section. The shorter version says nothing of the history of the element, nothing about how most of it is formed, does not mention how it is extracted, and also fails to mention anything about a quality of the gas that most people are familiar with (the voice-changing part). Without that, the lead can't stand alone as a concise version of this article. FA standards have increased a great deal since this article was first listed as Brilliant Prose so I and others completely rewrote it and put it through a proper FAC instead of de-featuring it. The lead section that passed that is almost identical to the one now in the article. So please, improve the wording and fix any error but do not cut. --mav 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Done,. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Helium in the perdiodic table
This is just temporary, I will delete this section once I have the answer

I got told that all the materials in group 8 (or 18 if we count the transition metals) have 8 electrons in their outer shell (except once past Argon). So why is Helium in group 8 (or 18) and not in group 2? It has only 2 electrons in its outer shell.

--Josellis 11:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, we don't remove info in talk pages; this should be kept as an archive. As for helium, it is a noble gas, like neon. Group 2 is the alkaline earth metals, like beryllium. Georgia guy 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A more accurate description of group 18 would be that the outermost shell is full. The first energy level has only the s orbital, with space for two electrons. So, for helium, its two electrons fill the outermost shell. Elements with more protons than helium go into higher energy levels with both the s orbital and the p orbital, and therefore 8 electrons in the outermost shell. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Treated like liquid He.
"Containers of helium gas at 5 to 10 K should be treated as if they have liquid helium inside" Treated how? --Gbleem 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That likely means to use the same safety precautions one would use for a container of the liquid. The liquid is more hazardous than the gas (rapid increase in gas volume comes to mind). Like how you would probably treat a jar from rat poison as if it had rat poison in it (i.e., not use it as a drinking glass) even after you think you dumped the poison out. DMacks 05:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Grade A
"By 1949 commercial quantities of Grade A 99.995% helium were available." Do they really call it Grade A? --Gbleem 03:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. --Gbleem 03:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted until I or someone else can find more info. --Gbleem 04:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Helium is sold in grades of purity.
 * Type I, gaseous
 * Grade A
 * Grade F
 * Grade J
 * Type II, liquid
 * Grade A
 * Grade F
 * Grade F

The abstract of that ISO document sounds like those type and grade specifications are applicable to certain uses only, not a general-purpose terminology. DMacks 05:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Helium Voice misconception stuff
Hi,

''It is a common misconception that Helium's effects on the voice are related to its density. The real explanation is slightly more complicated. Because Helium is monoatomic (earth's atmosphere consists of over 95% diatomic molecules), its adiabatic index differs from that of air. This means that the speed of sound in helium is faster, and sound of the same frequency has a longer wavelength compared to in air.''

It looks like the "common misconception" is more correct than the article. The speed of sound $$c=\sqrt{\gamma\frac{RT}{\mu}}$$ depends on both adiabatic index $$\gamma$$ as well as on the molecular weight $$\mu$$. The adiabatic index for helium differs from that for air by a factor of 25/21, while the molecular weight ratio is 4/30.

--Melnikovsky 15:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This was recently added. I have deleted it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the fundamental frequency stuff to better match the listed references and this reference. johnpseudo 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that the voice change is the result of helium's effect on muscle, specifically vocal cord muscles. It is plausible that helium constricts and tightens the vocal cord muscles and therefore creates a higher pitch sound.
 * Begin amendment by Jon Kroger *****
 * End amendment by Jon Kroger *****


 * Has nothing to do with muscles. The pitch of a flute or whistle in helium is higher than in air also. Anybody who has valved helium from a tank knows this. It's strictly a speed of sound issue, as noted above. Mostly this is due to molecular weight, but monatomic gases do have slightly higher sound speeds than diatomics (by a factor of 9%), even at the same molecular weight. An effect relatively unimportant with these large density differences. However, helium will give an even higher pitch than deuterium for this reason. S  B Harris 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reactivity
Under the sentence, "Helium is the most unreactive element of group 18," it should be noted that this makes helium the most unreactive of all the chemical elements. I'd also note this in the introduction. I'd do it myself, but for some reason the article is protected.--The Sultan of Surreal. 02:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The old protection has been lifted. Edit away! Femto 15:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how do you measure reactivity? I mean -- does an experiment exist, which proves that Helium is more unreactive than Neon?--Melnikovsky 14:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Helium's first ionization energy is the highest of the whole periodic table, and by much. http://www.800mainstreet.com/4/0004-000-IE.GIF Thus, it is hard to make it throw away, or even share, an electron. Now since its outermost orbital is full, it can't accept an electron neither. So basically it can't really react with other elements and form molecules under normal "molecular" conditions (although some molecules created in a high-energy environment or a plasma can theoritically contain Helium, such as HHeF). Hugo Dufort 05:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dihelium?
There's a sentence in Helium that suggests that the neutral He2 molecule exists. Isn't this forbidden by molecular orbital theory? youngvalter 05:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is impossible in a normal gas, but in a plasma "everything goes" since the formidable energies involved are many times higher than any ionization energy! The Helium nucleus gets stripped of its electrons and floats around as ionized gas, forming "unnatural" bonds with some of the other molecules. Hugo Dufort 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Radiation in Helium
As quoted in your description of Helium you state"On Earth, helium is primarily a product of the radioactive decay of much heavier elements, which emit helium nuclei called alpha particles; it is found in significant amounts only in natural gas, from which it is extracted at low temperatures by fractional distillation". I have a question on that subject. Does Helium retain any Radiation after processing? As a deep sea diver we breath up to 98% Helium at deeper depths in saturation diving and our cells get saturated with the element. I would like any info on this matter that you can supply.

Thank you


 * No, most helium is derived from radiation (a helium baloon or a diver's cylinder is basically a container of retired alpha particles), but no radiation is left. Zip. You get far more radiation from the potassium-40 in your cells and carbon-14 in your tissues. And as for danger, saturation diving beats most things!  S  B Harris 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

History of the periodic table

 * When was helium identified as the element with atomic number 2 in the periodic table of elements?

This periodic table from 1891 (Image:Mendeleev Table 5th II.jpg) does not list helium, nor does it leave an empty slot for element number 2. The result is that all elements beyond hydrogen are given an "atomic number" one less than the number of protons. -- Petri Krohn 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact the table is missing all noble gases, so there are other gaps in the table. Question number #2 is thus:


 * When were the noble gases added to the periodic table?

-- Petri Krohn 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Moving discussion to Talk:History of the periodic table)

Use in suicides
I just came across which discusses how helium is increasingly being used in suicides in Australia and similar data has come out from the UK (not anywhere near an RS, but the data is from an RS). Should we include this? SmartSE (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. More material on helium's use in this fashion is already quoted in the wiki on suicide bag. The mechanism is discussed at controlled atmosphere killing and nitrogen asphyxiation, which is mostly about capital punishment where nitrogen (nor helium) has ever been used, and which I'm trying to get renamed to inert gas asphyxiation, with subarticles or subsections on different inert gases and homicide vs. suicide. I could use some help on this from editors here, as the nitrogen asphyxiation article seems to be WP:OWNed by one or two editors who are resistant to making any changes in it. Helium is particularly suitable for inert gas asphyxiation suicide, since it collects at the top of do-it-yourself apparatuses, forming a layer around the head. Otherwise, it's not much different from equally affordable argon or nitrogen. S  B Harris 19:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


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

language Use
Helium II state

Liquid helium below its lambda point begins to exhibit very unusual characteristics, in a state called helium II. Boiling of helium II is not possible due to its high thermal conductivity; heat input instead causes evaporation of the liquid directly to gas.

The correct term for this is Sublimation link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28chemistry%29 not evaporation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.208.247 (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a little confused. In your second sentence, I would say that evaporation of liquid helium II IS boiling of helium II. And sublimation means direct conversion of a SOLID to gas, at least for most substances which have only one liquid state.

For helium it is true that direct evaporation of liquid helium II without passing through liquid helium I is ANALOGOUS to sublimation of ice (for example) without passing through liquid water. However before describing the HeII --> gas transition as sublimation in a Wiki article, I think we need a reference to a reputable physics paper or website which so describes it. Without a citation, this description would be "original research" which is against Wiki policy - see WP:NOR. Dirac66 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How is an analogy "original research?" Inaccurate perhaps, but OR?! --Belg4mit (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Using a term in a way not used by the scientific community is OR in Wikipedia terms as it is an invention. The OP was not proposing it as an analogy, he/she was proposing it as an actual meaning.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  02:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Both "boiling" and "evaporation" are both transitions from liquid to gas. Assuming the terms are the same for a superfluid as a liquid, it is not meaningful to say that Helium II does one but not the other.  I think what is meant is that it doesn't bubble, but transitions from the surface layer. I fixed the article to say that.  -- Beland (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Although some folk pronounce the element name as HEE-lee-em, as the schwa, "ə", is carelessly used for any short vowel, it is more correctly pronounced 'um' as in 'gum', (HEE-lee-ʌm), consistent with its spelling and etymology.Wikidity (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Professional dictionaries show the schwa. -- Beland (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Correction to Biological Effects
The explanation of the high pitch you get when you huff helium began by saying something very wrong: that the pitch of the voice is primarily determined by the dimensions of the resonant cavity, not by the stimulating frequency from the vocal folds. You can easily demonstrate how wrong this is by singing and sliding gradually from low pitch to high pitch, all on the same vowel. The resonance chamber from larynx to mouth plus buzz in the skull and sinuses changes only very little, but the pitch changes more than an octave and covers all the pitches between. That means if the cavity were determining pitch, you'd need to be gradually reducing its size for high notes to less than HALF the size for low notes! (For a trained singer with a two-octave range, to less than ONE QUARTER the low-note size.) No. In fact the vocal cavity, like the body of a stringed instrument, is a versatile resonator capable of supporting many frequencies, and what changes is the tension holding the vocal folds together, and the air pressure from below.

The reason the cavity can resonate at many frequencies without changing its dimensions (much) is, it's not like a trombone, which is a simple narrow cylinder, with length much greater than base-radius. The only available path for a sound wave through a trombone is directly from one end to the other, so the pitch is determined by the length, the wavelength of the sound being equal to the length of the cylinder, or an harmonic fraction thereof. In contrast, the voice is better-modelled as a WIDE cylinder, a can, with a pinhole in the center of the bottom, through which vibratory stimulation radiates into the can in all different directions. The path of the resonating wave through the vocal cavity can be direct from entrance to exit, as in a trombone, but it can also be crooked, ricocheting off the walls of the can. This makes many additional baseline resonant frequencies available, plus their harmonics, and the distribution of them--which of the possible vibrations actually occur, and how strongly--is determined primarily by the stimulating vibration, as in a stringed instrument, exactly opposite to what the article said.

Fortunately, I was able to correct this simply by deleting the misinformation, so I have not added any new reference to the article. However, if you want one, here it is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2689615/ SingingZombie (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's an argument over whether the pitch changes at all when you breathe helium. To me, it sounds as if it does. Several speech professionals claim it does not, precisely for the reasons you give (it's an oscillator-driven system not a resonator-driven one). Basically, even if you're breathing 80% helium, 20% oxygen, your vocal folds resonate at the same frequency, and all that changes is the timbre (strength of the various higher harmonics), not the fundamental pitch. Right now I'm sort of agnostic on the issue, not having had the time or the helium to do my own experiments. This article has said in the past that helium does and does NOT change the pitch of the voice. And you can find "explanations" that say both things on the net. If you're doing to go with your idea, you have to go whole hog with J. Wolfe's idea that timbre changes but pitch does NOT. See  S  B Harris 03:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wanna hear something even cooler? The vocal cavity is wide in the larynx up to behind the tongue, where it is narrow, and then it widens again in the mouth-and-sinuses.  So it has a peanut-shape (or barbel-shape), just like the body of a guitar or violin!  There must be something about the peanut-shape which confers extra resonances.


 * By the way, I agree with you about the pitch/timbre ambiguity. That's one of the reasons I just deleted the misinfo but did not add new info.   SingingZombie (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that J. Wolfe on the helium-singing article is the same guy on the article you cited. He's a wonk in the field. Wolfe and I had some correspondance in which I essentially said: "well, if the pitch doesn't change, how come everybody thinks it does, and why does it SOUND like it does? To which he essentially replied: "It doesn't sound like it does to ME, and here are the spectral analyses that show that the harmonics are separated by just the same interval on helium, which means that the fundamental (the pitch by definition, even if it's heard as a virtual pitch) is unchanged." So the harmonic power spectum of the voice (particularly amplitude of higher harmonics) is changed by helium, resulting in a major timbre change, but that's it. We really have to do something about this on the Wikipedia, since if Wolfe is right, the article still remains wrong. Probably this topic deserves its own subarticle, there's so much confusion about it even in the cited literature. I've probably read about 3 different explanation of why helium changes voice pitch, but the biggest academic in the field claims it doesn't change it at all. Go figure. S  B Harris 20:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the way the article reads now is fine--"...an increase in the pitch of the resonance frequencies..." Whether it's the overall pitch that changes or only the timbre, the pitches of the individual resonance modes certainly do change.  If the pitch doesn't change (as Wolfe says) it's because the relative activities of the resonances also change to maintain the overall pitch, but not the timbre.  The pitches of the individual modes--for instance, the shortest mode, straight up from larynx to mouth with no richochets--definitely does change its pitch, according to the change in the speed of sound. SingingZombie (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. A spectral analysis of some spoken words showed the basis tone stays the same under helium, but overtones become higher. People trying to speak with helium often raise there basis tone unconsciously and so distort the effect of helium alone. At the very end of breathing out the helium concentration and the effect is reduced. --Helium4 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I found a reference so I'm changing the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


 * Sbharris is incorrect; helium is indeed in greater abundance in the upper atmosphere; see Heterosphere for an explanation. However, DMahalko is also incorrect; all atmospheric gases are lost to space (see Atmospheric escape), and helium disproportionately so.  Whether or not it's feasible to extract helium from the upper atmosphere is an economic question.  Currently it seems much easier to simply harvest it from natural gas fields or the lower atmosphere.  And speculating about the future is not really the job of an encyclopedia. -- Beland (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious
The following paragraph in the Helium article is an abomination of nuclear physics and the standard solar model. Therefore, it must be deleted before it does any more harm.

"In a similar way, the particular energetic stability of the helium-4 nucleus, produced by similar effects, accounts for the ease of helium-4 production in atomic reactions involving both heavy-particle emission, and fusion. Some stable helium-3 is produced in fusion reactions from hydrogen, but it is a very small fraction, compared with the highly favorable helium-4. The stability of helium-4 is the reason hydrogen is converted to helium-4 (not deuterium or helium-3 or heavier elements) in the Sun..."

WOW! Not only is helium-3 stable, it is also far more abundant in the sun than helium-4. Additionally, helium-3 is required for every fusion reaction resulting in helium-4, not to mention that deuterium is necessary to make helium-3. The reason that helium-4 is more abundant on Earth is that helium-4's rest mass (added with the rest masses of the other particles that result) is less than the initial system's rest masses. Saying that helium-4's "higher" (are there various degrees of stable? I thought stable meant stable?) stability is why it is favored over helium-3 is like saying carbon-12's (another isotope made in solar processes) stability is why it's favored over helium-4... yeah...RIDICULOUS!

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

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

Can you support the assertion that 3He is more abundant than 4He in the Sun? It is my understanding that (1) the abundance of 3He in the Universe has been quite constant since the first few minutes following the Big Bang, (2) 3He is less than 1/1000 as abundant as 4He in the Universe[], and also in the solar wind[], and (3) 3He is probably not a significant participant in solar reactions[]. I believe the concentration in the solar wind approximates that on at least the surface of the Sun. I may have missed something.

Fnj2 (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Low 3He abundance is supported by . However, Mrkbh12 is not asserting that 3He is abundant, only that the description of the mechanism is inaccurate. These claims are unreferenced, so I will mark them as dubious. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The mechanisms change with temperature, but in our Sun the dominant one is the proton–proton chain reaction (please read) for which Hans Bethe won the Nobel Prize in 1967 (this is the low temp fusion below about 15 million K-- the CNO cycle is dominant at higher temperatures and larger stars). One of Bethe's insights is that at the comparitively low temperatures and core densities of our Sun, proton-proton fusion (which is all you have to run on) is incredibly slow-- protons have a half life of a billion years before being fused to deuterium. If it were otherwise the Sun would have gone supernova, or at least gone red giant-->white dwarf, long ago. The process is so rare and difficult that I don't even know if it's been seen experimentally even yet (all lab and bomb fusion is done with deuterium or tritium, or other likely elements, but never, never, ever protium). Once deuterium is made in our Sun, it has a half life of 4 seconds before fusing with a proton to give He-3. Which is why there's essentially none of it in the core of the Sun, even though one deuterium must be made for every He-4. And this is also the reason why essentially all the deuterium in the universe comes from the Big Bang, not from any type of stellar process (or cosmic rays, either-- deuterium is just too loosely bound to stand up to any energetic post Big Bang processes). Once you have helium-3 that doesn't last long either, which is why (again) most of the helium-3 in the universe (though not quite all) is from the Big Bang, also. The most likely step from there is He-3 fusing with itself to give He-4 and two protons. He-3 has a half life of just 400 years in the core of our star, which is why there's so little there (it doesn't matter if you must make one He-3 for every He-4; the He-4 lasts forever and the He-3 lasts a 10-millionth of the duration of our Sun so far from its beginning). Most of the He-4 in our Sun is from the Big Bang also-- it hasn't been around long enough to enrich this by more than about half. But the primordial He-3 ratio to He-4 from the Big Bang is 1 to 10,000 and that's what our star started with (and about what it still has, since He-3 is burned so fast). This is far, far more He-3 than you get from p-p fusion. Even if you started with no He-4 from the Big Bang, it only takes 200 x 10,000 years = 2 million years after a star like our Sun turns on, to make as much He-4 as it contains He-3, and after that the He-4 just keeps building up (where would it go?), and the He-3 does not, because it is burned in various ways to He-4 (see a list in the proton–proton chain reaction article). Our Sun only makes trivial amounts of C-12, which is the only thing He-4 can fuse into. In the far future when our Sun passes through the red giant phase and starts to burn He-4 at far higher temperatures, that will change, but right now, He-4 from fusion is just building up as "ash", and little is happening to it. The billion year half life for H-1, and the 4 second half life for D, and the 400 year half life for He-3 in our Sun are given in James Byrne's text Neutrons, Nuclei, and Matter p. 8 (2011, Dover edition) Philadelphia (ISBN-13: 978-0-486-48238-5). They are also pretty standard in any astronomical book on stellar synthesis. He-3 and D (aka H-2) are both very vulnerable to fusion processes, whereas H-1 and He-4 are far less, and therefore they end up the majority players, even after billions of years. A minority of He-3 in our own Sun is burned straight to He-4 by proton capture--> positive beta decay, also illustrating how vulnerable He-3 is to fusing to He-4, where things (again) stick because the temp is too cool to make carbon. The basic reason for all of these reactions is the amount of binding energy per nucleon in the He-4 nucleus, vs. He-3 and D (that is "stability"). Is somebody really arguing against this? I'm discounting the editor above who thinks the Sun has more He-3 than He-4; that's just so far out of reality that I assume it's coming from somebody who knows nothing at all in this area, and is spouting off (he didn't look at the nuclide stability chart in the next section, either). For you experts out there, feel free to tell me why the other very simple view of things (H-1 fuses to He-4 in our star, with little intermediate and even less further progression afterward) is not the correct view. S B Harris 23:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2013
Here I come, I want to help the wikipedia to see what happened and if something gone wrong,we can delte thewrong thing and put the correct back :D

Augustin barna (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. If you do not want to list the changes needed here, you may wait until your account is autoconfirmed, which means you have been a registered user for more than four days and have made more than 10 edits. At this point, you will be allowed to edit the article yourself. Dana boomer (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Helium, escape velocity?
The article says "Helium is a finite resource and is one of the only elements with escape velocity, meaning that once released into the atmosphere, it escapes into space.[3][4][5"

I have two problems with this, firstly "is one of the only elements with escape velocity" is vague. Perhaps the other is hydrogen? In which case it needs to say "is one of only two..."#

Secondly, does it really reach escape velocity? Given that it is less dense than air it will rise to the upper atmosphere without needing to reach escape velocity (just as a high flying balloon does not need to reach escape velocity to reach its equilibrium point). Once in the high atmosphere it may then be irradiated or stripped away by the solar wind. The reference to escape velocity needs to be checked and if it is correct an explanation is needed, otherwise it should be removed. 194.176.105.153 (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the main other is H2. See atmospheric escape for a more detailed look at the mechanisms. H2 and He seem to be the main two atmospheric gases that Earth cannot hold on to gravitationally. Technically all gases can escape from Earth's atmosphere, but H2 and He do so disproportionately, probably due to their light weight. Nevertheless they still occur in Earth's atmosphere, just at such low concentrations that it's not worth using it as a source for now – particularly when there are much more plentiful resources of these gases (water and alpha decay of heavy elements, respectively). But you are right that He will rise to the upper atmosphere if it doesn't reach escape velocity. If our He supplies run out, space elevators may be another feasible way to extract He from regions in the atmosphere where it is more concentrated – as I see another user has suggested earlier on this talk page. Double sharp (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Once the light elements, H2 and He reach the uppermost layer of the atmosphere, solar wind provides the additional impulse to give it escape velocity and leave the planet forever.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But none of these forces (buoyancy or solar wind) driving hydrogen or helium out of the atmosphere are dependent upon escape velocity (or escape speed as it should be termed) because these are not ballistic trajectories. The solar wind can apply a constant force to push a particle without the need for escape velocity.  Consider a man climbing an infinite ladder, he does not need to reach escape velocity to escape the earth, but he would if he was fired from a canon.  194.176.105.153 (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You neglect ionization effects from solar radiation, magnetic fields accelerating the now ionized particles. Those further accelerate the lightest elements to full escape velocity, especially when the solar magnetic flux is adding to capture from Earth orbit.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange English in this article
Strange English is in this article very early on. Look at the beginning.

"This is due to the very high binding energy (per nucleon) of helium-4 with respect to the next three elements after helium. This helium-4 binding energy also accounts for its commonality as a product in both nuclear fusion and radioactive decay."

"Commonality" is not the right word. Commonality means "the ordinary people, as distinguished from those with authority, rank, station, etc.," according to the RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY of 2012.

What you need is "commonness": that which belongs equally to, or is shared alike by, two or more entities in question, according to the RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY. Similar results can be found in other dictionaries.98.67.97.60 (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out; I just rephrased it. -- Beland (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "one of the only" is a common but meaningless one: the correct wording is "one of the few". Francis newman welder (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Francis Newman welder

Definition of Grade A
By 1949, commercial quantities of Grade A 99.95% helium were available.[34] ''usually resulting in 99.995% pure Grade-A helium. [8]''

There appears to be an error in the first number based on a quick search of other (modern) sources or it could be that the standard for Grade A has changed over the years

Either way this article could be enhanced by getting these numbers corrected or explaining the reason for the difference.

70.60.140.242 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stfg (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Helium is also used as filling gas in CANDU nuclear fuel elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.102.124.247 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Health Hazards
The cited references are very bad, there are much better ones which are pier reviewed and better than Lou's Balloons.. Lets change it!



--Stone (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done my best to tidy up the incoherent structure and grammar of the section. I must question, however, the encyclopedic value of a long catalogue of deaths caused by helium. Frankly I don't think that every incident needs to be mentioned because of WP:WEIGHT and a simple summary would be far more appropriate in my opinion. I am also troubled by the fact that the first reference I checked (http://web.archive.org/web/20120109032345/http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-riverside-teen-helium,0,6589649.story) showed that the teenager died from asphyxiation, while the article mistakenly stated it as barotrauma. I've since corrected that but it leads me to suspect all the other references. I'd appreciate it if someone had time to cast an eye over the section and give a third opinion on the suitability of the content for a featured article. The references need to be brought into line with the others in the FA, but I don't want to expend energy on that if others agree that the section has been unduly inflated and needs to be cut back. --RexxS (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should condense the whole thing down to what it really is: It is the en vogue way to commit suicide advertised in the net and by books and therefore the number of dead people fund in bags full of helium is increasing. The "Tod in Tüten" article exactly says this and we can quote it. May be we should use a more encyclopedic way to write it ;-) --15:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would hate to ascribe a tragic loss of life by accidental asphyxiation to suicide, when often all we have to go on is yellow journalism. Following the comments here and WhatamIdoing's advice at WT:WikiProject Medicine, I'm going to suggest that we cut back the hazards section to a paragraph each on: inhalation; cryogenic helium; and high-pressure nervous syndrome:
 * I would hate to ascribe a tragic loss of life by accidental asphyxiation to suicide, when often all we have to go on is yellow journalism. Following the comments here and WhatamIdoing's advice at WT:WikiProject Medicine, I'm going to suggest that we cut back the hazards section to a paragraph each on: inhalation; cryogenic helium; and high-pressure nervous syndrome:

Excessive inhalation of helium can be dangerous, since helium is a simple asphyxiant and so displaces oxygen needed for normal respiration. Breathing pure helium continuously causes death by asphyxiation within minutes. This fact is utilized in the design of suicide bags. Inhaling helium directly from pressurized cylinders is extremely dangerous, as the high flow rate can result in barotrauma, fatally rupturing lung tissue. Death caused by helium is nevertheless rare. Since 1998 no more than one or two fatalities have been reported each year.

The safety issues for cryogenic helium are similar to those of liquid nitrogen; its extremely low temperatures can result in cold burns and the liquid-to-gas expansion ratio can cause explosions if no pressure-relief devices are installed. Containers of helium gas at 5 to 10 K should be handled as if they contain liquid helium due to the rapid and significant thermal expansion that occurs when helium gas at less than 10 K is warmed to room temperature.

At pressures greater than about 20 atm, a mixture of helium and oxygen (heliox) can lead to high-pressure nervous syndrome, a sort of reverse-anesthetic effect. Adding nitrogen or hydrogen to the mixture can delay the onset of the problem.

References


 * It can be argued that the observation on rate of fatalities is WP:OR. I'd have no objection to cutting that if others felt strongly. I'm not sure if the suicide bags comment needs an independent reference; the relevant article has multiple citations that could be used. If different references were wanted, I'd recommend the best of the sources that I've cut out:
 * Any other thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's a significant improvement. I think it would be better to say that no more than a couple of accidental fatalities are reported each year.  Deliberate suicides presumably don't get reported the same way or at all (don't media guidelines discourage reporting the suicide method?).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's a significant improvement. I think it would be better to say that no more than a couple of accidental fatalities are reported each year.  Deliberate suicides presumably don't get reported the same way or at all (don't media guidelines discourage reporting the suicide method?).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Misinterpreted source
On the page it reads

> It is estimated that the resource base for yet-unproven helium in natural gas in the U.S. is 31–53 trillion SCM, about 1000 times the proven reserves.

The source can be found at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9860&page=47 and it reads

> It is estimated that the total U.S. potential resource base of natural gas is an additional 1,100 to 1,900 trillion scf (31 to 53 trillion scm) over the proved reserve base (as of December 31, 1993).

The original text does not refer to "helium in natural gas" but simply natural gas (of which helium would represent perhaps 0-2 %, however the source does not hint anything about the potential helium content). I've not done any edits because I'm not registered. 91.155.176.242 (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have removed that estimate of unproven reserves as speculative - the natural gas reserves are rather different here and in the Committee on the Impact of Selling source, and the helium content in it is uncertain. Materialscientist (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2014
Under Hazards, 'temporally' should be changed to 'temporarily' because 'temporally' is not a word.

108.206.188.52 (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Temporally is a word. 84.227.251.109 (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Safety in Helium Use
I would appreciate it if the data in this section could be updated to the current time. In February 2012 a 14-year-old girl died as a result of inhaling helium at a party (Source: Associated Press 2-23-12; reported also on FoxNews.com) and on September 23 2012 a 12-year-old girl inhaled helium from a balloon she found in a tree, became unconscious and fell out of the tree, then experienced a seizure from hypoxia requiring emergency medical attention (Source: Sherman Publications, Inc., The Oxford Leader newspaper 12-3-12). This would mean that there have been at least two additional incidents of serious medical effects (one fatal) from inhaling helium by young adolescents within a one year span in the U.S. which have reached the press, which is a much higher incidence rate and a significant increase from two incidents spread over several years and two different countries, as the article currently indicates.

As a drug & alcohol counselor working in a High School & Middle School, I have first-hand knowledge of the frequency of this behavior and I teach the students about the seriousness of it. It would be helpful if the Wiki article more accurately represented the danger of this practice with the most current facts. Kwalshpio (talk • contribs) 13:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Karen Walsh Pio, LICSW, LADC I
 * I added mention of the two incidents, though this article is now suffering from Recentism. Doing a historical chart as far back as data is available would be more balanced in that respect.  The article already explains why inhalation of either kind is dangerous, kids. -- Beland (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The first case was inhaling high pressure gas from a pressurized tank. It has really nothing to do with helium, but is a high pressure lung injury causing gas embolism. The second injury is rather odd, also. If you breathe any gas without oxygen you can lose consciousness; it's an asphyxiant gas problem. If you're up in tree, that's a danger if you lose consciousness. If you're up in a tree and you merely breathe into a plastic bag until you lose consciousness and fall out on your head, what can we blame? Not helium-- this is lack of oxygen. If you climb a tree with a friend and one of you chokes the other until he loses consciousness and falls out onto his head, what is the behavior resulting in the injury? Choking? Strangulation? Hypoxia? Stupidity? If you're up in a tree and you get drunk enough to fall on your head, should be put that in the alcoholism wiki? Is it even specific enough? Suppose you take off in your hang glider and put a plastic bag on your head (no helium-- just the bag) and then deliriously fly into the ground, what then? So you see my point, yet?  S  B Harris 23:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I get you general point but you're actually taking it way too far (enjoyment of intellectual extreme point). Inhaling helium from a balloon is helium-specific because helium balloons are a common play item and because the voice changes are a popular party trick. So it means some kind of mention in this direction might be appropriate. 84.227.251.109 (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I updated it and added a 1998 case. The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Spamming of unreliable sources
I've already reverted once the huge number of junk sources like lifemartini.com, singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg, dailypicksandflicks.com, and another 100 more that have been added by, but they have been simply replaced once more. I refuse to edit war over this, but other editors are now needed to clean up this featured article from the mess that's been made. --RexxS (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Link to Superfluid helium-4
Shouldn't there be a link to the extensive wiki article on superfluid helium-4 somewhere in this page. Maybe as a "See also" in the section on Helium II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dborrero (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. This more-detailed and much longer article is now the "main" reference article of the helium-II section. S  B Harris 23:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014
Isotopes Main article: Isotopes of helium There are eight known isotopes of helium

Please change eight known isotopes to nine known isotpoes See Main article: Isotopes of helium for confirmation

Submitted by Al Stokes, stokesal@yahoo.com; tel # 201-203-9634

Stokesal (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅: . G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not imperial units?
Why do we not at least *include* imperial measurements (feet and inches) here, since this is the American English version of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.141.18 (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion is: in science, SI is the universal unit set. Noonew in science uses ft,in-derived units. I am open to other proposals. btw, temperatures are in C, F, and K. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to 208.95.141.18: Actually it's the English language version of Wikipedia. We try to accommodate editors from USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and everywhere where English is spoken (sorry if I've missed any). As a result we do provide conversions between SI and Imperial wherever practical, and we even have a template convert to do the job automatically. In the infobox you'll see temperatures in Kelvin, Celsius and Fahrenheit, but are there any other places that you'd specifically like to see unit conversions? I should say that there are some places where Imperial units just wouldn't be appropriate - for example, I doubt that "a wavelength of 587.49 nanometers" would ever be quoted as "a wavelength of 587.49 nanometers (0.0002313 inches)" because scientific work is conducted almost exclusively using SI units. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to 208.95.141.18: Actually it's the English language version of Wikipedia. We try to accommodate editors from USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and everywhere where English is spoken (sorry if I've missed any). As a result we do provide conversions between SI and Imperial wherever practical, and we even have a template convert to do the job automatically. In the infobox you'll see temperatures in Kelvin, Celsius and Fahrenheit, but are there any other places that you'd specifically like to see unit conversions? I should say that there are some places where Imperial units just wouldn't be appropriate - for example, I doubt that "a wavelength of 587.49 nanometers" would ever be quoted as "a wavelength of 587.49 nanometers (0.0002313 inches)" because scientific work is conducted almost exclusively using SI units. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

He melting point is wrong
I am not sure where the value of 0.95 K at 2.5 MPa comes from but this is wrong. First, the melting point is normally associated with atmospheric pressure. In the case of helium at absolute zero and atmospheric pressure it is still a liquid, due to the zero point energy. Therefore a standard melting point is not defined. Furthermore, as I'm sure will be pointed out, the melting point is defined here at a pressure of 2.5 MPa. While this is correct, the melting point at 2.5 MPa occurs when the temperature is zero Kelvin and not 0.95K. This can be supported with this paperand here. The 0.95 K temperature makes little sense if you consider the phase diagram. i.e. what happens between 0.95 K at 2.5 MPa and 0 k and 1 atmosphere. I'm not sure where this 0.95 K figure originates but it is erroneous and should be removed as it is becoming ubiquitous due to the Wikipedia effect and I can find no supporting evidence of this value anywhere in the scientific literature. --ElectricDoctor (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The 0.95 K figure is quoted at Melting points of the elements (data page) as being from Lange's Handbook of Chemistry (15th edition). However, given what you point out, we probably ought to change it. Double sharp (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015
In the application section, under scientific uses, change this paragraph:

"Helium at low temperatures is used in cryogenics, and in certain cryogenics applications. As examples of applications, liquid helium is used to cool certain metals to the extremely low temperatures required for superconductivity, such as in superconducting magnets for magnetic resonance imaging. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN uses 96 metric tons of liquid helium to maintain the temperature at 1.9 kelvin"

to:

"Liquid helium at low temperatures is used in Helium cryogenics. As examples of applications, liquid helium is used to cool certain metals to the extremely low temperatures required for superconductivity, such as in superconducting magnets for magnetic resonance imaging. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN uses 96 metric tons of liquid helium to maintain the temperature at 1.9 kelvin"

Rileyfricke (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Ive left the phrase cryogenics as it was put it now links to Helium cryogenics. Amortias (T)(C) 19:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes to lead
I've just reverted a series of five edits to the lead as I don't believe they improve the article - and in fact make it worse. The edits chopped up the flowing prose of the first paragraph into short, disconnected sentences. It also introduced irrelevances such as "one of the naturally occurring atoms in the universe" - which is waffle; and pointing out that a nucleus with atomic number of two contains two protons. The lead of this article is not the place to make those sort of explanations. The same applies to the attempt to explain what a noble gas is. The changes also removed the information that helium is the second lightest element and removed the distinction of observable universe, making the statement not only less precise, but unverifiable. Finally, this is a Featured Article and has sufficient lead content to justify five paragraphs. There is no need to take WP:LEAD's guidance of "it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs" as representing an absolute limit.

If there is anything of the edits that is worth saving, then more opinions ought to be sought here. --RexxS (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the process of nuclear fusion.
I'd like to clarify that helium is used by stars during nuclear fusion as fuel or gas to then be converted into Carbon matter. TekIonRLP (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to single out carbon? Nucleosynthesis yields the other elements as well.  And why do you keep removing, or contradicting, the statement that helium is generated from hydrogen within stars?  ChemNerd (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Because helium is the energy component for directly creating Carbon. It's crucial. But I don't believe the hydrogen creates it. TekIonRLP (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The results of the gamma ray create remnants which then expelled helium. TekIonRLP (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Also expelled the hydrogen. TekIonRLP (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

From the pool of positron's and electronons that clashed to create that supernova. TekIonRLP (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Electrons* TekIonRLP (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It had to have been another moment in space where a large enough cloud of Electrons met a large cloud of positrons or alpha particles and reacted into a supernova. The gamma ray released the helium and hydrogen along with a few things berylium, etc and using the helium as fuel it began to form itself with a Carbon surface. Using more helium to create more Carbon. TekIonRLP (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Gamma rays thar occur from those clouds transform the resulting cloud into a Higgs boson based cloud. TekIonRLP (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The rest of the new larger cloud is composed of fermions. TekIonRLP (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Those fermions eventually become part of the cloud and accepted once the gamma decay reaches the correct phase. Creating a complete boson. TekIonRLP (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Then "Helium is a finite resource, and once released into the atmosphere, it readily escapes into space.[5][6][7]" yes because the sun will devour it. That would be contradictory to your statement to say the sun is creating helium. It is instead, using all the helium. TekIonRLP (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What. Double sharp (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just say, TekIonRLP, that you should be aware of WP:OR and should not attempt to add such content to Wikipedia articles. ChemNerd (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that guys, I was not intending to change the article incorrectly, I thought I was correct but I took your resistance into consideration and read about the solar core and yes it converts hydrogen into helium using the proton-proton chain reaction, however only in suns the size of ours or smaller. You guys happen to know how it forms in suns larger than ours? TekIonRLP (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the CNO cycle. Double sharp (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Large Helium Field Found in East Africa
Should mention be made of the recent (June 2016) discover of a huge field of Helium in east Africa? https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/28/huge-helium-gas-tanzania-east-africa-averts-medical-shortage 216.146.231.6 (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Dave
 * Seems like it belongs in the article. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 06:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already mentioned once, with a reference, at the end of lead. Nitpicking polish (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Twice, actually, and I've slightly cleaned up the reference later in the article. Nitpicking polish (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is not worth to be mentioned in the lead, we should mention it in the later section. Why is a reference necessary in the lead is it contntroversial?--Stone (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've rephrased the paragraph in the lead to get what seems to be the basic point: it's rare and easily lost, but it's probably not as rare as was recently thought. The important thing about the Tanzanian reference in this context is as an example of a new way of finding potential reserves. Nitpicking polish (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The articles reporting the Tanzanian find as a "game-changer" appear somewhat sensationalist. If my maths is right, this is a new reserve of 1.5 billion cubic metres, compared with the estimated 40 billion cubic metres of reserves as of 2011. The U.S. Geological Survey data indicates a peak US usage of around 15,000 tonnes per year, equivalent to about 84 million cubic metres per year. In addressing US demand, the Tanzanian field adds about 18 years of reserves to the 470 years worth of reserves in 2011. Scale down by whatever factor for worldwide consumption.
 * I agree that the Tanzanian find is not significant enough to warrant a piece in the lead. I do, however, think that the sort of basic analysis I've done (simple maths required) ought to feature somewhere in the article to establish some context for these sort of reports. At the very least can we find a reliable source for an estimate of worldwide consumption?
 * Conversions: 1 tonne of helium = 5,600 cubic metres; 1 cubic foot = 0.0283168 cubic metres. --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading generously, the "game-changer" is the new approach to finding reserves based on volcanic activity.
 * Yes, a clear (sourced) comparison of usage, the various reserves, and the actual production (all in the same units) would be great. Nitpicking polish (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, a clear (sourced) comparison of usage, the various reserves, and the actual production (all in the same units) would be great. Nitpicking polish (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Discovered by Janssen or Lockyer?
The title is self-explanatory. While both are credited with the discovery, if only one of the two could be credited, who would it be? Squee3 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What kind of situation would force only one to be credited? Discovery is not like the Nobel Prize which cannot be awarded to more than four people. Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Error regarding alternative helium production method
In the penultimate paragraph of "Modern extraction and distribution", there's the erroneous statement, "Helium can be synthesized by bombardment of lithium or boron with high-velocity protons, but this process is a completely uneconomic method of production.[102]". Reference [102] specifies that "ions of the heavy isotope of hydrogen" are the bullets in these synthesis reactions, not protons. Therefore the word "protons" in the text should be replaced with "deuterons". There are several links at [102], and the relevant one can be reached directly at http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/141/845/733

Sorry, I currently have no permission to change the article myself, so can somebody else make this change? Mike Pelizzari (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this, but the source is titled "A Photographic Investigation of the Transmutation of Lithium and Boron by Protons and of Lithium by Ions of the Heavy Isotope of Hydrogen" and the authors discuss both using both protons and deuterons. Nevertheless our article failed to mention deuterons – as you rightly pointed out – so I've made an edit to that sentence which hopefully meets with your approval. --RexxS (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this, but the source is titled "A Photographic Investigation of the Transmutation of Lithium and Boron by Protons and of Lithium by Ions of the Heavy Isotope of Hydrogen" and the authors discuss both using both protons and deuterons. Nevertheless our article failed to mention deuterons – as you rightly pointed out – so I've made an edit to that sentence which hopefully meets with your approval. --RexxS (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Usage & recycling
I think it would be useful to have more info and clarification about usage and recycling. For example the difference between helium being 'used' by being 'in use' in a superconducting magnet and being 'used up' (no longer available for human use) having been released into the atmosphere.

This might be useful to follow up on: "Recycling: In the United States, helium used in large-volume applications is seldom recycled. Some low-volume or liquid boil-off recovery systems are used. In the rest of the world, helium recycling is practiced more often." in which is linked from  (which is linked from ). FrankSier (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2017
Remove the bit about the "preventing impending helium shortages" in the USA. This is not of global importance. 93.142.92.174 (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. We try to avoid being US-centric, but the US is of global importance, and the existence of the National Helium Reserve is noteworthy in the context of the article. El_C 02:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article itself states in the Occurence section: "As of 2011 the world's helium reserves were estimated at 40 billion cubic meters, with a quarter of that being in the South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field owned jointly by Qatar and Iran.[92]" This is 10 times more than what is held in the US helium reserve, and wasn't important enough to get mentioned in the introduction. I appreciate that this is probably an important fact here on English Wikipedia and it deserves a mention, but certainly not an awkward repetition in the introduction. 93.142.92.174 (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 05:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)