Talk:Neon/Archive 1

Untitled
Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 11:27, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:26, 18 Jun 2005).

Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Neon. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Neon, from the Elements database 20001107 (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. --

i'm not sure, but i am under the impression that the density of neon would not be kg/L but instead g/L. In the periodic table it states for the weight of neon to be 20.18, you divide that by 22.4 to get the number listed, but it's in grams.

- ''Another explanation is that Earth has less Neon than Argon, the same way it may have less Gold than Carbon, for while steam may be "lighter than air" and so with Neon, when steam rises to the sky it cools, condenses and drops back to earth as rain. The continuing presence of Neon in our atmosphere suggests it does the same. If this were not the case surely all the neon would be gone, also the Earth even hangs on to Methane and Hydrogen.''

I removed this because it seemed spurious: as already suggested elsewhere in the article, steam condenses back into a liquid at 0C. Neon remains gaseous all the way down to -246C, so there's no reason for it to be falling back to earth in this fashion. Further, the Earth does *not* hang on to gaseous hydrogen - there isn't a significant level of it in the atmosphere, since most of it has been bound up in compounds with heavier elements, notably water. It might help to understand that this loss is a slow process; even a lighter-than-air gas can persist in noticeable quantities if it's being steadily released, e.g. by radiodecay. --Calair 01:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Steam condenses back to a liquid at WHAT temperature? Last I read it was 100C.  It turns to a solid at 0C.


 * I believe I can add some more. Neon is definately being radiogenically created. There are several rare decays that occur on the heavier elements (see cluster decay for the whole list). There are 5 different elements that decay into neon some of the time. As a matter of fact, 100% of all thorium on the planet can decay into neon. All the fissionable uranium on the planet also has a chance of of producing neon. Since we have no idea how much thorium or uranium is on the planet we have no idea how much neon would be produced. Since neon is a nobel gas, it will float through the mantle without forming compounds, much like radium. -- metta, The Sunborn  04:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you mean "much like Radon" Ed Sanville 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

occurence
" neon may slowly leak out into space, which explains its scarcity on Earth". The "may" part makes this sound speculative. I have also looked at the references provided at the bottom of the article and none make any statement about this. This conclusion is not obvious, and it should be cited.Badocter 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't found a source for the above statement, but I have found a source that offers a different explanation. .Badocter 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No replies or citations to support statement in two monthes so i am deleting it. The escape velocity argument by itself does not pass muster since molecules in the earth's atmosphere move toward an equilibrium where the rate of capture from space balances the rate of escape. This sounds like a homework problem for a statistical mechanics course (provided you know the occurence of neon in space). Badocter 05:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Glow
Do only noble gases glow in a vacuum discharge tube? Also, doesn't a current have to be present. Oxygen for example makes no mention of a glow in a vacuum discharge tube. Hackwrench 21:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

See Gas discharge for a list. Oxygen is on the list.--Syd Henderson 01:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Signs
This article incorrectly states that multicolored signs are always formed with mercury vapors, but are in fact most signs of different colors are formed with the other Noble Gasses, Xenon (Bright Blue) Krypton (Vivid Green), and Argon (White) Planes&amp;mustangs510 01:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Planes&Mustangs510
 * Actually, it's krypton that is white and argon green. They then put glass dyes around the krypton tubes to get any color they like. Krypton is useful that way, inasmuch as it has high power output and many useable bands. High power red lasers for lightshows are not He-Ne, which would never give the needed output. They are Kr with special mirrors to select out the red. S  B Harris 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

GA On Hold
A couple bits need explicit cites. Otherwise, looks good. I've marked the bits that most need it. Feel free to add more to make it even better. Adam Cuerden talk 13:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm very late getting back to this. I spotted one more bit that could use citing (and tagged it) Once that's done, it's clearly GA. Adam Cuerden talk 12:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. Clear GA. Adam Cuerden talk 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

B-Class
GA class is not part of project assessment scales, and GAs are not tracked by WP Bot 1.0. The assessment level has been set to B class. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

GA is not on the Wikiproject Chemistry assessment scale, and with good reason: There are no clear distinctions between B, GA, and A. There are A-level articles that are not Good Articles. Please do not revert. If you have questions, talk me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, the bot tracks GAs now, and I will revert. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How can this article be termed as good? It keeps on repeating the same thing like it is rare on earth, it is abundant elsewhere, it is used as a cryogenic and vacuum material over and over again. It was real bore reading this article.

GA sweeps review
Conducting a second review after six months per WikiProject Good Articles sweeps. The article continues to satisfy the GA criteria, though I made a few minor modifications to the references and added some details and a reference to the 'compounds' section. The lead could be expanded a bit. I also wonder if the 'applications' section might be better off if merged into 'history'. But these are minor issues/suggestions. Dr. Cash 02:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

???
The begning of the page is all messed up. some body needs to fix it now EPIC Knowledge (talk) • contribs) 14:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

20Ne Nucleogenic
Wha? Ignoring the fact that the definition of nucleogenic (as given by wikitionary) is bogus—formed by rxn instead of forming via rxn (as in hydrogen, water-forming)…neither aspect is true. Carbon burning process clearly shows 20Ne as being a product, and Neon burning process clearly shows it as a fuel. --Belg4mit 05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have no idea what the author is trying to say, expect possibly to assert that Ne-20 has no other origin other than primordial (ie, it's all from supernovas someplace contributing the isotope to the solar system). But even that's wrong, due to cluster decay production of Ne-20, as has been pointed out. So what gives? I'm going to slap a {fact} tag on it, at min. S  B Harris 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Read the VERY bottom of the page; below the categories and there's vandalism. Is this a common thing for this article? TheStubSniper! Spider1224 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, here's a link...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neon&oldid=222372379 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider1224 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It would appear to be a common thread to the chemical articles, look... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phosphorus&oldid=222359139 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chlorine&oldid=222458274 TheStubSniper! Spider1224 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Anything specific to do? (Other than removing the vandalism) TheStubSniper! Spider1224 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see it, can you be more specific? Or are you referring to the interwiki links such as Neon and such? That's the only thing I see (in the edit box) below the categories. --Itub (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, at the bottom of all the pages, it says something to the effect of "haha beep you r dumb haha" TheStubSniper! Spider1224 (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't see it. I searched the page, the wikicode, and the html code of to no avail. --Itub (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, then just look at the bottom of the current page. TheStubSniper! Spider1224 (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

neon is a gas and is also a non-meatel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.120.0 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Compounds
The article states, "Even though neon is for most practical purposes an inert element, it can form an exotic compound with fluorine in the laboratory." What is the compound, what are its properties, and where is a reputable, peer reviewed source for its existance? Until some information is given and sources found, the statement will be removed. Polonium 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Acually, there is evidence that a compound exists, but it is weak. . Polonium 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me whare you can find neon on earth?? MiaMonsta


 * Find it in the Earth's atmosphere. Dicklyon 05:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

At http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JChPh.123q4309B it is claimed that "C6F6Ne and C6F6He are predicted to occupy minima on their respective potential energy surfaces", which I think means C6F6Ne should theoretically be a stable compound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.252.53 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong image?
Article states "Neon is often used in signs and produces an unmistakable bright reddish-orange light. Although still referred to as "neon", all other colors are generated with the other Noble Gases or by many colors of fluorescent lighting." The image shows a whitish-blue coloured sign. I think it would be better and less confusing if the image was of a neon light which is, as the article states, reddish-orange. John JD Doe (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here to make the same comment. Whatever's in that sign, it's not neon. Maybe it could be photoshopped to at least make it LOOK right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.60.161 (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

neon
neon is one of the lightest gases —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.70.91 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Except for hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, oxygen and fluorine -- that's five, six if you count neutronium. How light does it have to be to be considered "one of the lightest"? --116.14.27.127 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Neon is monoatomic gas (Ne), whereas fluorine, oxygen and nitrogen are diatomic gases (O2, etc.) an thus are heavier; neutronium is not really a gas. Materialscientist (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Neon is only slightly larger than helium atom, and much smaller than heavier noble gas atoms. It may not be able to form a clathrate with ice. Anoop.m (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No clathrates have been found for helium and neon is aref for it while says there is a high pressure clathrate.--Stone (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Boiling point makes this statement improbable
"After nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, the three gases that boiled off were krypton, xenon, and neon." But neon should have boiled off before all these other gases, because it has a lower boiling point than any of them. Please fix this statement if you know the actual experiment. -- 77.7.189.122 (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as the experiment is not described, the phrase might be misleading (corrected), but it might well be correct - krypton, xenon, and neon are present in low quantities in air and were likely dissolved in nitrogen/oxygen before boiling, rather than present as separate phases. Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Solid neon?
What does solid neon look like? Does anyone have a photo/link? Davez621 (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubtless exactly like solid argon. But no, I've never seen a photo. S  B Harris 05:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Ne-20
There seem to be numerous problems with the Isotopes section, mainly concerning the origin of 20Ne and the claim that it is not nucleogenic. I will outline the problems and my suggestions. I will wait a week for comments before making changes. Dirac66 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The word nucleogenic is defined only by a link to Nuclear reaction, which does not actually mention the word nucleogenic. I think this word refers to nuclides formed by nuclear reactions in stellar nucleosynthesis, as opposed to radiogenic and cosmogenic. I suggest adding a note in parentheses: nucleogenic (formed by nuclear reactions in stellar nucleosynthesis).
 * 2) 21Ne and 22Ne are nucleogenic and their variations are well understood. I would specify variations in isotopic abundance in different environments.
 * 3) In contrast, 20Ne (the cosmogenic primordial isotope made in stellar nucleosynthesis) is not known to be nucleogenic. Why cosmogenic? How are cosmic rays involved in its formation? 20Ne is not on the referenced list in the article on Cosmogenic nuclide. I propose to delete this word as unsourced.
 * 4) Primordial isotope made in stellar nucleosynthesis. Yes, in the alpha process from 4He and 16O as mentioned in the preceding section Creation. Is this not nucleogenic formation?
 * 5) The source by Dickin does say that 20Ne is non-nucleogenic, and the causes of its variation in the Earth were hotly debated. In context this means that terrestrial 20Ne is not (or not all) from stellar nucleosynthesis. The sentence above can be revised to: In contrast, (most) terrestrial 20Ne is not known to be a primordial isotope formed by the nucleogenic process of stellar nucleosynthesis.
 * 6) 20Ne ... is not known to be nucleogenic, save for cluster decay production, which is thought to produce only a small amount. But cluster decay is radioactive decay of one nucleus and not a nuclear reaction of two nuclei, so this minor process corresponds to radiogenic and not nucleogenic formation of 20Ne. We can say “Radiogenic cluster decay production is also thought to produce a small amount.”
 * 7) The principal nuclear reactions which generate neon isotopes are neutron emission, alpha decay reactions on 24Mg and 25Mg, which produce 21Ne and 22Ne, respectively. Mass number balance implies that the reactions 24Mg(n, α)21Ne and 25Mg(n, α)22Ne are actually neutron absorption and alpha decay.
 * 8) The next sentence reads The alpha particles are derived from uranium-series decay chains, while the neutrons are mostly produced by secondary reactions from alpha particles. This is based on Dickin but some sentences are omitted, so that the current Wiki article incorrectly suggests that the alphas from the alpha decay of Mg are derived from U-series chains. A better wording would be The absorbed neutrons are derived from secondary reactions of alpha particles which are in turn emitted in U-series decay chains.
 * 9) The 20Ne-enriched components are attributed to exotic primordial rare gas components in the Earth, possibly representing solar neon. Solar neon is a primordial isotope made in stellar nucleosynthesis in an earlier generation of stars, and therefore nucleogenic. So yes, there is at least some nucleogenic 20Ne now on Earth.


 * I've rewriten the section. It helped me to find the USGS source from which the section on heavy neon isotopes was first cribbed, and I found that it was badly written, talking about alpha sources and alpha emissions at the same time. In addition, whoever used it (not me!), had misinterpreted the (n,alpha) in it, to mean "neutron-emission, alpha-decay," when it's actually neutron-capture, alpha emission (one nuclear reaction that doesn't really involve a conventional alpha decay, but more like an alpha knockout). I had to go and write a stub on nucleogenic isotopes (those that arise on earth from natural nuclear reactions not involving cosmic rays). It's confusing since nuclear reactions are ultimately responsible for the nucleosythesis of most primordial nuclides, but all that is much further in the past, and it's convenient for geologists to separate out those that have happened since the Earth condensed, since they can learn about geological processes that way. So "nucleogenic" is reserved as a term for products of nuclear reactions that happen on Earth. Anyway, I've re-written the neon isotope section. See if it doesn't make more sense, now. S  B Harris 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Three books I found might be a good source for the basic concept.

--Stone (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Much clearer now, thanks to SB Harris. Some of my points were confused by not knowing the definition of nucleogenic, so your new article on that term is most welcome.
 * And to Stone, thanks for the references. Dickin is now referenced in the article. Dirac66 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Heat capacity discrepancy!
In the "Specific heat capacity" wiki-article, Ne has Cv = 12.5 (3/2*R), but here the data is around 5/2*R ≈ 20.8 (both at 25°C). Is this one wrong?? Thank you! xy (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think so. Ideal monatomic gases have a heat capacity of 3/2 R. Neon might deviate a bit from that, depending on the specific conditions, but certainly not to 5/2 R. --Itub (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it is the value at constant pressure. Specific heat capacities can be measured can be measured either at constant volume (Cv,m) or at constant pressure (Cp,m). For an ideal gas as stated in Heat capacity they are related by $$ C_{p,m} - C_{v,m} = R \!$$. For a monoatomic gas such as neon, Cv,m = 3/2 R and Cp,m = 5/2 R. Dirac66 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there's something else also: 20.786 J/mol is EXACTLY 5/2 R, to 5 sig digits! And it's the same number in all of the inert gas articles. That's very fishy. I'm guessing somebody just calculated it and stuck it in, and it's not a measured value anywhere, here. Example: it's given as the same 20.786 J/mol for radon gas, which I'm SURE is making enough heat from decay to make Cp impossible to measure to 5 sig figures. So all this has to be fixed (at least the notation "calc." should be added). S  B Harris 02:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, which I have in the past explained to intro phys chem students so I will be consistent and agree with making the same point on Wikipedia. The books just give this value and I don't know what experiments have really been done. So we could add "calc.", but since the calculation is so simple I propose instead to just write 5R/2 = 20.786 J mol-1 K-1. Also I have just edited the heat capacity article and inserted Cp,m = 5R/2 in the same section as Cv,m = 3R/2. Dirac66 (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done for Neon by editing Template:Infobox neon, other rare gases to follow. The notation (25°C) is superfluous since Cp,m = 5R/2 applies at all T, but I couldn't figure out how to remove it as it is not in the source code. I suspect it is part of the general Elementbox mentioned on the first line. Dirac66 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Cosmogenic, magmatic and nucleogenic "components"
From the section Isotopes: "By analyzing all three isotopes, the cosmogenic component can be resolved from magmatic neon and nucleogenic neon."

The phrase "component can be resolved" would normally suggest that cosmogenic, magmatic and nucleogenic are 3 mutually exclusive categories. However in this case, cosmogenic and nucleogenic refer to the mechanism of formation of the isotopes, while magmatic refers to their present location. So it would seem that cosmogenic neon can also be magmatic, and similarly nucleogenic neon can also be magmatic. Perhaps someone familiar with isotope geology can correct or better explain this sentence. Dirac66 (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Neon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070213072031/http://www.nassmc.org:80/bulletin/dec05bulletin.html to http://www.nassmc.org/bulletin/dec05bulletin.html#table

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Source cited for hydrates does not mention water - or neon.
The addition earlier today at the end of the article is rather confused, since it refers to Ne(H2)11 as a hydrate although it contains no water, while the title of the cited source refers to nitrogen-helium mixtures rather than to neon and/or hydrogen. A click on the doi given leads to the abstract of the source article, which gives the correct formula He(N2)11 as indicated by the source title. Since this source is not about neon, I will remove it from this article. Dirac66 (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my bad - I was going by a review on "hydrides", with Ne-N mentioned in between, and didn't notice the H-N change in the text. Fixed, hopefully. Materialscientist (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, now you have N2 which is correct instead H2 or H2O as in hydrate. But also as I mentioned, the formula in the article by Vos et al. contains helium, not neon. So this sentence really should be in the Helium article and not here in the Neon article. Dirac66 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Facepalm (never edit science articles on a sleepy head :-). Materialscientist (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

History
The history section needs a little work. The reference 12 is there to point to the paper in which the discovery was announced, but I added 16 which is the same paper which is mentioning metargon which was carbon monoxide. So where is the original paper, the noble lecture is not a good source because it is written by an eyewitness years later. I will try to get my hands on alittle bit of the articles and try to source the section. The neon light history is also different at every person involved so this needs to be straightened.--Stone (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And precautions?
Due to the lack of reactivity, the only danger is inert-gas asphyxiation. While this seems obvious to me, the fact that it is there in the Kr and Xe articles (even when the most easily-accessible gases for this purpose would be N2, He, and Ar) suggests that it should be included. Double sharp (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 14:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neon. 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/20090815110916/http://www.its-90.com/ to http://www.its-90.com/

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) 00:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

How does this help clarify
Neon is chemically inert, and no uncharged neon compounds are known. I don't know of any uncharged sodium compounds either, so it's not clear what this phrase was meant to convey. Sodium is not inert. It's not my purpose to guess at the author's intention, so I won't. 96.234.39.236 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)William A. Hoffman III
 * NaCl is uncharged. Yes, it's made up of individual Na+ and Cl− ions, but their charges all cancel each other out and the NaCl crystal you see has no net charge. We don't, however, see any Ne compounds with no net charge. Double sharp (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Popular Culture section?
Should there be one? If so, I'd propose including that Nevada designated Neon as the "state element". I don't know if it's true, but media outlets are saying that Nevada was the first state to designate an element. See https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/students-succeed-in-making-neon-the-state-element. Trilotat (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Support, the Nevada seems like a smart and relevant addition, and the fame of neon from its signs could also be put in the section. 2601:600:9000:3080:8851:6676:60B:83D1 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)