Talk:Noble gas compound

comments
How about listing some of the ways that a helium-containing fullerene differs from a regular one.. I'm tempted to assume its at least a little more dense, and judging from the claimed yields (0.1%)it seems like it would have been possible to make enough to measure this?

Also, if the difference is purely the weight of the compound, is He@C60 as difficult to separate from the rest of the C60 as, say, separation of atomic isotopes from one another? Zaphraud (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

XeOxY2
Let's not use "Y". It implies yttrium, and while that would be interesting, it's misleading notation. Change to "Z", which represents no element? 72.178.12.19 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. WP:BOLD.&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I've added a note about noble gas cations, which pop up as unverified claims on all the noble gas pages. 72.178.12.19 (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We need some cite to at least verify that there are such claims. DMacks (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there are cations consisting of two noble gas atoms. But I don't know much about them other than that they formally have a three-electron bond with a bond order of 0.5, so I'll leave adding that information to someone with more time and/or inclination. You can find lots of references very easily in google scholar and google books:, , , etc. I'm not sure I would call these "compounds" in the usual sense of the word, but I think they deserve some mention in this article because they illustrate some of the issues with bonding in noble gases. --Itub (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

a few more xenon halides
XeCl2, XeCl4, XeBr2 are known from the beta decay of, etc., according to Greenwood & Earnshaw 1st edition. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a history article or a science article?
This article needs restructuring to better separate the history from the science. The History and background section does not include the most important events in the history of Noble gas compounds, which were the 1962 discoveries of XePtF6 by Bartlett and of XeF4 by the Argonne group. Instead these are presented in the section Xenon compounds whose first half reads like another history section. But first there is a mysterious section called True noble gas compounds, which raises the question of what are the False noble gas compounds? Presumably these are the Reports prior to xenon hexafluoroplatinate and xenon tetrafluoride - perhaps this section should be called Loosely bound complexes of noble gases or Complexes of noble gas bound by intermolecular forces., with a sentence to say that these were the only compounds known prior to 1962, but not in the title.

The article gives the impression of a breathless review written about 1965 to describe the sensational new xenon compounds. Guys, it's 2015 now, so let's just put the history in one section and write the rest of the article in normal descriptive style.Dirac66 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

source
Greenwood! Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (Note, this is rather old, so it still treats KrF4 as a real compound.) Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Pauling attempted to make Xenon compounds
F. J. Allen was on the faculty at Purdue and had been Pauling's lab instructor at OSU. Pauling asked Allen for a xenon sample which Allen sent to him. After failing to synthesize any compounds Pauling returned the sample. After Allen's death the sample passed to Derek Davenport. The sample was lost when Davenport had a student tidy up his lab and the student, not knowing what the sample was (it simply looked like an old sealed glass apparatus) tossed it.

I have no references but surely the Purdue Department of Chemistry does. At one time there was a (rotating exhibit) display case outside the chemistry library that told the early story (this was before the sample was lost.)

184.60.24.136 (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

But I thought primary sources are good
In the section Applications, there is a thing saying 'non-primary source needed'. I am confused by this as I thought that primary sources are reliable. Username142857 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia policy on primary, secondary and tertiary sources is explained at WP:PSTS. Dirac66 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why those policies though? I would assume the hierarchy would go like this instead:
 * Meta studies
 * Other primary sources
 * Secondary sources
 * Tertiary sources Username142857 (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, secondary sources are preferred because they provide a more balanced viewpoint. A primary source that reports a discovery may (in some cases) reflect an author's exaggerated opinion of the importance of his/her own work, or perhaps an exaggerated opinion of the reliability of the results or of their interpretation. A secondary source such as a review article will hopefully add more balanced opinions by someone who is an expert in the field. Not guaranteed of course, but that is the objective of the policy. Dirac66 (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Username142857 (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Claasen method
The article currently mentions this but I can find no other mention of it, and the cited sources are no help in describing it unless you read Russian and/or have access behind the paywalls.

But possibly worth an article or at least a better description if we can source it. Andrewa (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Presumably it's the the method mentioned in this cited ref:
 * but I agree that multiple sections of this article are written as a lit-review for those in the field, with name-dropping and back-references to undefined details as you note. "The preparation of KrF4 reported by Grosse in 1963, using the Claasen method" is just a horrible sentence for WP. DMacks (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * but I agree that multiple sections of this article are written as a lit-review for those in the field, with name-dropping and back-references to undefined details as you note. "The preparation of KrF4 reported by Grosse in 1963, using the Claasen method" is just a horrible sentence for WP. DMacks (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)