Talk:Palladium

Cold fusion and the use of deuterium palladium as a neutron source

 * Palladium's hydrogen affinity also allows it to capture deuterium, a stable, non-radioactive isotope of hydrogen. This makes palladium useful in devices which use high-voltage electrical potential to initiate nuclear fusion events, for the purpose of neutron generation.   Neutron generators which utilize deuterium-saturated palladium and electrically driven fusion power reactions, have existed since the 1930's.  Werner Schutze obtained U.S. patent 2,240,914 for a neutron-producing fusion tube, which employed a deuterium-saturated palladium plate, on May 6, 1941. Deuterium which has been absorbed into palladium's crystal lattice is termed Pycnodeuterium.

The section above was put into the article and for me it is dubious. You get neutrons from a discharge on deuterium adsorbed into the palladium? A real expert in nuclear physics has to have a look. --Stone (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This does not require an expert. See Fusor and Muon-catalyzed fusion. Ever since the Pons and Fleischman experiment in 1989, the term "cold fusion" has been in disrepute. From the 1930s to the 1960s it was a serious subject of research, on the hypothesis that it might me an important energy source. Then in 1964 Philo T. Farnsworth perfected his Farnsworth Fusor, still considered an important laboratory device for generating neutrons with a cheap tabletop device. Teenagers have won science-fair competitions building these things. It's not that much different from building your own laser, or a model rocket that can go all the way up to the stratosphere. This is not "gee whiz" science. The kind of fusion involved is similar to what the sun had going for the first few million years: easily fusible deuterium, which occurs naturally in water. Nuclear bombs and the sun today involve something very different. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the origin of the name
I scarcely believe that it is inconsequential as to merit a bit more wording here, considering onomastic fields of study, or similar faculties of research nowadays. "What's in a name"? Kind regards --Nathan.aur8 (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that the name entails three levels of regress: "what was Pd named for" (the asteroid Pallas), "what was the asteroid Pallas named for" (the goddess Pallas Athena), and "who was Pallas Athena" (and how she got that epithet). After a while we appear to have wandered rather far from the original naming of the element: judging by the already known cerium and uranium, I am willing to bet that the chemists in question never thought about Uranus and Ceres the gods at all, but only the astronomical bodies named after them whose discoveries created stirs in the whole scientific community of the time. The extra detail is then not only extraneous but somewhat irrelevant, so I don't think it's a bad thing to get readers to click through again to find out about Pallas Athena. Double sharp (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You got a point there, I see. It is too many levels going down a tree in this context certainly. Thank you for the intelligible reply! --Nathan.aur8 (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome, and thank you for the enjoyable conversation! Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

configuration matter
I have a doubt most of other wiki pages (Malayalam, French) says electronic configuration is 2,8,18,18,0. I think it's good suggestion. because most of other element's (117) configuration end in 8 or less than 8. അമൽ ബെന്നി (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's exactly the same. The 0 can be present as an emphasis because the unoccupied 5s and 5p orbitals of Pd can be used in a chemical environment, but precisely because it's zero, it doesn't change the meaning. Double sharp (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Change in class
I have reviewed this article, not good enough to be GA but it looks like it is good enough to be B, according to WP:ASSESS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keresluna (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Palladium Toxicity / Absorption by the human body
Hello, I hope I am doing this in the right format. I am a PhD chemist who works as an organic chemist but this is my first time contributing to a discussion page on wikipedia.

The article says "Until that recent work, it had been thought that palladium was poorly absorbed by the human body when ingested". There is no citation given for this as far as I can tell. As an organic chemist I know just how much palladium is used in drug synthesis, if it is true that "recent work" has proved that palladium is indeed well absorbed by humans then that would have absolutely enormous implications, it would surely require a number of studies in to what the effects of this absorption are. Perhaps some studies have already been published, if so a summary of their conclusions should surely be cited.

Apologies again of if this is not the correct forum for placing these concerns, but my professional background made me feel compelled to address this issue. MorthosTheRed (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)