Talk:Tungsten/Archive 1

Edited applications list regarding hastelloy, stellite, tool steel, high speed steel
I moved the hastelloy and stellite links from "high speed steel" to "superalloy" since neither are steels. Stellite is cobalt-based and hastelloy is primarily nickel. I also removed tool steel from the superalloy line since it is not a superalloy and rarely contains tungsten. Tungsten's added heat-resistance is what differentiates high speed steel from plain tool steel. Ryanrs 08:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Melting temperature
On other wiki's the melting temp is mentioned to be 3407, also searching on G00gle for wolfraam 3407 shows me enough resources to believe that 3407 is correct. Do we use the wrong temp on the en:wiki ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 57.67.146.66 (talk • contribs).


 * High Google counts don't say anything about correctness. There are a lot of collections on the Web that just copy some outdated and unsourced data from each other, including many Wikis.


 * This temperature is a secondary fixed point on the International Temperature Scale of 1990 and thus exact by definition—though there have been going on some redefinitions in the past years. Until someone can dig up the most recent specifications, I'd say the value from the CRC handbook is reliable (reference is melting points of the elements (data page)). Femto 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Amorphous tungsten alloy?
Does anyone know anything about this substance, and would it be a good addition to the article? Someone please answer. I heard that it is just like depleted uranium in that it is self-sharpening and pyrophoric, but not radioactive. DebateKid 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing history
The history section needs some work, and has some contradictory information. The first paragraph (which shouldn't be the first paragraph) gives the etymology of the name "Wolfram", with a 1747 date for Wallerius' denomination thereof. But then the next paragraph says it was first hypothesized to exist in 1779. I imagine there's something about it existing as an element in 1779, but I'm unsure just what's being said there. We probably need something more along the lines of Niobium, since they have similar naming issues. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Weight
Hoping to find how much Tungsten Carbide weighs relative to gold or platinum. Figure others would also be interested when evaluating for jewlery purposes. DE66.104.16.162 16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mark Hubbard here: One provider of tungsten carbide powder lists its density as 15.63: http://www.reade.com/products/Carbides/tungsten_carbide.html Pure gold is around 19.32 (densities vary from source to source) and Platinum around 21.09. So WC would be slightly heavier than 18K gold.71.128.36.112 03:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Measuring the half life of Tungsten
Given that the half life is so long and that decay is therefore a very rare even I would like to ask how it is possible to accurately measure its half life? For example if a reasonable mass of Tungsten only has one theoretical atomic decay a year there is a real statistical chance (by random variation) that none or more may occur and so one would surelyneed to measure over an unfeasable period of time? Also such a low rate would surely be masked by contamination and background radiation?

[ManInStone]


 * I have no idea how they measure it, but here are some references that might help: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/getrefs.jsp?recid=180074002 --Itub 14:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the refernces, I followed them up, but they just seemed to contain tables of values rather than an explanation of the method. Perhaps this method should be covered by the "half life" page. I gather Bismuth has an even lower decay rate.--ManInStone 14:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparent copyright violation / lack of attribution
Mark Hubbard here: at least two sections have extensive text that appears to have been copied verbatim from http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Tungsten. If this text is being used with permission, then I assume there should be a linked attribution.71.128.36.112 22:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (moved here) - Wikipedia's copyrights allow anyone to mirror its content, provided that proper attribution is given. - The site is a copy of this article, not the other way around, so there's no problem. Femto 15:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed scrolling to the bottom of that site reveals their notice: The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. How to see transparent copy. IvoShandor 17:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mark Hubbard here: Thank you for setting me straight on this and moving my concerns to the proper place. I'll be more careful in the future in both regards.71.128.36.112 19:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Aqueous polyoxoanions
At some stage during extensive edits of Tungsten by User:Ziggy Sawdust on 2nd May, the following section has been removed. That appears to have done that without explanation or discussion, and the result is that the Chemical properties and Compounds sections of the article are badly degraded.

"Aqueous polyoxoanions

Aqueous tungstate solutions are noted for the formation of heteropoly acids and polyoxometalate anions under neutral and acidic conditions. As tungstate is progressively treated with acid, it first yields the soluble, metastable "paratungstate A" anion, W7O246−, which over hours or days converts to the less soluble "paratungstate B" anion, H2W12O4210−. Further acidification produces the very soluble metatungstate anion, H2W12O406−, after equilibrium is reached. The metatungstate ion exists as a symmetric cluster of twelve tungsten-oxygen octahedra known as the "Keggin" anion. Many other polyoxometalate anions exist as metastable species. The inclusion of a different atom such as phosphorus in place of the two central hydrogens in metatungstate produces a wide variety of heteropoly acids, such as phosphotungstic acid H3P W12O40 in this example."

Your changes to the Applications section are also unhelpful. They have degraded the information content of the section, and again the changes appear to have been made without discussion with the article's editors. Plantsurfer (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to do is nuke the unsourced content. If I can find a reference for any of the applications, I'll put them back in, or if (better yet) you could find something, I'd be fine with that, but until then... Z i g g y   S a w  d u s t  18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied to you on my talk page. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

 * I think the high melting temperature is mentioned one times too many. I admit this is minor but the article starts and ends mentioning this property.
 * The Chromium page combines the etymology within the history section. Consider this because both sections are relatively short and the topics seem to complement each other. The Helium page has history down the page a bit but where you guys have it seems fine.
 * I think I found and fixed the punctuation after reference problem. Also removed a redundant sentence that mentioned fluorescent lighting.
 * There's still some cases of Celsius being spelled out. I don't think this is desired per the MoS.
 * The first sentence of the Chemical Properties seems to need a home or some other sentences around it to keep it company. "Tungsten resists attack by oxygen, acids, and alkalis."
 * The first sentence of the Biological role also seems to be hanging. Why not combine it with the next sentence without a break.
 * The tungsten (VI) oxide link doesn't work. The red link is distracting. If it's not essential consider removing it.
 * I realize this is a chemistry page but the chemical formulas that open up the first sentence of the Production section are over-kill.
 * How is it that the Spanish isolated the element but the Swedes named it? I'm just curious. There might be an interesting bit of history there.
 * Look at the reference section on the Gold, Mercury and Helium pages. The type is smaller, there's no underlining and they look cleaner. I know formatting references are a pain but consider this.
 * Consider the wolframite picture for the page.
 * I hope this review helps. I've given this review hoping for a reciprocal review of the Solar energy page. No worries, if you can't get through it but any suggestions would help. Mrshaba (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
I have archived the first GA review and the second GA review. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-contradicting
The page discusses how the half lives are "so long they can be considered stable" - thus stating they're not actually stable. Yet the infobox states them as stable.

Shouldn't it display the actual length, rather than falsely claiming "stable"? Or if it should say stable - why shouldn't Bismuth, which also has a half life long enough to be considered stable? I just lost teh game (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no contradiction. The four stable isotopes are referred to as being theoretically capable of decay by alpha emission, but the article states that this has never been observed. Hence the infobox is correct in stating that they are effectively stable. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
Tung sten comes from Danish and not Swedish as mentioned in the article, how ever it means the same "heavy stone". Main parts of the Swedish language derives from Danish. And the word Tung sten (tungsten) derives from Danish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.100.113 (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tung sten is indeed heavy stone also in Danish, Swedish and Norwegian, but you may wish to check the reference given in the article for the ethymology before making unsourced and erroneous claims. The element's name comes from analysis of the mineral tungsten (later scheelite) by Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Torbern Bergman, both of which were Swedish chemists. Furthermore, both Danish and Swedish are descended from Old East Norse, not one from the other. Tomas e (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

IC application of Tungsten
I just wanted to correct that tungsten is used to interconnect metals and metals to transistors and not between dielectrics to transistors as stated in the older text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.112.246 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Tungsten be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ?
Shouldn't Tungsten be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why?
It would be informative to state the reason why tungsten (and tantalum etc.) has such a high melting point. Is it because it forms covalent bonds (like carbon/diamond) in addition to its metallic bonding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.196.151 (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, because of covalent bonds. I added a bit on that. Materialscientist (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

formula template
can somebody fix the formula template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheesyBiscuit (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
I would edit this minor point but I don't have a Wikipedia account and this page is semi-locked. A sentence from the first paragraph reads: "The pure form is used mainly in electrical applications, but its many compounds and alloys are used in many applications, most notably in incandescent light bulb filaments, X-ray tubes (as both the filament and target), and superalloys." The gripe is that the word "used" is in the same sentence twice.

Suggested improvements: "The pure form is used mainly in electrical applications, but its many compounds and alloys are widely applied, most notably in incandescent light bulb filaments, X-ray tubes (as both the filament and target), and superalloys."

or

"The pure form is used mainly in electrical applications, but its many compounds and alloys have many applications, most notably in incandescent light bulb filaments, X-ray tubes (as both the filament and target), and superalloys."
 * Thank you indeed. Fixed. Please do not hesitate to post corrections or register (to edit semi-protected pages directly). Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

darts
Tungsten nickel alloys are commonly used in high quality darts because of their high density. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.212.101 (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Already in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Use in Fake Gold
I would add this myself but the article is protected. Tungsten is used to fabricate gold bars. Gold plated tungsten bars are made as counterfeits. The density of tungsten is that of real gold to three decimal places. Only expensive laboratory tests can verify real gold from gold plated tungsten bars. Counterfeit gold in small sizes like 1 ounce coins are not common as the costs of manufacturing a counterfeit of such a small quantity is not cost effective. Special:Contributions/gelato (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We need reliable reference(s) for this. Materialscientist (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Such as this?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKczs-7BFRI. 15:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.195.52 (talk)

Production
There are also two large mines in Peru and Canada. The Peruvian produces a special quality http://www.malaga.ca/ The Canadian mine is temporarily closed http://www.northamericantungsten.com/s/Cantung.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caravanseray (talk • contribs) 17:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Stone?
Why is called "Heavy Stone" in english? isnt that ilogical when the sign for it is W, and that the one who discovered it called it wolfram?

Because tung sten (Swedish) means heavy stone in English.

See my own changes of a week or so ago (early October 2008). "Tung" means, heavy, yes, but translates better as "hard", and though tungsten is not particularly heavy, it IS particularly hard, which is why the Swedes and Danes used the word "tung", NOT because of its weight! KDS4444 KDS4444 04:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDS4444 (talk • contribs)


 * Tungsten is "not particularly heavy"? Ohhhh-kaaaay... Stonemason89 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

LD50
The article mentions that tungsten has an LD50 of 500mg/kg to 5g/kg. This needs clarification; is this a reference to the pure metal, or to tungstate ion? The former is chemically so inert that it can't be particularly hazardous, so I assume it's a reference to the latter. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like tungsten's LD50 is nine to ninety times the lethal dose of iron (60 mg/kg). So tungsten is anything but hazardous, at least in comparison to other metals. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated the article with what I could find. Yes, the articles say tungsten is less toxic compared to other heavy metals. 5000 mg is powder, but I can't get to the sources of the low values (ion or metal?). Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Electrical Resistivity
This page says that the electrical resistivity of Tungsten equals to 52.8 nΩ·m while the Electrical resistivity page says it is 56.0 nΩ·m. Both at 20°C. Which one is true so we can at least have consistency across these two pages. 194.105.120.80 (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cancer?
Please remove (The page is protected)

"Early epidemiologic association with cancer

On 20 August 2002, officials representing the U.S.-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that urine tests on leukemia patient families and control group families in the Fallon, Nevada area had shown elevated levels of tungsten in the bodies of both groups.[27] Sixteen recent cases of cancer in children were discovered in the Fallon area, which has now been identified as a cancer cluster; although the majority of the cancer victims are not longtime residents of Fallon. However, there is not enough data to support a link between tungsten and leukemia at this time.[28]"

Removed. This is speculation, and seems to be consistent with a growing use of tungsten carbon and jewelry. Many organizations (Scott Kay) have been involved in discrete the material to increase sales of precious metals. This is akin to mentioning that elevated levels of Iron are also present in people who have elevated levels of Tungsten.

When empirical data has been obtained then this may become a valid addition to the post. However, until such time, assuming that a stable metal is somehow poisonous seems fishy. The fact that this page is also semi-protected makes me wonder if some jewelers are in active disaccredit of this material in Jewelery. In addition Tungsten Carbin (which is used in Jewelery) is not mentioned at all.

What better way to prevent people from selling a wedding band then by spreading any notion that wedding band may cause cancer!

I Big_green_jelly_bean am not a jeweler nor do I ever wish to be. I run a website for quilters http://www.allourquilts.com, and request this change to produce accurate and fair information.
 * I have commented out (that is made invisible) the quoted part as I would agree it sounds speculative in this form. The page is protected because of vandalism, not because of point-of-view pushing. Materialscientist (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better, there seems to be allot more fair information. Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big green jelly bean (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I recall it there was previously information on very high rates of a rare and rather nasty type of cancer being associated with tungsten particles or fragments trapped inside tissues. Someone suggested that it was not from pure tungsten but from nickel or cobolt in alloys (I thought i had been found for pure W too). I think these finding were well verified and not speculations (which those mentioned above may be). This needs to be investigated and if the information has been removed unproperly it should be replaced and more editing restrictions applied! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

heat of fusion... wrong?
This article says tungsten's enthalpy of fusion is 52.31 kJ/mol.

According to http://www.chemicool.com/elements/tungsten.html, http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/W.html, and http://www.americanelements.com/ww.html, the Lf value is 35.4 kJ/mol (americanelements.com says 35.2).

I don't see how to change it. 168.156.112.103 (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Has to be done by editing the infobox template (there's tiny little "e" at the bottom of the box to click). I changed it to 35.3 kJ/mole, as a mean of these two values. S  B Harris 10:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Occurrence
Removed from Occurrence:

"Wolframite is also considered to be a conflict mineral due to the unethical mining practices observed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[citation needed]"

As the political climate in certain countries has no relevance to the abundance of minerals and where they can be found. 60.241.162.143 (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 11-December 2010

You haven't touched the hot topic of counterfeiting gold by either coating tungsten with gold,or embedding a tungsten core into a gold ingot. Noting that tungsten is very much in demand suggests that a lot of counterfeiting is going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.221.99 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the workability and physical characteristics of Tungsten
Wednesday 9-27-06 Portland, OR 3:31pm Pacific Coast Time

Who on the discussion page would be the expert on pure tungsten metal? Considering my extremely low income level, What is the best, lowest price, retail source of this metal? There are plenty of websites that sell both scrap tungsten and new tungsten; but unfortunately the purity of these various forms can vary from website to website. The purist form that I found on one particular website is 99.95% in foil form(apparently pure tungsten is quite difficult to extract.). (It's unfortunate that no one has ever experimented with more cost effective "Sci-Fi" methods of producing tungsten - such as attempting to artificially produce tungsten from simpler metals - similar to how artificially produced diamonds are manufactured. But artificial tungsten is another story and for a PHd - which I'm not!) Does anyone in the discussion page have any physical work experience with tungsten? Is the metal compatible with common workshop tools such as tin-snips, powerdrills, saws, etc. ? I wish to design my own storage/ holding container for "Dry Ice"; This is for a personal, experimental science project that I'm cogitating; Is tungsten tough and strong enough to tolerate physical contact with "Dry Ice" for an indefinite duration of time, or does tungsten undergo any adverse chemical reaction with "dry ice"?

From: MyPresentCPUisTooSlow, registered User (I know, I need to shorten my user name - eventually)


 * Thanks for your message on my talk page, though I don't have any experience on working with tungsten, and have to pass on these questions. I can only remark that artificial diamond is just a different allotrope of the same element, carbon, while creating tungsten from other materials would involve nuclear transmutation which is rather unfeasible. Note also that this page is primarily for the discussion of the tungsten article. For practical advice, you might try asking at the Reference desk/Science. Femto 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pure tungsten is too hard (roughly 3000 Brinell, compared to common construction steel which is around 250 Brinell) to cut with most tools. It is much harder than, for example High-speed steel, commonly used in drills. Tungsten is mostly worked by sintering and grinding with diamonds.

Mark Hubbard here: REMBAR, a New York company that fabricates tungsten parts, discusses briefly the difficulties of working with tungsten under the heading, "Physical Properties of Tungsten": http://www.rembar.com/Tungsten.htm

Mark Hubbard here: A better storage/holding container for dry ice is ordinary styrofoam, the thicker the better. You can start with an inexpensive cooler and build additional insulation around the sides, bottom and top using whatever is at hand, sealing the seams with duct tape. It works surprisingly well.

Tungsten currently retails for $3 to $8 an ounce. One seller on eBay is currently selling high purity tungsten rod for $4.89 an ounce.

Tungsten is alloyed with other metals to improve its workability and to reduce its brittleness. These alloys commonly have a range of densities from 17 (90% tungsten - Class 1 Heavy Metal) to 18.5 (Class 4 Heavy Metal), although copper/tungsten alloys are sometimes as low as 50/50 or less. As mentioned above, because of its extremely high melting point, W is usually not melted and cast like other metals. Instead, it is powdered and sintered (heated and put under intense pressure) to form a solid metal product. See the article on powder metallurgy if you are interested in this aspect.71.128.36.112 04:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I, too am no expert on tungsten and have no first-hand experience working with it, I will convey my experiences with titanium which has many similar properties. First of all, as has already been noted, tungsten (like titanium, like all elements) cannot be made "artificially" unless you achieve some kind of nuclear reaction that rearranges the structure of another atom similar to tungsten.  This ain't gonna happen in anyone's back yard anytime soon.  It is completely impractical.  Second, as also noted, man-made diamonds begin with carbon, just like the soot from a candle...  "Diamond" is not an element, and you cannot "make" carbon much easier than you can "make" tungsten.  It's either there or it isn't, can either be extracted with ease or difficulty.  Now on to dry ice: like titanium, tungsten is very brittle in its pure form.  It is extremely difficult to bend, and will break much sooner than it will bend.  Like titanium, tungsten cannot be soldered by any conventional method, and I believe that arc welding it, if it is done at all, must take place under extremely specialized conditions.  Next, because of its brittle nature, placing dry ice against a piece of tungsten seems rather likely to cause it to shatter: as the outer molecules of tungsten come in contact with the ice, they will slow down their rate of vibration-- but because this slowing will not be uniform across the piece of tungsten, and because tungsten is so hard, the differential in decreased vibration will cause intense strain in the piece of tungsten.  I know that some metals actually "scream" under such conditions: the extreme sudden difference in tension actually can cause high-pitched sound waves to issue from the metal object as it the molecules begin to equalize temparature across the piece.


 * Now, could you store dry ice in a box of tungsten? Almost certainly: the ice will not react with the tungsten (tungsten, like titanium, is all but immune to chemical reactions) and if the tungsten does not shatter (somewhat ironically, at the normal human scale, thinner tungsten is less likely to do this than thicker because the metal will stabilize in temperature faster) you will get one extremely cold box of tungsten...  a box you could not touch with your bare hands, because the low temperature could easily freeze your skin and cause frostbite.  A material like styrofoam is able to preserve a piece of dry ice remarkably better and remarkably safer than any metal could do.  But I get the impression that the safety of the dry ice is not your intention...


 * Without knowing more about your "experiment", I doubt there is much more anyone on Wikipedia can do to offer you advice. I have worked with titanium, and found it dangerously brittle and sharp for virtually all purposes-- once put under "too much' stress, titanium snaps like a flying knife.  Tungsten would probably behave similarly.  It is an amazing material, tungsten, and has a durability and strength unparalleled in the chemical world.  But it's got little or no business being used with dry ice that I can imagine. --KDS4444 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a metallurgist and have some indirect contact with tungsten. First, it is used in diamond drill bits used in drilling wells. A Graphite mold is first shaped and industrial diamonds are embedded in the wall of the mold. Molten tungsten is then poured into the mold and the metal bonds to the diamonds in a way no other metal does providing strength to the drill bit and and tightly fused diamonds to cut rock with.

A second use of tungsten is as tungsten carbide. About 25% carbon makes an alloy that can be used for drill bits and cutting tools. Your local Home Depot sells them for cutting harden steel. Of course they are also the most expensive drill bits you will find at that store (haven't seen diamond drill bits there yet).

The third use of tungsten which is becoming very popular is in counterfeiting gold coins and gold ingots. At 4 dollars an ounce vs 1400 dollars a troy ounce, there is a lot of money to be made. A gold plated tungsten coin or a gold ingot with a core of tungsten is a real temptation to the criminal minded. Gold has a specific gravity of 19.30 and tungsten of 19.25. The difference of 3 parts per thousand or 0.3% is not easily detected by the casual observer. Obviously hardness testing will uncover the coins, and ultrasonic testing will uncover the ingots. But is that really done? Does a company that is making so much money selling the product really want to rock the boat? 65.207.221.99 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

At what temperature does tungsten burn
"Tungsten metal forms a protective oxide when exposed to air but can be oxidized at high temperature."

From what I read in a research paper a while ago (in which they heat tungsten by induction in still air), the oxide has a lower melting point than the tungsten metal, which allows it to be ablated away by a hot enough flame, and the layers of tungsten underneath oxidized and ablated away and so on. But what temperature, exactly?


 * Tungsten(VI) oxide WO3 is apparently the most common form, melting at 1473 °C
 * Tungsten(IV) oxide WO2 lists melting point of "1700 °C (decomposes)" - what does that mean?
 * Tungsten(III) oxide W2O3 ??

Which of these forms under a hot flame? All of them? What's the minimum temperature flame required to turn a piece of tungsten into smoke (rather than just heat it up)? Would a pure oxygen atmosphere make a difference? — Omegatron 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

what is the price for Tungsten The term decomposes means it moves to another form (oxide in this case. If it behaves like Iron, FeO, Fe2O3, Fe3O4, where Fe2O3 is a mixture of the other two, then I would expect a change in the amount of oxygen. Which way, I don't know.65.207.221.99 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

tungsten vs. wolfram
I question the sentence "Tungsten [...] is commonly accepted as the name of the material, although some chemists [...] refer to it as wolfram" What does "commonly accepted" mean? Are there any verifications for this statement? Maybe the material is commonly accepted to be called tungsten in the english-speaking world, in case that is what is meant. But if you consider other languages, I would say that wolfram, wolframio, wolfraam, Βολφράμιο etc. appear at least as often (cp the names of this article in other languages, for example). Please consider redrafting the sentence. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.94.57.157 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Tungsten is the name used by IUPAC; the only thing that could need verification is that anyone calls it wolfram in English. 2) This is the English-language Wikipedia, and it is obviously talking about the name in English unless specifically indicating otherwise. Otherwise the "most common name" for just about anything would be the Chinese word for it! :) --Itub (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tungsten (Swedish, "heavy stone") is actually the mineral itself and Wolfram (German, "eats tin like wolf") is the actual metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.183.132.2 (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

'(Although true, this is irrelevant. Titanium isn't used as any standard of hardness. Undid revision 454088670 by Robo37 (talk))'
It is thought to be one of the hardest metals of all by the majority, so it does seem like a good example. Robo37 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Titanium just isn't that hard. Especially not if you mean grade 4 rather than 6/4. It's a worse benchmark for "hardness" than a steel penknife and we certainly shouldn't be led into perpetuating populist misunderstandings. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Including to the table on the article on Moh's hardness, Steel is 4-4.5, Titanium is 6 (which is a whooping 1.5-2 difference, which, in comparison, is the same difference between soft 24 carat gold and iron), and Tungsten is 7.5 to 8, which is about half way inbetween the hardness of steel and diamond. If you're using Vickers hardness you get pretty much the same resaults, with the hardness of Titanium being 0.97GPa, about twice that of steel, and Tungsten having a hardness 3.43GPa. Robo37 (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * + Might it be worth while to add to the article that Tungsten is the 3rd hardest element? Hardnesses of the elements (data page) Robo37 (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mohs' scale is pretty much useless for metallurgy - it's just a mistake to assign fractional values for it (the scale doesn't work that way) and it's so non-linear that it's not clear what they'd mean anyway.
 * For relative hardness of metals, then "steel" has a huge range, owing to its well known behaviour for hardenability. Ti sits in the middle of this and although it too can vary in hardness (more by alloy than treatment), it's by much less than steel. Claiming Ti hardness as "about twice that of steel" is just so misleading as to be wrong, for the purposes of encyclopedia writing. Maybe it's right for mild steel (MS is so soft I don't think I've ever cared to measure its hardness directly), but so much steel is used everyday in its hardened state that such a narrow claim is unsupportable. Ask a diver about the poor edgeholding of their saltwater dive knife, if they bought an expensive Ti one rather than cheap 440 stainless.
 * If you want to qualify the tungsten comparison from "steel" to "a steel penknife" (a commonplace item with some reader familiarity) then that would be an improvement. Dropping unfamiliar Ti in there, or nimonic or stellite, is just a source of confusion. It's "well known" that titanium is ultra-strong compared to steel (it isn't) and was first invented by NASA to build the SR-71 spyplane (per wiki, but neither of these are true). We should not add to existing populist confusions by using Ti as a hardness benchmark. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Wolfram evaporated crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Wolfram evaporated crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 5, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-03-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 20:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

half life times
The times for the "stable" isotopes given in the table and in the text are inconsistent. --Maxus96 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The table figures are more recent. I've updated them in the article. Double sharp (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

FA nomination
This article looks like it could easily be a Featured article. I'm not a significant contributor or I'd do it myself, but somebody needs to come along and nominate this as a Featured article candidate. —Kierkkadontalk/contribs 21:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Vickers hardness is not measured in MPa, nor is Brinell hardness. I don't know what the values should be, but 3430 and 2570 look reasonable without the pressure units. Reference the Wikipedia links to Vickers hardness and Brinell hardness on the page. Udokre (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wolfram is German word, right?
I thought Wolfram was a German word, and so the "W" symbol was the only chemical element symbol to come from a language other than Latin. But the article claims a Latin form. Isn't it more likely that the Latin form is modern, taken from the German?
 * Likely, I heard that the word comes from an archaic german form of "wolf-rust" or similar... Maybe we should add "New Latin" or something.


 * Chlorine comes from the Greek χλωρóς chloros, meaning "pale green". Do you mean the only chemical element symbol to consist of a letter that was not used in the ancient Latin alphabet? Booshank 14:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not latin: don't be misled by the "ium" in "Wolframium" My understanding of the naming is: Malcolm Farmer 23:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The mineral Wolframite (origin of name unknown)
 * Extracted from this was a metal named Wolfram after the mineral
 * Chemists gave it a technical english name of "Wolframium", giving it the "ium" ending of a metal. see this 1913 dictionary entry: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/wolframium
 * Everyone ignores them and calls it Tungsten, Germans stick with Wolfram

Here are some references and suggestions. Somebody else may put it into a useful edit of the article.

This includes the etymology of Wolframite \Wol"fram*ite\, n. [G., wolframit, wolfram; wolf wolf + rahm cream, soot; cf. G. wolfsruss wolfram, lit., wolf's soot.] (Min.)

(also contains other reference data): Tungsten - (Swedish, tung sten, heavy stone); also known as wolfram (from wolframite, said to be named from wolf rahm or spumi lupi, because the ore interfered with the smelting of tin and was supposed to devour the tin)

http://www.tungsten.com/tunghist.html however gives a more detailed etymology than most dictionaries and it appears that the origin of the word wolfram is more or less obscure.

The name "wolframium" seems to be only of historical interest (but definitely label it New Latin). It shouldn't be mentioned in the lead paragraph (the W symbol is already explained with wolfram), but in the history section where there is more room for writing things out and explaining, together with "spumi lupi".

>> wolframite (which was later named for Woulfe)
 * I removed it until somebody can provide a cite for it. It seems that "wolf-rahm" was used well before Woulfe, and I couldn't find any connection to the common convention (introduced 1820 by A. Breithaupt) to give the name "wolframite" to the mineral.

>> In 1781 Carl Wilhelm Scheele ascertained that a new acid could be made from tungstenite
 * I believe Scheele worked on "tung sten", later named "scheelite" after him, which would be calcium tungstate (the 'compound of tungstic acid and lime'). However, tungstenite is tungsten sulfide in modern use. Could somebody check this?

Femto 20:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't see why it should necessarily have to come from German? Anyhow, "everybody else" doesen't ignore the name Wolfram, as a matter of fact, most languages still retain it over Tungsten.--TVPR 07:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, all Germanic languagues that I know of apart from English use Wolfram or similar form rather than Tungsten. So do most Central and Eastern European languages and some others such as Turkish. Booshank 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes, the name Wolfram comes from the German "Wolf Rahm" meaning the froth of the wolf. This is a name based on the wolf-like way that tungsten reacts with liquid tin. The name Wolfram was given by the brothers José and Fausto Elhuyar to whom the discovery of tungsten is attributed. / PJM, Sweden 75.148.70.237 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wording about knives
It says


 * "Hard materials"


 * "Tungsten is mainly used in the production of hard materials based on tungsten carbide, one of the hardest carbides, with a melting point of 2770 °C. WC is an efficient electrical conductor, but W2C is less so. WC is used to make wear-resistant abrasives and cutters and knives for drills, circular saws, milling and turning tools used by the metalworking, woodworking, mining, petroleum and construction industries[4] and accounts for about 60% of current tungsten consumption.[43]"

Does it make sense: "...and knives for drills..."? Maybe: "...and knives, for drills..."? 94.5.82.115 (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I get the image of several knives mounted around a power drill like a propellor... Anyway, changed for clarity. —  Reatlas  (talk)  14:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Drill tip masonry.jpg

This I think was ment with that. A knive from WC would be stupid to do.--Stone (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Melting point
Hello, I changed the sentence "... has the highest melting point of all elements" to "... has the second highest melting point of all elements", as carbon has a higher melting point than tungsten (3500 K vs. 3410 K). Note that I am talking about MELTING point, not BOILING point, and about all elements (as it is stated in the original sentence), not only metals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.120.242 (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Carbon doesn't melt at ambient pressure, it sublimates, see the phase diagram in carbon. Materialscientist (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that needs to be clarified. Although Carbon remains solid at higher temperatures than Tungsten, that fact that Carbon sublimes, rather than melts means Tungsten has the highest melting point of all elements.  I am going to change that.  Jokem (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I note the lead to the article says Tungsten has the highest melting point of all elements, but under physical properties is restricts this to just the metals. Jokem (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Record Needle
In the Uses section it talks about "Victor" inventing a tungsten stylus for records. Who's Victor? It seems oddly written and the citation isn't real. The page is protected right now so I can't do anything about it 64.132.80.134 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Victor Talking Machine Company is the thing I found.--Stone (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No mention of a Tungsten record needle on that page though, and still the "citation" doesn't link to an outside source 64.132.80.134 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's not on the web, it doesn't exist. Double sharp (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Toxicity
Does http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8874460 (from http://what-if.xkcd.com/89/ ), which details a case of acute tungsten toxicity, have any place here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk
General Content in the applications section

The following statement appears at the end of the "applications" section:

"Lately, tungsten is used for jewelry because of its longevity and high durability."

This sentence is a standalone paragraph and the information provided is already included in the applications sections. Also, the tone also seemed a bit inconsistant with the rest of the article. I removed the sentence, but it the was replaced.

I should have mentioned the proposed edit here first. I still think that the sentence should be removed, but I made the mistake of making the change without discussing it here. 206.197.156.11 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC) K Mlnarik 9/9/09

- Measuring the half life of Tungsten

Given that the half-life is so long and that decay is therefore a very rare event I would like to ask how it is possible to accurately measure its half life? For example if a reasonable mass of Tungsten only has one theoretical atomic decay a year there is a real statistical chance (by random variation) that none or more may occur and so one would surely need to measure over an unfeasible period of time? Also such a low rate would surely be masked by contamination and background radiation or re-absorption of emitted particles? Could an explanation of the method be added as a link? [ManInStone].

I would suggest changing the reporting of half lives to standard form i.e. x*10^n.

Are +2, +3, +4, +5 common oxidation states?


 * I also question this. By far the most common oxidation state is +6, as found in WO3, WO4-2, H2W12O40-6, etc
 * I have modified the page to reflect this. Humanist

There were minimum oxidation state -2. Replaced it with +2, because metals do not have negative oxidation states. --Yyy 08:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The minimum should be -2. A real example is the compound Na2W(CO)5 (sodium pentacarbonyltungstate), where assigning CO as a neutral ligand gives you a tungsten oxidation state of -2! I think there also may be a [W(CO)4]4- salt also. John Ellis and his group at the Univ. of Minnesota were very active in these low oxidation state compounds. habrahamson 08:55 CDT 2006-10-25

Reference 72 looks bogus. The book title is irrelevant, and the link points to an unviewable page in Google books. [Rich Schroeppel 140701.1331MDT] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.219.84 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether you can view the page depends on the country, it seems. I have checked it and it (p.333) is indeed relevant to the W patent proceedings. Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Very dubious claim deleted from Occurrence section
"In the prelude to WWII China's production of tungsten played a role as China could use this leverage to demand material assistance from the US government. "

This is a very dubious claim. China was unable to export much of anything after the Japanese invasion in 1937, so it did not supply tungsten to the United States and had no such leverage. The source cannot be legitimately described as "news": Skolnick was a lone-wolf scandalmonger, sensationalist, and conspiracy believer who has been dead since 2006. Whatever was "reprinted" on this now-dead website may not even have originated with him. Rich Rostrom (Talk) 06:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Native tungsten
The IMA have, since 2011, recognized tungsten as a mineral. See Min Mag 75 (and the current master list). A legacy comment in the second paragraph states otherwise. I'm having trouble finding a source discussing its initial discovery. American Mineralogist, Volume 96, 1166-1170 makes note of it when introducing a new mineral, Yttriaite-(Y), found embedded within native tungsten. Also The finding of native tungsten microcrystals in Bilokorovychi proterozoic conglomerates of the Volyn region (in Russian). Dong, where is my automobile? (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Not the heaviest element used by living organisms any more?

 * This paper seems to indicate that some microbial metalloproteins contain uranium. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7307/full/nature09265.html.  It is unclear if these metalloproteins are active, and thus (under certain parsings of the phrase) whether uranium is "used" by a living organism.  But the results in the paper seem to cast enough doubt that the phrase in the wikipedia article should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.236.250 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Any element in the environment may get taken up by an organism and stuck on a protein. By that criterion, all elements but a couple of inert gases are "used" by life (even xenon is taken up in membranes and interacts with organic proteins, producing anethesia). Heavy metals like mercury poison you by interacting with your thiol proteins-- how else? That doesn't mean they're necessary for life. To show that, you have to show the protein-complex doing something metabolic, constructive, and normal. We've reacently been over that very problem with arsenic. The case isn't proven.  S  B Harris 23:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The abstract refers to the uranium (and lead, for that matter) as having been "misincorporated". As a result, it is as much of a biological use as uranium poisoning would be in humans. Double sharp (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Heaviest element (non-transuranic) would be uranium. The bacterium citrobacter absorbs it, so does the lichen trapelia involuta. However, tungsten is a heavier metal (g/cm³). I think it is just confusion over atomic weight vs. elemental density. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.196.142 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Tungsten. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itia.info/FileLib/Newsletter_2005_06.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itia.info/FileLib/Newsletter_2005_12.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016
Other sources state that the element with the highest point is CARBON at around 3500°C. Which suggests that this statement is incorrect The free element is remarkable for its robustness, especially the fact that it has the highest melting point of all the elements.

141.0.157.169 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources are wrong. Carbon does not melt at ambient pressure, it sublimates. Materialscientist (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User Risk as Ring Material
I understand that there are some risks to people choosing to use tungsten in a ring to be worn on fingers. The hardness of the material makes it (1) more likely that a major finger injury will occur if the ring is caught on an object, and (2) more difficult to remove by emergency personnel in the event of a finger injury. Specifically with (2), if a finger is injured, the finger is likely to swell. Rings must be removed (normally cut off as they will no longer fit over the swollen finger) to prevent the ring from cutting off blood circulation to the finger. If the ring cannot be removed, it begins to act like a tourniquet, resulting in the eventual loss of the finger due to loss of blood flow and consequent gangrene. Because tungsten rings are so hard, special tools must be stocked by emergency personnel that allow them to break the ring and remove it from the finger in the event of an injury.

I believe this risk to those considering the purchase of a tungsten ring, or to those already wearing them, should be mentioned in the Applications section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloemer (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Calculated half-lives of the 'stable' isotopes
Good luck seeing these happen... Double sharp (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 182W: 1.4×1033 a
 * 183W: 5.7×1038 a
 * 184W: 2.6×1036 a
 * 186W: 2.0×1057 a

covalent bond explanation for extremely high mp
If this is the case, why isn't it true for uranium, which has significant 5f-6d hybridisation and directional bonding? Double sharp (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

English Units
This is the English wiki... why no english units in parens by the metric numbers? Are you trying to alienate everyone born before 1975?? Msjayhawk (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's just that this is a scientific article, and in pure science, no one in their right mind uses anything but SI. Double sharp (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 11:12, 14 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 15:26, 12 July 2005)
 * for archive. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Tungsten Oxide
I thought tungsten oxide is a volatile oxide (hence not protective), which is why light bulbs need to be evacuated or filled with inert gas - to prevent the oxidation of the tungsten at elevated temperatures.


 * It depends on the temperature: "Forms a protective oxide in air and can be oxidized at high temperature." (added to article) Femto 20:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Most bulbs are filled with Argon to preven oxidation, and although Tungsten is a self protective metal, consider this.

The oxide would tend to crumble due to repeated expansion and contractions from dramatic heating and cooling of a light bulb filament as the light is repeatedly turned on and off. Even some air would get through at the super hot temperatures of the filament. The oxide would tend to block the light given off.


 * The above is not correct. Incandescent lamps with tungsten filaments contain inert gas fillings to avoid enhanced wall-blackening of the glass at high operating temperatures (the rate of evaporation in vacuum is 500x larger compared to an Ar atmosphere of 1.2 bar).


 * ref: Lassner, E. and W.D. Schubert, Tungsten: Properties, Chemistry, Technology of the Elements, Alloys, and Chemical Compounds. 1999: Springer US. pp 30.


 * from 2004. So I sign & archive. DePiep (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Isotopes
Why is there a sentance stating the "resistance" of tungsten at the bottom of this paragraph? The material properties column already lists the resistivity of tungsten which is a much more fundamental material property.

wrong info here
The isotope stability information on this page is wrong

Critical point temperature in C, F
I have removed 13620 and 24800 from infobox W. These are not used in template:infobox element (do not show). -DePiep (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The critical point in K is still there, but no corresponding pressure. No other metals seems to have critical points in their infoboxes. Should this really be kept? Ulflund (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. Deleted. Double sharp (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Melting point
How about rewording this -

(also for the fact that it has a higher melting point then any other non alloy in existence)

to this -

(also for the fact that it has the highest melting point of any metal, and the highest of any element except carbon) Latter wording does provide consistency with info on the Osmium page, i.e. melting point for osmium is 4th highest behind carbon, tungsten...

--VatievonHans (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Carbon doesn't melt at standard pressure; it sublimes. Double sharp (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Tungsten acute toxicity
Marquet P, François B, Vignon P, Lachâtre G. A soldier who had seizures after drinking quarter of a litre of wine. Lancet. 1996 Oct 19;348(9034):1070. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8874460

Marquet P, François B, Lotfi H, Turcant A, Debord J, Nedelec G, Lachâtre G. Tungsten determination in biological fluids, hair and nails by plasma emission spectrometry in a case of severe acute intoxication in man. J Forensic Sci. 1997 May;42(3):527-30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9144946


 * - DePiep (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Rwanda
The photo caption says that tungsten mining is an important part of Rwanda's economy. Yet the Wikipedia article on Rwanda says that industry accounts for less than 15% of the country's GDP, and that wolframite is only one of its industrial products. How important to Rwanda is tungsten mining really?213.127.210.95 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * For a predominantly agricultural country, 15% of the entire country's GDP is pretty high. --5.2.200.193 (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Boiling point
Many sources online give the boiling point of tungsten as 5555 C / 5828 K, including List_of_chemical_elements. Many others give a similar number 5660 C / 5933 K, or 5930 K, 5900 K, etc; and still others give the wildly different 5900-ish C or even 5600-ish K. I suspect these are errors where the units got mixed up. This article's 5930 C is consistent with this theory, since it's 5660+270. Regardless, we should have an actual source, or just default to what List_of_chemical_elements uses, if anyone knows what that is... Patallurgist (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See Boiling points of the elements (data page). The general references for the element infoboxes are all at List of data references for chemical elements, which is linked at the infobox footer. Double sharp (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I see that Zhang et al. cites two handbooks for 6203 K, one for 5930 K, and a couple more for 5823 K and 5828 K respectively. And that they use the CDB value where available, which is one of the 6203's (edit: Lange 2004 is the other, I confirmed it lists 5930 C). What determines the choice of "use" value? I'm still convinced that 6203 K is an error... can't find a copy of CDB. Lange 1998 has 5900 C as cited on the data page. Should I take this discussion to the data page's Talk? Patallurgist (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Lange is inconsistent between tables, according to Zhang et al. For example, they give Ni as 2884 °C in Table 1.3 but 2730 °C in Table 1.19; based on what Zhang et al. write you will probably find the 6203 K value there. Note that these high boiling points are not measured directly but are usually extrapolated from measured vapour pressures by the Clausius–Capeyron relation mentioned in the article. The "use" values look like they are based on Zhang et al.'s Table 11, which gives the "corrected" values for the elements based on their work with their artificial neural network. Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Commercial uses
I remember a coarse metal bar in elementary school gym being labeled tungsten that was lightweight and hollow. Is my memory wrong on this? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Tungstem" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tungstem. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Tungston" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tungston. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverted removal of not relevant sentence
I did this removal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tungsten&oldid=prev&diff=920788821

It was reverted by user DePiep with the following reason: possible COI or advertising

I find this both a strange reversal, and a dubious explanation given. The text I removed is as follows: There are only a few UK based companies which specialise in machining this such as MGS precision in the heart of England.

Wikipedia is a international encyclopedia, if we are to mention a company that use this metal, it should be a good reason for it, and no such reason is given. Besides that, there is a direct link to the company web site in the text, something that as far as I know is not within the guidelines for Wikipedia. Add to that the reason given for the revert seems to be misleading, to say the least. I am the one removing a sentence possibly advertising, user DePiep revert it, so he let the advertising sentence be there.

I hope this is sufficient to make an admin look into this and revert what I regard as a inappropriate edit by DePiep. Ulflarsen (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If other editors do not see a COI or such, they can revert me. -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see any need for admin involvement at this time. We should sort this out ourselves (the editors, i.e. the people who care enough to edit the page).


 * If there's evidence of a COI, then it should be presented here, please.


 * The major problem with the edit is that it is uncited. That renders it eligible for deletion without warning, by just about anyone. I personally think that's only reasonable if the edit is plainly stupid; and that has not been asserted, nor has the case has been made. But I think it's legitimate to revert, per standard WP rules, without giving any other reason than that it is uncited.


 * So please cite; or explain why no citation is needed.


 * I don't want to wade in here just now; but if admins are going to be dragged in, I'll get me wellies on. There's about 300 admins, I think, and there's about 2 that I trust. So I'd sooner we dealt with it ourselves. I do not have any of the kind of the heavy-duty rubber outerwear you need when you're dealing with admin committees - I'm just a reg'lar dude. I don't generally mess about with alligators or crocodiles or water-snakes - life is too short already.


 * But if admins are dragged in, I will feel compelled to stand up and take a position. That would be that the edit should be cited, or reverted, unless a case is made here (talk page) why no citation is needed.


 * Does that work? MrDemeanour (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

As the user DePiep has accepted that the sentence can be removed, I do so. My reasons for removing it is several. First, this is a general article about Tungsten, its not about Tungsten in UK, Norway or any other country. To have this sentence seems to indicate that there is something special with the company mentioned, but if so, it should at least be supported by good sources, not a link to the company website. Second, as it stands the sentence reads more as an ad for the company, than adding useful information to the article about Tungsten. Ulflarsen (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Carbon
The article mentions tungsten as the element that has the highest melting point (carbon stays solid longer) When I went to edit, it said not to mention carbon because it has no liquid state. I think this should be visible in the article, because it is misleading. Apricot2000 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Useful source
There is a whole book about this element. Double sharp (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Boiling point
The boiling point in this article is inconsistent. In the lead it is 5828K and in the infobox it is 6203K. Which is correct? TheForgottenKing (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

wolfram? Come on folks.
This is 2021. No one calls Tungsten "wolfram". Can we not get rid of that obsolete reference? This is just silly. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not completely silly. In 1951 wolfram was selected over tungsten by IUPAC, but there were protests in the American press. So both names were recognised by IUPAC and in 1953 it was decided that the matter would be reviewed later – a "later" that never happened. Both names were in the IUPAC Red Book until 2005, and the removal of "wolfram" in fact led to some protest. In Nature Chemistry's series "Chemistry in your element" element 74 is mentioned as having two names (still in 2011). The analogous name "wolframate" for the oxyanion was still used in 2017, even though per the 2005 Red Book "tungstate" should be used. In 2008 Norman E. Holden wrote (for IUPAC): Whether the origin of the dispute over wolfram and tungsten would justify the retention of wolfram as an alternate name for element 74, only time will tell. So "tungsten" definitely dominates in English, but "wolfram" is not completely gone (just mostly gone). Double sharp (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's tungsten that is the obsolete name, but as usual backwards Americans do their best to spread confusion. BP OMowe (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, it's 2023 and I've never heard the name "tungsten" in my life. 84.148.223.198 (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Magnetic?
I have a novelty block of 99.95% pure tungsten. Rather surprised that a standard magnet sticks to the tungsten. Must be something about magnetic susceptibility. If this empirical fact is relevant, I don't know where it would fit in the article. Magnet won't stick to anything else non-ferrous. Or maybe I'm missing something. Rairden (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Heaviest element known to be biologically functional?
More than a decade ago, there is a similar discussion about this. However, I found this which said that some bacteria use uranium for respiration, which means it is biologically functional. So tungsten is not that heaviest element, uranium is. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a perceptive idea. One can go even further with this idea: all sorts of weird metals and exotic organic compounds can be incorporated into functioning cells (see this year's Nobel Prize to Carolyn Bertozzi and a previous Nobel to Fraces Arnold).  So the lines are starting to blur somewhat.  The new cofactors are not genetically encoded in reproducing organisms that I know of.
 * Here's the deal: Pre-genetic engineering, what is the heaviest element with a functional use and incorporated into the macromolecular apparatus of a living cell? I think W wins that.
 * Uranium and other metal oxides can serve as electron acceptors, a place where high energy electrons are dumped. All sorts of stuff can function as acceptors or donors, but such stuff is not part of the biological apparatus.  --Smokefoot (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Does this bacterium actually need uranium, or is it just taking it up and metabolising it because it's there? If the latter, then it surely can't count as biological use, because that would imply that all toxic heavy metals are used by living organisms... Double sharp (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)