Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Set:Primordial noble gases in discharge tube

Set:Primordial noble gases in discharge tube
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2015  at 16:30:28 (UTC)


 * Reason:A great set of images of primordial noble gases in discharge tube. An almost similar 'set' is here.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Noble gas
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
 * Creator:Alchemist-hp


 * Support with Alt. Xenon as nominator – Ṫ Ḧ the fury of the nature given flesh 16:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't we missing a noble gas? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, Its Radon. Didn't you see the nom-name, 'primordial' noble gases. Ṫ Ḧ the fury of the nature given flesh  03:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Radon has a fairly short half-life. While it's possible to put it in a discharge tube, it's very expensive and short-lived. Support all but Xenon by the way: Though I like the old set's tubes a bit more, these are sharper. Something's odd with the Xenon one, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, look at the histogram; squashed at the light end. I fixed it, uploaded an alt. which would fit better in the series. Support with alt. Xenon. --Janke | Talk 08:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as author too :-) The original Xenon-image has a better color of the bluish tint. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Stronge Support ____Alborzagros (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)____
 * Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Aren't they all slightly misleading though? I'm not an expert on the light discharge of noble gases, but I understand that Neon produces a red light (which is the red glow around the tube, obviously). But what about the blown highlights? To me, it looks like the yellow light in the centre of the tube is the result of the red and green channels both being blown, resulting in what looks like yellow light but is in fact not what the tube is actually discharging? I know it's probably difficult to avoid, but it's quite misleading and at the very least, this technical deficiency should be explained so that laymen reading the article think that the colour of light varies as it emanates from the source. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion: the color intensity is a function of the distance. The background was ca. 10cm behind the tubes. The intensity of the light is in the middle part of the discharge most intensively. And yes, the light varies as a function of a lot of parameters, how thickness, inside pressure, distance from the electrodes, voltage and his stability, temperature, ... I know also: these are old images, made by a Pentax camera. I think also it will be possible for me to take new better images (as a HDR/tonemapping technique) with my current camera equipment, but additional a lot of new work for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I might support new images without the problems Diliff pointed out (though I would prefer Radon to be included). For now, oppose this current set on the technical issues — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When you say it is to do with intensity, do you mean that very intense red light looks yellow (or, conversely, faint yellow light looks red)? 86.136.150.74 (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 *  Comment I see no problem with the yellow in the Neon image, Neon light is not monochromatic, look at this: Neon_emission.png --Janke | Talk 07:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For me, the question is more why the centre of the tube looks a completely different colour from the surroundings. There could be a good reason of course. 03:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.150.74 (talk)
 * Die discharge is in the middle of the tube (= capillary part) most intensive than in the rest, because it has much less place for the same plasma-flow. Each place in the discharge tube is different and has other physical properties. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Janke, you missed my point slightly. I know Neon is not monochromatic. If it were, there couldn't be yellow in the centre because the green channel could not be blown. The problem is that I don't believe the light in the centre of the tube is visible to the human eye as yellow light. The only reason it looks yellow is because of the technical deficiency of it having blown highlights in the centre in only two channels. It would be blown as 'white' if all three channels were blown (not that white would be more realistic than yellow), but because Neon has a precise emission spectrum, it does not release any blue light and therefore does not blow the blue channel. As Alchemist mentions, the middle of the tube is more intense. Yes, more intense, but not a different colour light. The colour should be consistent. As I said also, I know it is difficult to capture it in an aesthetic manner but perhaps a much more underexposed image would minimise the chance of the wrong colour being shown. It would have less of a 'glow' around the tube, so it would not look as interesting, but it would be more accurate. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Jobas (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment Could you make it clear which version of xenon are you supporting? Armbrust The Homunculus 14:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done..Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORD my strength 14:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Left version of xenon (Not alt) Alborzagros (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Armbrust The Homunculus 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the xenon images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)