Talk:Helium/Archive 4

Uses of Helium - diving

The section on the use of helium in diving is a bit misleading. Helium in itself does not protect against oxygen toxicity - reducing the amount of oxygen in the mix is what does that. You can achieve this by mixing helium with air and thus diluting the percentage oxygen in the mix, but there is nothing special about helium for this purpose. Helium also does not help reduce decompression time (at least for sports mixed-gas divers, I can't speak for military or commercial uses). Decompression theory is not an exact science, but many models will actually give a longer deco time if you replace nitrogen with helium. The key variable to deco timing is the percentage of oxygen in the mix (so when you reduce the oxygen percentage to avoid an oxygen tox, the trade-off is longer decompression times). The main reason for using helium in a deep diving mix is to reduce Nitrogen Narcosis. N.B. as well as the cost (helium is expensive) one of the problems of using Heliox as a dive gas is that it can affect your nervous system at depth (High Pressure Nervous Syndrome). For this reason, sports divers will normally stick with Trimix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgerclarke (talk • contribs) 09:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix the section so it's clear that any diluent gas can be used to protect against O2-tox. BTW, so called high pressure nervous syndrome is not a problem at most depths technical divers can reach (< 600 fsw). [1] Trimix is used in tech diving (almost all of which is done shallower than 600 ft!) not because of this, but because of cost. Plenty of very deep tech diving (300 to 500 fsw) has been done on straight heliox with no problem. Some (rich) divers prefer heliox because its lower density makes it easier to breathe (lower gas viscosity and density) at 10 to 20 atm. SBHarris 10:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Spammers

This page is being recked by spammers - I think we should go back to a point before vandalism and then lock the page if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxfoil (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC) What 'spammers' are you referring to? You're not being specific 24.184.234.24 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper

Applications has a double negative

Because it is lighter than air, airships and balloons are inflated with helium for lift. In airships, helium is preferred over hydrogen because it is not inflammable and has 92.64% of the buoyancy (or lifting power) of the alternative hydrogen (see calculation.)

75.181.46.158 (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Inflammable is a bad word, because it means both "flammable" and "not flammable." For that reason, I discourage it ever being used. Let's just use flammable, which can't be misunderstood. SBHarris 02:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Concurred (I am the second of now three different editors to make that wording change with comparable edit-summary). DMacks (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The word "flammable" is straightforward. The word "inflammable", particularly to a person whose first language is not English, looks as if it should mean the opposite. But it actually means the same. This can be confusing at best. Then to compound it further with a "not" prefix...well. "Not flammable" has a straightforward, unambiguous meaning to anyone, including those not fluent in the subtle inflections of English linguistic idiosyncracies. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Inflammable does not mean "not flammable"! The word "flammable" is a concession to those, who never bothered to find out the meaning of "inflammable". But as even Webster & Co. gave in, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fak119 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is only one negative. inflammable is positive in that sense.--Stinkypie (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since replaced with "non-flammable" to avoid confusion. -- Beland (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The picture of helium (and other gases)

The picture of an empty vial in the infobox is IMHO not only useless but may lead to a false impression that helium forms a kind of a bubble in the vial. And it looks beige rather than colorless in the picture. These hold for pictures of other colorless gases, too. In my opinion these pictures should be removed ASAP. Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture's inclusion is a residue of the systematic way minerals and elements are placed in collections for academic use. It conforms to a standard presentation, which, as you point out, is peculiar taken in isolation.

It would be useful for there to be an image about helium that people could readily identify with. (The picture of a helium discharge tube seems like a step in this direction.) Failing that, there does seem to be some utility in a "seeing is believing" photo which shows, that, in observable fact, helium can't be seen. The alternative ... something along the lines of "helium can't be seen, so we aren't showing it" ... has the disadvantage that it distances a reader from an empirical observation that they could be reasonably expected to want to make for themselves.

The photos in "Appearance" here and in hydrogen, kryton and neon however, are misleading, since a) they do not show any entity that is colorless, and b) have different colors. An empty test tube or bottle might work to better effect. An Appearance photo such as that in the oxygen article -- of liquid oxygen -- might be useful.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A solution might be to use a pic of helium IN A DISCHARGE TUBE. Its bright yellow emission-line was observed in the Sun's corona during an eclipse, and was the reason for naming it after the sun (greek, "Helios"). SingingZombie (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The picture has since been changed. -- Beland (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Amount of Helium left?

No mention in the article about the amount of helium left in the earth? I read in Wired that we had about a nine year supply at the rate we were using it currently, is this true? KiwiTallGuy (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See the section on Natural Abundance, last paragraph. Chemist Lee Sobotka says (see reference cited) that the largest reserve in Texas has an eight-year supply at current rates, but there is more elsewhere. The reference also says that Sobotka believes that Russia will be the world's major source of helium in 30 years. Dirac66 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Liquid helium article

There is more information in this article on liquid helium than there is in the Liquid helium article which is little more than a stub. I would think either a merge into Helium of a split out into Liquid helium would be in order. SpinningSpark 19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly concur. I think merger into Helium is in order, given how little is in the Liquid helium page. Also, there is info about liquid helium scattered throughout the page here, so seems silly to extract or rewrite that well-integrated material just to fill out a stub-page. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Added merge tags. -- Beland (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

speach on helium[all you need to know on helium]

Helium’s symbol on the periodic table is He. Its atomic number is 2 and its atomic weight is 4. It is the second lightest element after hydrogen. In its most common form, Helium 4, it has 2 Protons, Neutrons and electrons, though in its second and rare form, helium 3, it only contains one neutron. Helium has the lowest melting and boiling points of all elements being –272.2 C for the melting point and –268.93 C for the boiling point. Most of the time it is in it usual form, gas. Helium is colourless, odourless, tasteless, non-toxic, unreactive, 6 time lighter than the air we breath and part of the noble gas group of the periodic table.

Helium was first discovered by Pierre Janssen on the 18th of August 1868 when he came across a bright yellow line with a wavelength of 587.49nm[nanometers], in the spectrum of the chromosphere of the sun while observing an eclipse of the sun in India. Helium was then discovered by Joseph Lockyer on the 20th of October that same year while observing outer space. Lockyer concluded that it was caused by an unknown element, after unsuccessful testing to see if it were some new type of hydrogen.

Did you know that Helium was the first element discovered in space, before it was discovered on Earth? Also, I bet you didn’t know that Lockyer and an English chemist Edward Frankland, named the element after the Greek word for sun, Helios (written in Greek as it shows on the board). Most helium on earth is stored in the natural gas field in the US. In the modern universe almost all new helium is created as a result of the nuclear fusion in stars.

Helium is commonly used to change the pitch of a person’s voice however it is not a gas that is already in our body so it could be dangerous if too much is inhaled. One danger is as bad as death by asphyxiation (a condition of severely deficient supply of oxygen to the body) within minutes if breathing pure helium continuously. Helium is also used to inflate balloons and to make them rise to the roof or even further if released. These are common at special events, parties and celebrations. Helium is used for many other less common uses for example cryogenics (the study of very low temperatures), Deep-sea breathing gas, Cool superconducting magnets, Helium dating (a method of determining the age of a substance), Providing lift in airships such as blimps and all kinds of non-rigid airships, and as a protective gas for many industrial uses (eg. arc welding and growing silicon wafers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddyson 961 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any specific information here that is not already covered in the Wikipedia article. Please clarify exactly what changes you want made. DMacks (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Applications - breathing gas for deep diving

The last revision by User:Cryptic C62 was useful in bringing the references for high pressure nervous syndrome and the effect of easier breathing using heliox. However, these are concerns manifested principally below 150 m. The edit removed the mention of trimix which is the gas of choice for the 40 m to 150 m range. Since the majority of deep diving is in the latter range, we have lost the principal diving use of helium and substituted its use in exoteric scenarios that is really only of relevance in the field of extreme diving. In my humble opinion, it is also a mistake to take out the mention of "narcosis", since that is what it is known as (I've never heard a diver complaining that s/he had suffered from "pressure-induced neurological symptoms"). Perhaps one interpretation of WP:SPADE might be "Don't use over-technical language when plain language will do"?

As much as I dislike expanding a FA into topics it's not really about, I'll try to re-instate the use of helium in trimix to avoid nitrogen narcosis and do my best to leave in the HPNS. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldnt it be

colour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.186.110 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "it" you're talking about, but WP:ENGVAR might answer your question. DMacks (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Effect of helium on voice

I am no expert on this and i am not debating the factual accuracy of it. In the applications section it says that it affects one's timbre but not pitch. But in the biological effect section it says that it changes the timbre in a high pitched way. How is this possible? Better let someone change it before it loses it's FA status. --Stinkypie (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Those statements appear to have been present during the various FA reviews, and both statements are specifically cited. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we can only report what others say. If they appear to contradict, well, then they contradict--that's an attribute of those sources, not our faithful reporting of them:) Please check those refs to figure out what specific technical meaning each is using here: do they mean "pitch" as the actual frequency or the perceived frequency? Ahh here we go: the bio section says "timbre in a way that makes it sound high-pitched" (emphasis mine), so that doesn't contradict a statement that the pitch actually doesn't change. DMacks (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Helium gas has faster speed of sound than air, therefore as frequency is inversely proportional to the speed of sound – it is the frequency that will change. Therefore the pitch of the voice will change (to a higher pitch). 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaniss2 (talk • contribs)

I explain the vocal physics in more detail lower down on this TALK page, section entitled "Correction to Biological Effects". SingingZombie (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Renewability

Should there be something mentioning its non-renewability? I'm no expert, but perhaps it deserves a mention somewhere, now we're in this environmentally conscious world. Greeny--210.50.186.57 (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the "Occurrence and production" section would be the place. Interestingly, once He is released into the atmosphere, it's pretty much gone for good, but it is also constantly being generated inside the earth. So it's not really non-renewable in the same sense as crude oil or other mineable mineral deposits, just that we can't create it on demand like methane. DMacks (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If I've calculated correctly with the (2008) numbers in the article, current helium extraction is ~30,000t/year, so approximately 10 times the natural generation rate of 3,000 t.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is helium released in the atmosphere really gone for good? Does it escape into interstellar space, or is it trapped in the upper atmosphere? If it's in the upper atmosphere, why can't we find a way to capture it and reuse it?173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Our article states "most helium in the Earth's atmosphere escapes into space by several processes." That statement has two footnotes with references explaining the exact topic in good detail with diagrams, etc. The executive summary is "our article is correct, gone is gone...it goes up and up and up and keeps going." DMacks (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not unusual for gases to escape from planetary atmospheres into space, whether in reference to Earth or Mars. All that is necessary for an object to leave Earth's gravity well "permanently" is to exceed the escape velocity of 11.2 km/s while traveling in a direction away from Earth. The kinetic theory of gases shows that some particles of gases at ordinary temperatures have a velocity far in excess of Earth's escape velocity, though not always in a direction that points away from Earth's surface. Helium has the least size and second-least mass of a particle of gas one is likely to encounter in the lower atmosphere (as it is monatomic), and the second-lowest in the extreme upper atmosphere. This means that its average velocity will be greater than for almost all other gases. So, as a volume of gas, it tends to rise to the top of Earth's atmosphere, due to its buoyancy, and as particles, it tends to leave Earth's gravity, due to its particles' velocities in excess of Earth's escape velocity. At the same time, Earth loses tons of water, oxygen and hydrogen every day, due to similar processes (though, some of that might be replaced by incoming material from space). Pooua (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Helium atom

Hello, I wanted to bring attention to an article on the helium atom, which currently has few articles linking to it. I think it makes sense for something in this article to link to helium atom, but I wouldn't know where to insert this information. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

More than fixed.SBHarris 01:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Density of liquid helium

I believe that the density of Liquid Helium given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium is incorrect as 0.176 g / litre. To the best of my knowledge (and I buy the stuff by the kg), 1 litre of Liquid Helium has a mass of 0.125 kg.

Sincerely,

Andy Soper +27 82 56 27037 a.soper@ru.ac.za —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.50 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This site says 0.146 kg/L [2] at saturation pressure. The site in the liquid helium article says 0.125 g/mL. Clearly, unless there's that much difference in density due to pressure, we need an authoritative reference. SBHarris 03:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny stmt

Compounds section says:

These predictions may lead the collapse of helium's chemical nobility.

Are you sure? Or is the stmt simply and hillariously jumping between our mental image of the chemical properties and the chemical properties themselves? Or do we believe in magic and mind's control over matter? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Since rephrased. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Big Bang

Am I incorrectly assuming that the Big Bang is still theoretical? I was unaware that helium could indeed be produced by a theoretical model of the creation of the universe. I would assume there would be 100% evidence for the Big Bang being the correct model of creation of the universe before stating that Helium was produced in the Big Bang, instead of being theoretically produced in it. Can we get clarification for the reason this wording was chosen?

Everything in science is theoretical, but some theories are better than others. If you are unaware that helium could be produced by a theoretical model of the creation of the universe, read Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Not only does simple application of the laws of physics predict that 6 to 7 protons will be made for every neutron in the Big Bang, but it predicts that when they all combine, as well as they can in the next five minutes (or so) that is all they have have before everything cools and expands too much for any more fusion, that the "ash" of the process will consist of about 24% by weight of helium-4, and 76% hydrogen. Which is just what we see in our own gas giants and the spectra of stars everywhere else in the universe. So that's impressive, inasmuch as the theory was not tinkered with to make it "come up with" the right answer on helium abundance. And yet it does. SBHarris 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

First i must say this page is truly great, but as a physics prof. i must say that the individual is correct in saying we can not without some plausible doubt say that heliums mass creation was caused by the big bang. There are to many opposing theories. I am now 62 years old and if it one thing i have learned is do not close the door on alternate theories. I would not have caught this but a student told me that wikipedia said that it was a fact. So please realize you are not only stating a theory(even if it is a great one)as a fact, but you are misleading many who read this. PS I gave him an A on the paper and made him write another about the big bang and steady state theories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.131.180 (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone is going to pretend to be a professor, maybe they should remember how to write correctly!? 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's give people the benefit of the doubt. Talk pages don't exactly have high standards for grammar and few people in their 60s know how to type fast, let alone well. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 01:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a silly notion. The person in question is an OBVIOUS pretender, and he deserved to be called OUT on that. Not being able to capitalize correctly, not to punctuate correctly, and not to spell correctly are NOT grammatical problems, anyway, but they are obvious signs of being a phony. Also, they are signs of a phony without any sense of pride.98.67.97.60 (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I incorrectly assuming that the Big Bang is still theoretical? I was unaware that helium could indeed be produced by a theoretical model of the creation of the universe...instead of being theoretically produced in it. Can we get clarification for the reason this wording was chosen?

Theoretical models do not produce anything tangible at all, including helium!

Theoretical models produce NUMBERS and words. His statements were yet another arrant piece of evidence that "physics prof" is merely a faker.98.67.97.60 (talk)

Forgive me if the article has been edited previously, but I believe the way the article mentions the Big Bang is fine. It describes it as "It is believed that," which does not imply fact; instead, it implies a theory that is generally accepted, which is accurate. Zoughtbaj (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error

In this article, the word "elegant" is misspelled "elligant".

Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since fixed. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Would somebody please re-sprotect this page?

All the common element articles are excessively IP vandalized, and it's starting now again. SBHarris 18:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since done. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Elemental mass

Correction to the opening paragraph of the main article: Helium is believed to make up 24 percent of the elemental (i.e., baryonic) mass of the universe (consisting of protons, neutrons, etc.), not the total mass. Most of the mass of the universe is currently believed to be non-baryonic, namely dark matter and dark energy. Compare the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia main article on "Hydrogen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.2.195 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I added "elemental" to the lead, but note also that it talks about our galaxy, not universe. Materialscientist (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"End helium's chemical nobility"

The last sentence of the first paragraph of Helium#Compounds says, "If confirmed by experiment such compounds will end helium's chemical nobility, and the only remaining noble element will be neon." This seems to be a strange thing to say. For one thing, as has been previously pointed out under "Funny stmt", our experimental confirmation of helium compounds will not change helium's inertness itself—it will only modify whether we believe it is inert or not. Additionally, I don't know whether "nobility" is the right term here. We still refer to all of the group 18 elements as noble gases, even though we know some of them form chemical compounds, right? I don't feel comfortable enough with my meager grasp of chemistry to change the sentence itself, so could someone address this, please? —Bkell (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right. These used to be known as the "inert gasses." When scientists began forming compounds with them in the 1960s, "inert" was dropped, and the group became known as the "noble gasses," which does not mean that they cannot form compounds, only that it is difficult to do so. Plazak (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

How rare are helium burning stars?

The article says that "only the very heaviest stars" produce helium ("at the very end of their lives"). Does anyone have the percentage of such stars? It's not like they are all 'blue supergiants', I have read that even type K will engage in some helium burning, which includes nearly all of those stars that expired by now. But these really are less abundant than less massive stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.234.24 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC) 24.184.234.24 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper

It actually says 'all but very heaviest stars' produce helium. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It says this "Some new helium is being created presently as a result of the nuclear fusion of hydrogen, in all but the very heaviest stars, which fuse helium into heavier elements at the extreme ends of their lives." The comma is what confuses this. Either way it's read, that helium is produced in all but the heaviest stars, or only the heaviest stars can fuse helium, is incorrect. Stars less than 0.5 solar masses cannot fuse helium. The largest stars may have exhausted hydrogen fuel so are no longer creating helium. The source for this information is the Stellar Evolution article. I am going to align the information in this article with the Stellar Evolution article. Rather than making vague references to massive stars (i.e. what is a massive star? Bigger than Sol or what?) I am going to insert the actual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3333b (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It also stated this: "Such stars are massive and therefore rare, and this fact accounts for the fact that all other chemical elements after" in regards to stars that can fuse helium. Massive stars are generally considered to be much larger than the sun. The sun can fuse helium though, and in fact stars down to half the size of the sun can, according to the Stellar Evolution article. I deleted the comment about "such stars are massive and therefore rare", since it is in contradiction with the authoritative article on stellar evolution, and has no citation, but I left the information in about the relative abundance of elements. Someone else is going to have to figure out what constitutes a "massive star" and what constitutes "rare." It's probably better to use actual data here than vague statements, and if the statement is adjusted further then it should agree with Stellar Evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3333b (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture to scale?

The first picture under the heading "Characteristics" (the big one which shows the electron distribution and the nucleus with a black bar that is one Å) does not look like it is to scale, yet gives the impression that it is. For it to be to scale you would have to fit 100,000 of the pink dots in the center side by side on the black line. To me it looks like you might be able to fit 100 times at the most. If I'm right, I think someone should clarify in the text that the size of the electron cloud and the nucleus isn't to scale in the picture, or another picture should be chosen.

On a slightly different, more uncertain note, I thought the electron distribution would look different. In the picture it seems like it just steadily decreases outwards from a maximum at the nucleus, but I thought there was a region of low probability around the center, climbing from 0 at the nucleus to a maximum some distance out and then decreasing like in the picture. This might also be because of strange scales in the pic though. --Knuthove 22:14, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the 1s orbital in which helium's two electrons are has no wave nodes, implying that the region of the highest probability of finding the electrons is actually on the nucleus itself. Nevertheless, the "average radius" of the electrons is non-zero because there is a lower but non-zero probability of finding the electrons outside the nucleus as well. It is misleading to imagine that the orbital is a shell (like a thin eggshell) where the electrons spend most of their time; in reality they spend most of their time very near the nucleus (or even interpenetrating the nucleus---at the subatomic level this is perfectly possible, if counterintuitive to us who are used to macroscopic properties of matter). Of course, the p orbitals have a node at the nucleus, so p electrons actually have zero probability of being found at the nucleus, but spend all their time away from it. That's not the case here, though, since helium in its ground state has both electrons in the 1s orbital.—Tetracube (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Also, the caption explicitly says that the depiction of the nucleus is merely an illustration; in actuality, the two protons and two neutrons interpenetrate and occupy the same spherical area. (Or at least, their probability densities occupy exactly the same area---it's impossible to say whether their "actual positions", if such a thing exists at that level, coincide or not, due to the uncertainty principle.)—Tetracube (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two scales in the picture, so this looks fine to me. The caption explicitly now describes the shape of the nucleus. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Internally inconsistent and unsupported assertion

"In 2000[update], the U.S. has proven helium reserves, in such gas well complexes, of about 147 billion standard cubic feet (42 billion SCM). This is enough helium for about 25 years of world use, or 35 years of U.S. use, although factors in saving and processing impact effective reserve numbers.[78][79]"

First of all, there are 35.3 cu ft in 1 m^3, so either the 147 figure or the 42 figure is obviously wrong. Further, neither of the two references given mentions EITHER figure. Neither reference is a primary or authoritative reference, anyway.

Somebody with the time, either fix this or rip it out.

Fnj2 (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed the distracting refs 78,79 - you've got to search the last ref (former 80, now 78). Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Did that, and thanks for pointing this out. The exact ref for the 147 billion SCF is [3], see table. The 42 billion SCM is off by an exact factor of 10 due to a math error, and should be 4.2 billion SCM. To get a naive time before it's gone, divide the 4.2 billion SCM US reserves, by 72 million SCM/US use per year (see pie chart) and obtain 58 years. I don't know where the 25 came from. I've fixed the ref. and the conversion. The time to run out is in the ballpark, but may be off by a factor of 2.SBHarris 06:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.227.76.96, 17 December 2010

{{Edit semi-protected}}

On 18-08-1868, a solar eclipse day a French scientist Janssen took spectrometer readings from this fort Vijaydurg, one of the oldest forts on sindhudurga coast of India. The stone benches he used for taking the readings are known as “saheb’s kattas” in local language. These spectrometer readings helped in detecting the presence of “Helium”, one of the basic elements on Sun http://www.konkanonline.com/Sindhudurg/Vijaydurg-Fort.html

Is this a reliable source? Ruslik_Zero 20:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The date is the same, and eclipses last such a sort time that he can't have the data from two sites. The article states that it was the eclipse of Guntur, India, but that doesn't mean that the total-eclipse ground track was ONLY at Guntur. These things pass in a linear arc typically for long distances. Janssen may well have been somewhere near, like Vijaydurg fort, in which case it's a simple matter to put in "Vijaydurg fort, during the Guntur, India eclipse of 18 Aug, 1868." I'd like another cite (the WP article on Vijaydurg fort says the same, but uses the same cite), and will look at the web to see if this is mention in any chem histories. How far is Vijaydurg from Guntur, anyway?

This [4] cite gives Vijaydurg fort as the location of the English Platform from which the Englishman J. Norman Lockyear took eclipse readings in 1898. But that isn't right for many reasons, as Lockyear took his readings in 1868, the same year as Janssen, but several months later and not necessarily during an eclipse (evidence is that it was not). This grows ever more mysterious. There was an important eclipse in India in 1898, but none of these helium people took part in that, even if the English did build a "platform". And I very much doubt it would have been in the same part of India anyway.

The wiki article on the eclipse of 18 Aug, 1868, here [5] concludes on the basis of Wikibios that Janssen was in Guntur and Lockyear in Vijaydurg. But that does not make sense, as Lockyear observed helium in non-eclipse situation a month after Janssen, and was not in India at all, but at home in the UK (I just confirmed that). Nevertheless, Janssen's report from India and Lockyear's from the UK arrived at the French Academy on the same day, so they are often treated as codiscoverers. Interestingly, Janssen had constructed the first spectroheliograph soon after the eclipse, and proven to himself that he could see the helium line at the Sun's limb, without needing an eclipse, starting very soon after the eclipse. So he also knew this before Lockyear independently discovered the fact.

Janssen (head of the French team to go to India for the eclipse of 18 Aug 1868) most certainly DID go to India, and saw the Aug 18, 1868 eclipse there at a "camp" near Guntur (Guntoor) town (that might be Vijaydurg fort, or it might not). There was a also a British team there for the same purpose, led by a Col. Tennant, in the same area and the same track, that also saw the eclipse and the helium line (TENNANT might have been at Vijaydurg, especially if the platform there is really an "English platform" for observing that eclipse, and not a French one). The eclipse track was said to have passed through the modern state of Andhra Pradesh [6]. The camps could have been anywhere in the track. Here is more [7] This traveler is unaware that Lockyear didn't go to India. But if these are English platforms perhaps they were built by the Tennant English team, and Lockyear is known to have looked at both the French and the English results (which both showed the helium line) and conclude (from England) that a new element was present, and not sodium. SBHarris 01:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There are two article of Jansen describing his trip to the eclips and two biographies:

• The Total Solar Eclipse of August 1868. Part I.
• The Total Solar Eclipse of August 1868. Part II.
• Jules Janssen (1824–1907): From ophthalmology to astronomy doi:10.1007/BF00155012
• Pierre Jules Cesar Janssen

If they do not mention anything ....... --Stone (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

He writes himself: My observatory was set up at the house of M. Jules Lafaucheur, who kindly placed at my disposal all the first floor of his house, the highest and best situated in Guntoor. Portions of his first floor communicate with a large terrace upon which I had erected a temporary building, answering the purpose of our observations. --Stone (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This one [8] also gives a good description.--Stone (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Even James Francis Tennant was not there, but in book [9] it is said that one JPEC sponsored expedition made camp and an abandoned coastal for. --Stone (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

[10] states that the Joint Permanent Eclipse Committee JPEC was foundedn 1894. You can't belief what you read.--Stone (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

[11] states that Maunder in 1898 could not go to Viziadrug because Lockyer was observing there.--Stone (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• COMMENT: Well, Viziadrug is indeed our Vijaydurg, so it's probable that Lockyear observed the India eclipse of 1898 indeed there, and perhaps the "English platform" is thus his, from THAT year. But he had long since helped discover helium back in 1868 (30 years before), and that while he was in England, not India. So the mixup is understandable. The eclipse of 1898 in India (which is a known and separate event) didn't have anything to do with helium.

  Thanks for the definitive word on where Janssen was for the 1868 Indian eclipse, in which the first use of a spectroscope on an eclipse discovered helium-- he was indeed in Guntur, not in Vijaydurg fort. We still don't know where "Col. Tennant" and the English team in India for 1868 were. I'm not even sure that the "Col. Tennant" who led the English eclipse team to India in 1868 is the same James Francis Tennant, scientist. He may be. But if James F. Tennant, scientist, wasn't in India to see the elicpse of 1868, then these are two different Tennants. SBHarris 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

[12] Tennant is the same Tannant. My be I wrote it wrong. He was not at Viziadru, but he was in India! He staid in the house Mr Wilson the sub-collector of Gumtoor and made his observations from the garden of that house. Jannsen was a half mile west of his position.--Stone (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I think we've gotten to the bottom of this. Two teams were in India for the Guntur eclipse in 1868, both seeing helium lines for the first time, one English (Tennant's) and one French (Janssen's). Both were near Guntur, neither near Vijaydurg. Janssen, using the first spectrograph on the Sun, found he could see these new lines even when no eclipse was going on, if he aimed near the Sun's limb, to pick up some hot corona. Lockyear in England discovered even before Janssen told him, that he could see helium lines with a spectroscope in England, with no eclipse. He interpreted Janssen and Tennant's data as that of a new element.

The eclipse of 1898 30 years later, was one in which Lockyear participated directly from India. Apparently he did build the platform at Vijaydurg fort for this, but he wasn't interested in finding helium-- all that had been long settled. But the rumors that Vigjaydurg had something to do with finding helium in India persist, due the confusion between the eclipses of 1868 and 1898, and Lockyear (codiscoverer of helium) being personally present in India in Vijaydurg IN 1898 for the eclipse of that year (he hadn't been to India in 1868). You didn't write it wrong. Your source says Viziadrug and that's simply another name for Vijaydurg. Lockyear was there, 30 years after helium's discovery, doing something else with THAT eclipse. SBHarris 09:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think when I read the Lockyear article he makes clear that the eclipse data from India was not used for his findings of Helium. Neither was the data from Jannsen nor from any other eclipse source. He said that all he needed was derived from his own data collected in his garden in London.

One book I mentioned above states for the 1868 eclipse one JPEC sponsored expedition made camp and an abandoned coastal fort the path of the eclipse is going over Vijaydurgand they only used places which were either reachable by train or had a harbour. This makes clear that even in 1868 it might be possible to have some English astronomers at the fort. The platform might be from the 1868 or 1898 expedition, but helium was neither discovered there nor was data used from this expedition for the discovery.--Stone (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC) After a long look into the literature on that topic the edit request finally is declined.--Stone (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Color of Helium II

What color is Helium II liquid? Does anyone have access to a link to a color photograph of it? Keraunos (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The liquid helium is in the superfluid phase. As long as it remains superfluid, it creeps up the inside wall of the cup as a thin film. It comes down on the outside, forming a drop which will fall into the liquid below. Another drop will form - and so on - until the cup is empty.

This is a black and white photo, but there's no reason to think it's colored. It's described as colorless, just as helium I is. Actually, on closer look the color photo used in this article is a closeup of THIS photo, so the color photo shows superfluid helium already. I'll re-label it. SBHarris 23:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Earth's Helium Reserves to run out in 25 years

Can someone please add this info in the article? It says it's semi-protected and I don't know how to edit it Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1305386/Earths-helium-reserves-run-25-years.html

Thanks!

I think reading:

Reserve, Committee on Understanding the Impact of Selling the Helium; Board, National Materials Advisory; Council, National Research (2010-06-30). Selling the Nation's Helium Reserve. ISBN 9780309149792.

makes me think we still have some helium.

And: The helium is produced by alpha decay in the earth's interior so there will be always new helium we can use.

--Stone (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wasting of Helium

It seems to me that it would be useful to have an image of helium being wasted uselessly. The photo of the Flying house reenactment of the movie "Up" seems perfect for this. Perhaps someone can upload it to wikimedia commons ? 91.182.130.233 (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Typo

Liquid density of Helium at M.P. is 0.125 instead of 0.145. Can be verified by using a number of external sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.194.251.123 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Helium density decreases from 0.145 to 0.125 between 0 and 4 K, see, e.g. Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (86th ed.). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. p. 6-120. ISBN 0-8493-0486-5.. Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Glow color discrepancy

Current image. Orangey, not purple by a long shot.

Image previously used. Definitely purple or violet.

Current Infobox text: "Appearance: [...] exhibiting a purple glow when placed in a high voltage electric field"

Which image and color is "correct"? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oxygen glowing for a long discussion...the tube shown in the previous image is not professionally made, water might have entered during the manufacturing process. User:Materialscientist removed the images, then I added A-hp's images - uploaded by A-hp himself - ([13]) so that we would at least have a good representation. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Swedish scientists emanating from Uranium

erm... "two Swedish chemists, Per Teodor Cleve and Nils Abraham Langlet, emanating from the uranium ore cleveite"?? Neat trick! Can this be rephrased?Plantsurfer (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

They were very emanent scientists. SBHarris 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol Plantsurfer (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Since fixed. -- Beland (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a clarification

I think the following paragraph:

"By 1995, a billion cubic meters of the gas had been collected and the reserve was US$1.4 billion in debt, prompting the Congress of the United States in 1996 to phase out the reserve.[4][28] The resulting "Helium Privatization Act of 1996"[29] (Public Law 104–273) directed the United States Department of the Interior to start emptying the reserve by 2005."

would be clearer if phrased:

"By 1995, a billion cubic meters of the gas had been collected and the reserve was US$1.4 billion in debt, prompting the Congress of the United States in 1996 to phase out the reserve.[4][28] The resulting "Helium Privatization Act of 1996"[29] (Public Law 104–273) directed the United States Department of the Interior to empty the reserve, starting no later than 2005."

As it is it can be read that the plan was that the reserve would be emptied by 2005. Thanks. Peculiarist (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it with a third phrasing. -- Beland (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Natural Abundance

Can the following phrase "thus an Earthly helium balloon is essentially a bag of retired alpha particles." be made a bit more encyclopdedic? (For want of a better word) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.132.66 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed that bit as unnecessary. Materialscientist (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bulk Modulus of LHe

In the liquid helium section of this article, it is stated that the bulk modulus of LHe is ~50MPa, and there's a reference to an article discussing solid helium. I believe this is incorrect and that figure probably relates to solid helium. A more commonly assumed/cited bulk modulus of liquid helium is 268 Bar (~27MPa), according to Pressure-volume-temperature relations in liquid and solid4He - E.R. Grilly, J. Low Temp. Phys. 11, 33 (1973). http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3175u35hgnq0127/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.174.73 (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. A note for readers: Grilly talks about compressibility, which is inverse of the bulk modulus; its value has a significant temperature dependence, especially at the lambda point, and 27 MPa is just an indicative value at approx. 2 K. Materialscientist (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Second least reactive element?

How can this be true? What then is the least reactive element?

Asgrrr (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Neon. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This must be wrong then, or confusingly worded:

"Helium is the least reactive noble gas after neon and thus the second least reactive of all elements"

Does it mean that Neon is more reactive than Helium, therefore Helium is "after" Neon, or the other way around? This is not good wording.

Asgrrr (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It means Ne is even less reactive than He, so He is the least reactive after Ne. Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Since rephrased. -- Beland (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"First in the noble gas group"

Surprisingly enough, this is actually disputed. That helium is a noble gas is not in question; what has been disputed is that helium is in the same group as neon, argon, etc.

Charles Janet's 1928 table had helium over beryllium, and some chemists actually have published journal articles supporting this placement (e.g. Henry Bent (here), quoted by his daughter here, Felice Grandinetti here, Wojciech Grochala here, Mikhail Kurushkin here). And there has been some discussion of it, not just from supporters, (e.g. here), which is evidence that this is something that should be taken seriously (yes, I know it sounds chemically ridiculous, but is it really that much worse-looking at first glance than hydrogen over lithium?). Eric Scerri has also discussed this very issue (helium over neon vs beryllium), though he did write that "This move can be justified on the basis of the outer-electron structure of helium, which possesses two such electrons, as do the members of the alkaline earth group. From a chemical point of view, the placement of helium among these metals amounts to complete heresy."

Perhaps a brief note about this small controversy, that after all does have over ninety years of helium-over-beryllium as an idea (albeit one never getting anywhere with most chemists for obvious reasons) is warranted. (After all, Greenwood and Earnshaw did "float" helium like you often see hydrogen.)

(P.S. A brief disclaimer that I myself support helium over beryllium. In my opinion, placement of elements is about electronic structure that explains chemistry, not about correlations in the final chemical behaviour that is a lot of steps removed from the origins even if still related. Otherwise we have trouble explaining nitrogen and bismuth in the same group: N is strongly nonmetallic, Bi is definitely metallic (even if a weak metal), and the oxidation states favoured are different (N: +5/-3, Bi: +3). But of course, my reason for suggesting this is that this has gotten serious coverage in journals. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Surely the whole concept of "groups" of elements is a combination of chemical and physical properties along with some recognition of the complex relationships of valence electrons. We know that less loosely bound electrons allow them to be lost more easily, so the 'metallic' behaviour increases as we go down the group. Of course Bi is more metallic than N, but Xe forms compounds far more readily than Ne or He – that's just what you expect as the atomic radius increases. The reason He belongs in the same group as the other noble gases is that it has a full outer electron shell and that determines its chemistry principally. Of course it also explains how its physical properties form a distinct sequence with the other noble gases but have very little in common with Be. The members of the alkaline earth group do indeed have two electrons in the valence band but are large enough to readily lose them both from the s-shell, unlike He whose ionisation energies are much bigger than those of Be. Looking at the trends in ionisation energies ought to give a definitive answer to the question "which group does Helium belong in". --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Well, first of all me mentioning this on the talk page is just to note that this is something that has been suggested enough times that a brief note may be warranted to say that a few chemists disagree with the He over Ne placement. But since you mention this: notice that on your graph hydrogen to lithium is also a massive drop, yet hydrogen is conventionally placed in group 1. Why's that? Because it's 1s¹ like lithium 1s²2s¹. Not only that, helium over beryllium parallels that massive drop, and helium over beryllium has the same justification. And in fact if you compare the first few elements in each main group you see the first-row anomaly: a huge drop from the first element to the second. The next drop is smaller. In the case of aluminium to gallium there is not even a drop. (All values in eV.)

H	He
13.6	24.6
Li	Be	B	C	N	O	F	Ne
5.39	9.32	8.30	11.3	14.5	13.6	17.4	21.6
Na	Mg	Al	Si	P	S	Cl	Ar
5.14	7.65	5.99	8.15	10.5	10.4	13.0	15.8
K	Ca	Ga	Ge	As	Se	Br	Kr
4.34	6.11	6.00	7.90	9.79	9.75	11.8	14.0
Rb	Sr	In	Sn	Sb	Te	I	Xe
4.18	5.69	5.79	7.34	8.61	9.01	10.5	12.1
Cs	Ba	Tl	Pb	Bi	Po	At	Rn
3.89	5.21	6.11	7.42	7.29	8.42	9.32	10.7

That's why I find myself uncomfortable with this argument. Not only does it seem to be against H over Li too, but it also goes against the general first-row anomaly principle: the first element in each group always is the most unusual, and the biggest difference in properties comes between the element heading the group and the heavier congeners. That's very well-known in the p-block, it's also something that happens in the d-block to a smaller extent (the 3d metals are smaller and prefer lower oxidation states, 4d and 5d are almost the same and prefer higher ones), and in the f-block to a somewhat smaller extent (predictions say 6f is more like 5f). Hydrogen over lithium carries on that trend to make the first row of the s-block superbly distinctive, so does helium over beryllium. Helium over neon doesn't stand out that way. It makes the local trend look nicer, but it breaks a global trend in the table.

We can then explain helium over beryllium just by the same idea as hydrogen over lithium: analogous electron configurations, but well increased capacity for metallic bonding precisely because the 2s electrons are much more loosely bound than the 1s one and there is now a low-lying p excited state for beryllium (there isn't for helium). Again, the 1s orbital is tiny, H and He cannot easily participate in multicentre bonding, that's exactly the same way how B-Ne stand in relation to Al-Ar.

Then finally I note: according to predictions, neon compounds should be even less stable than the analogous helium ones, that's because neon has higher electron density. That means the noble gas reactivity trend is broken by helium, whereas it stands correctly over beryllium in a manner similar to hydrogen over lithium. Extreme? Yes! But nitrogen over phosphorus, oxygen over sulfur, those are extreme too. If you look at many trends in atomic properties, helium is an outlier in the noble gas trend, and the "first-row anomaly" motif appears instead between neon and argon (doi:10.1021/jp5098876).

The chemistry? Yes, surely helium is mostly inert like neon, we can surely continue to call it a noble gas even if it's not in the same group as the rest of them. We put hydrogen in the same group as lithium, but we don't discuss its comparative chemistry together with lithium's, as it's too different. It's even the same story with oxygen over sulfur, no one complains about that. So helium over beryllium would not be that different: the trends would be better, but you would continue to discuss its comparative chemistry elsewhere. Natural families don't always have to coincide with groups; polonium is a weird chalcogen, astatine is a weird halogen, beryllium and to a lesser extent magnesium in many ways are more like zinc than calcium. Again, helium over beryllium would not be that different from this situation.

Again, I'm not proposing we actually change how we show the table; just that we add a little note (or at most brief section) noting that there have been some arguments about where helium should go in the periodic table. I am sympathetic to the helium over beryllium view, but I also recognise that it is very much a minority with some surprisingly prominent adherents (Henry Bent, for one). Double sharp (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

My high school chemistry class had a large (classroom sized) periodic table with a hand-drawn hydrogen over fluorine, as in hydride. Once you do that, it is pretty obvious for He over Ne. Because of the order of filling of subshells, where d fills later, and f even later, the noble gases aren't cases where the whole shell is full. The rest of the periodic table is arranged based on d and f shell fill order. There are some cases where the ground state outer s electrons don't follow the nice pattern. In any case, I don't think there is much against He being in the column with Ne, Ar, etc. Gah4 (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gah4: In helium and neon, the whole shell really is full; only for the later ones is it not. That's why neon is more electronegative than fluorine, but argon is less electronegative than chlorine, etc, and it also gives a big drop in electronegativity from neon to argon. (Helium to neon is instead a rise, like hydrogen to fluorine; whereas hydrogen to lithium and helium to beryllium are drops that match well the trends from the 2p to 3p elements.) The ground state anomalies in the d and f blocks hardly matter much, the "corrected" configurations are always low-lying excited states and in a chemical environment they may become the ground state anyway. (I would argue that helium over beryllium makes the point that unlike the heavier noble gases, the stable shell for He is a duet, whereas for Ne onwards it is an octet. You can still see it's stable because it would still be the last element in its row.)

The argument that most people who dispute He over Ne use is simply that it disrupts the general trend of the periodic table for the sake of making the local trend look correct. That's why Henry Bent refers to first-element distinctiveness and Grochala refers to the ionisation-energy trend, and why Kurushkin says that helium breaks the idea that the periodic table is based on electron configurations (which is clear from the s, p, d, and f blocks, except that helium is placed in the p block despite being 1s²). Helium is very inert like neon, but it violates the general trend that the first element in each group is the most distinct one, that you can clearly see in cases like hydrogen vs lithium, oxygen vs sulfur, and so on. Putting helium over neon means that this motif appears in the wrong place, between the second and third elements instead. And it means that beryllium over magnesium is not much of a first-row anomaly. Whereas helium over beryllium makes a good companion to hydrogen over lithium, follows the general trend that the first element is distinct to a degree going s >> p > d > f (if H over Li is the standard of resemblance, then He over Be is not much worse), and better explains periodicity than making hydrogen look like a lone weirdo. It prioritises electron configurations over the obvious He-Ne chemical similarity, true, but once you start arguing for chemical similarity over configurations you have a hard time explaining why you don't put magnesium over zinc or aluminium over scandium. Which is why I think hydrogen over fluorine raises more awkward questions than it actually solves. Hydrogen does form notional cations, after all.

Again, I'm not saying we should change it on WP. And I understand if you are not convinced about this, since after all the chemical almost total inertness of helium is its perhaps most salient property. ^_^ I just suggest that we say something about this even if we keep putting helium over neon. It doesn't have to be very long, just a note saying that some chemists from 1928 to the present (naming adherents in parentheses here) have suggested helium should really go over beryllium for some global regularity and because of its electron configuration, even if it is at the expense of breaking apart the traditional noble gases. But I'm giving arguments here because I recognise that probably the obvious reaction to helium over beryllium is "that's chemically ridiculous", and I'm trying to show that not only does it have some support from reliable sources (i.e. briefly saying in a note that there has been some dissent about helium's placement isn't undue weight), but also that it's not totally silly, like I originally thought when I first saw it. Double sharp (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: I simply suggest adding a brief footnote after talking about the group placement of helium reading:

"Some authors, including Henry Bent, Wojciech Grochala, and Mikhail Kurushkin, have questioned the placement of helium over neon at the head of the noble gas group, suggesting that it should be moved to go over beryllium in group 2: this placement dates back to Charles Janet's 1928 periodic table. (Even earlier, Irving Langmuir had placed helium both over neon and over beryllium in his 1919 periodic table.) They point to, among other arguments, the 1s² configuration of helium with no p-electrons, the principle of first-element distinctiveness (s >> p > d > f), the lower capacity for chemical bonding expected of neon compared to helium, and consistency between trends of group 1 and group 2 elements.[cites] However, the vast majority of published periodic tables place helium over neon due to their strongly similar chemical inertness."

In other words, we mention that this has been argued about, but just briefly, reflecting that this is very much a minority view that is only worth commenting on because it has adherents notable enough for articles. (Eric Scerri is another one, but he has changed his mind about it before. Janet's table is from 1928, incidentally!) Does that seem reasonable? Double sharp (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I was considering that across the transition metals, the d shells don't fill up 1, 2, 3, 4, as one might like. Depending on exact levels, electrons shift between s and d, which gives us the interesting multiple valence elements. If you want He in group II based on its 1s electrons, then transition elements should move around based on their filling of the d electrons. That would make it much more difficult to read. I suspect that if you really don't like it the way they are, put H and He next to each other, somewhat centered but not over any specific element. H isn't really like an alkali metal, either. I think, though, that like WP:COMMONNAME, we do it the usual way for consistency and because it is what it expected, not necessarily correct. Gah4 (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gah4: Again, I'm not suggesting we change anything in our tables, just to mention that people have argued about this. What you suggest is more or less what Greenwood and Earnshaw do in their Chemistry of the Elements: H and He both float next to each other. I dislike it because it suggests that the periodic law does not apply to those elements, for what that is worth; but it does seem to be a bit more consistent in one way.

I agree that hydrogen isn't really like an alkali metal; the fact that we put it there says something about the perceived importance of electron configuration. So consistency seems to imply that helium being about as much of an alkaline earth metal as hydrogen is an alkali metal doesn't forbid its placement in group II either. Putting hydrogen over lithium, but helium over neon, seems to be supporting electron configuration in one case (H) but classifying simple substances in the other (He), which Kurushkin critises in his article (linked above). ^_^

Consider the first-row anomaly. The first row of each new block typically is the most nonmetallic and the most predisposed towards lower oxidation states (higher oxidation states are often oxidising). That's true of boron through neon compared to aluminium through argon, also true of scandium through zinc compared to yttrium through cadmium, also true of the lanthanides compared to the actinides. And it's true of hydrogen vs lithium and helium vs beryllium, but it is not true of hydrogen vs fluorine, and is rather uncomfortable with helium vs neon (again, neon is more inert than helium and has higher electronegativity).

As for transition elements, the ground state matters very little, like I said. Depending on the chemical environment something else may be the ground state instead. There are so many configurations nearby that their lowest levels are separated by energies that are minuscule compared to the spreading of J-levels of each configuration, whence the controversy about nickel (there is fine-structure splitting, so the lowest state is 3d⁸4s², but on average the 3d⁹4s states have lower energies than the 3d⁸4s² ones). It is not a controversy that matters for chemistry very much: the configurations normally encountered are for gas-phase single atoms and therefore have not very much to do with chemistry when lots of other atoms of different elements will be around. And you can hardly predict valency from electron configurations, when the lanthanides are mostly 4fⁿ6s² and yet are mostly trivalent. You would have to construct an energy cycle and consider lattice energies (that explain why you don't see MgCl but MgCl₂) and ionisation energies (that explain why you don't see MgCl₃) and also worry about disproportionation effects to predict oxidation states really well quantitatively; the idea "because there are this many outer electrons" isn't so effective.

It's more useful to look in general at what subshells are contributing to the bonding molecular orbitals, and how many valence electrons you have, instead. Seen that way, it's still consistent to not mess around with chromium and copper (they are still using 3d4s4p and having six and eleven valence electrons respectively), but still ask for helium over beryllium since helium has only two valence electrons.

But, again, I'm not suggesting that we change anything in how we show helium by default, just to mention that there has been some argument about this in a footnote. I do not think WP:COMMONNAME is against that. Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Another paper. Putting helium over beryllium, either instead of or in addition to over neon, is very old indeed (Irving Langmuir put He in both places in 1919 already, which is something I've added to my proposed footnote above). This is surely something serious enough to devote a footnote to, even if it looks chemically awkward at first glance. Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Footnote

@RexxS and Gah4: I have added a footnote to the article discussing this issue, reading as follows; no other change has been made.

“ Some authors dispute the placement of helium in the noble gas column, preferring to place it above beryllium with the alkaline earth metals. They do so on the grounds of helium's 1s² electron configuration, which is analogous to the ns² valence configurations of the alkaline earth metals; trends in normalized ionization potentials and electron affinities; the slightly greater predicted reactivity of helium compared to neon, breaking the noble gas trend; the analogies of predicted helium compounds to beryllium compounds (neon analogues are usually predicted to be unstable); the hcp crystal structure of solid helium, matching beryllium and magnesium but not neon and argon; the idea that the periodic table should be based on the electron configurations and chemical elements rather than simple substances; and the trend of first-row anomalies in the periodic table (s >> p > d > f). Advocates of this form include Charles Janet, Henry Bent, Wojciech Grochala, Felice Grandinetti, and Mikhail Kurushkin; it has been discussed as well by Eric Scerri, and Irving Langmuir in 1919 placed helium both over beryllium and over neon in his periodic table. However, most chemists prefer to place helium with the other noble gases, as its extraordinary inertness is extremely close to that of the other light noble gases neon and argon. ”

References

I hope this is acceptable; if not, we can discuss further. Double sharp (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: That's fine. There are sources advocating the view, and they are significant enough to warrant mention per WP:NPOV. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions they draw from the trends in normalised ionisation potentials (any argument concerning hydrogen needs to recognise that H⁺ hardly ever exists and the chemical properties measured are almost invariably those of H₃O⁺), but that's a minor quibble. Good work! --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Short version: Change source [92] to this scientific paper: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00231630/document

Long version: Hi. I noticed that the info about helium's solidification pressure at room temperature (114,000 ATM) doesn't have the best source. It's some sort of kid's science fact website, so I felt a scientific paper would be more appropriate. After a few minutes, I found a paper: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00231630/document (free to access). I checked with the wiki and the paper matches the solidification pressure of 114 ATM, or 115 Bar. I hope you find this additional source helpful. -Sam Pencatpigpus (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed a paragraph

I question the propriety of this paragraph: On July 13, 2017 CBS News reported that a political operative who reportedly attempted to recover e-mails missing from the Clinton server, Peter W. Smith, "apparently" committed suicide in May at a hotel room in Rochester, Minnesota and that his death was recorded as "asphyxiation due to displacement of oxygen in confined space with helium". More details followed in the Chicago Tribune. The latter source flat-out says it was suicide while our article puts scare quotes and at no point is it explained what "GOP" or "Clinton server" are or why they are relevant to an article about an element. I see that suicide by helium inhalation is unfortunately rather common and even has some press coverage on Google, so it's not clear whether a whole paragraph is warranted at all per WP:UNDUE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

References

The first picture shown after "liquid Helium"

This very interesting picture is taken from an excellent video demonstration presented here. I have no idea what I'm doing here, but I know I spent hours looking for this video through the wikis for superfluidity, second sound, etc. which all contain stills from this video but no attribution. I'm not sure how to add it in, but I think this video - especially the original if it can be found (this uploader added a splash and some short overlays) is an excellent reference and his clearly delivered information coupled with excellent videography helped me understand concepts I have struggled with for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.27.186.78 (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The original film is copyright-expired, so if we can find it it can live on commons and stills can be used freely. DMacks (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

give me 10k i will edit this 37.40.227.29 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Compensation is not given out for edits that users make or suggest - see WP:DNER. If you do want to contribute in return for something, I suggest looking at the Reward Board. TungstenTime (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Add "at STP" to the Boiling-point

Just like is done for the Melting-point. If feels a bit inconsistent now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Other history

Helium was once also produced by fractional distillation of air, and may still be in some parts of the world. In the UK in the post-war period, for example, there were two common varieties of industrial Helium, the expensive US Helium was the purer, while the locally produced variety was from air liquification. Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

See also https://euchems2010.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/put-down-that-helium-an-interview-with-nobel-laureate-robert-richardson/ for some other stuff of interest. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

condense hydrogen and oxygen to make rocket fuel

Definitely oxygen can be liquified without liquid helium, usually fractional distillation of liquid air. Hydrogen can be liquified without helium also, but maybe it is easier with helium. Gah4 (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

3 HE, In Mineral form

Location and Abundance of 3HE since 2020,advanced usages for Propulsion in Spaceflight feasibly. (Theory). 159.235.169.232 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Helium trimer? DePiep (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I suspect ³He. Our article there does mention hypothetical use as an energy source. DMacks (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Should have seen that. DePiep (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Conservation advocates

There is a ref poking out in the "Conservation advocates" section. That is not how it is done!!! Also. no point having an acrynym if it is not going to ne used.. 103.21.175.235 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)