Talk:Barium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bioaccumulate

Is this a heavy metal that bioaccumulates like Lead and Mercury? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.41.204.3 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

According to [1]: "[Barium does] not bioaccumulate, and concentrations in higher species rarely exceed 10 mg/kg." citing J.W. Moore, Inorganic Contaminants of Surface Waters, Research and Monitoring Priorities. Springer-Verlag, New York. (1991). Femto 13:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ba-137 is stable?

Are we sure this is right? Because if it is, I think I just spend twenty minutes of my day watching a stable isotope decay... but I can't find any other information to support this. (It had a half life of about 2m40s, incidentally.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.14.124 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC).

You were witnessing the decay of a metastable isomeric state, the half-life value agrees quite well with that (see isotopes of barium). Femto 13:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the most common isotope of barium? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.186.102.204 (talk • contribs) .

See the natural abundance (NA) in the isotope table of the infobox. Femto 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Barite or baryte

The sulfate can be spelled barite (American) or baryte (British). Which one? I changed all mentions to barite for now as this is the title of the article.

Apparently the IMS uses baryte, and the article has been changed to baryte. Although the more common scientific spelling is the barite spelling. I think either way works as long as they are consistent and the barite or baryte article redirects to the same place and indicates that both spellings are commonly used. 130.39.191.251 (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about the natural barium sulfate, the name recognized by the IMA is "baryte", in agreement with the greek root Roedderite (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Strontium barium niobate?

I rarely make changes but I deleted the folowing from the applications section:

# Strontium barium niobate A chemical proponent of NASA's Project Blue Beam, employed into the atmosphere via chemtrails to display holographic images in the sky. When an image is projected with lasers through a photo refractive double conjugate crystal (lens) into the SBN saturated sky, A realistic image in 3-D is produced.[11]

The source did mention an application in holographic displays. Project Blue Beam, NASA, chemtrails, and sky projections seemed completely made up. Sorry if this isn't according to protocol but the whole claim struck me as unfounded and rather fringe. Tmckeage (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory. Serge Monast (article I just created) - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

At WP:MED we only keep articles that are fairly related to use. For example Lead and Carbon are not part of our Wikiproject while Lead poisoning of course is. If you wish to discussion our inclusion policy please see here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 03:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the weekend. I just wanted to alert contributing editors that there is a broken link in ref #39, which will need to be fixed. Thanks, and I look forward to this review! --Tea with toast (話) 03:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the reviewer (in fact I'm the nominator), but here's a small inconsistency: the "Isotopes" section lists ^137m1Ba as the most stable meta state (half-life about 15 min?), but the isotopes of barium article indicates ^133mBa as most stable (half-life about 39 hours). Worse still, the isotopes of barium article shows ^137m1Ba as having a half-life of 2.552(1) min, nowhere near a quarter of an hour; the only meta state of barium having a half life near 15 min is ^131mBa (half-life 14.6(2) min). So something needs to be corrected. Double sharp (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done by R8R Gtrs. Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Other details

Thanks for taking care of the above items. There are a few other items that need to be taken care of before I can pass this review:

• The article states that ultrapure barium is hard to synthesize, but there is no further information presented as to why is it hard. Please elaborate on this section.
• There is a link to the page flotation, which is a disambiguation page. Please redirect this link.
• The last sentence in the last page is as follows: "Clothing used must not be blown". What does this mean? Please clarify.

I'll put this article on hold until these changes are made. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 03:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Removed "Clothing used must not be blown". (meaning do not pressured air to get barium out of you cloths)
• Changed link from flotation to froth flotation

--Stone (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's not really the point why it is so hard. Confirm it, and I'll find out the details and add, but it's not a point for Physical properties, and we don't discuss the ultrapure barium anywhere else, because none needs it outside a lab, and even there it can be only described (then utilized maybe). The major reference, Ullman's book, doesn't explain that either, I'm sure they have reasons.

I think (think) it must be because Sr and Ca, to a lesser extent, are hard to remove. The elements that behave different, there are differnt ways to remove for many. (Russian (never saw in Western papers) science loves to talk about "analytical group of elements," grouped by similarity of removal (methods), very often they are removed together. Purification is a multi-stage procedure. Elements from the same group are harder to separate) Also think there may be small fractions of the oxide (given how the element is made). --R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'd like to thank all the editors who have contributed to this article and helped to address specific issues. I special shout out to Materialscientist who just did a marvelous copy edit, which really improved the prose and readability. Great job, everyone! --Tea with toast (話) 03:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear Structure

56 Barium is the last element before the size of the nucleus is increased by the addition of the 2 +4 +4 +4 =14 element series of lanthanum series elements. It is not as structurally stable as was 54 Xenon, which was stable at EE54Xe136 with 28 extra neutrons whereas the isotope EE56Ba138 is stable with only 26 extra neutrons. However it is more stable than the follow on beginning of the Lanthanum series where the stable extra neutron content of the lanthanide series elements falls progressively down to only 23 extra neutrons for OE59Pr141. This indicates the need for a period of nuclear structure reballancing at the beginning of the period.WFPM (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, since the Nubase mass defect data indicates that EE54Xe136, with 28 extra neutrons, has a mass defect KE value of -86425 Kev and since the reported mass defect KE value of EE56Ba138, is given as -88262 Kev,with only 26 extra neutrons, it is noted that the accumulation of these additional 2 protons is done in a manner such as to further increase the amount of the mass defect. And it may be assumed that these 2 additional protons must have united with 2 of the 28 extra neutrons of the Xe136 atom in a manner such as to create a more stable structure. This could be done by the creation of either 2 deuterons or else an additional alpha particle substructure within the atomic nucleus.WFPM (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Application

It should be added that Ba is often used as an additive to powder coatings on consumer products to make the color seem "whiter". Although I don't have any references for this it should be noted that because of the heavy use of this element in this application, especially from Asian sources, makers of toys and other children's products are required to test for Ba in coatings as per the federal toy standard ASTM F963. stevaroot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.218.90 (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Article changed over to WikiProject Elements format by User:maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:13, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 09:49, 2 July 2005).

(signing an old post, to to archive). -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Barium. Information for the table was obtained from the links listed in the article.

(signing an old post, to to archive). -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk

Some of the information is incorrect. For the correct information visit: www.chemicalelements.com

(signing an old post, to to archive). -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Flame color

What is the color do barium compounds impart to fireworks? Should be the same as its flame test color, right? (which I don't remember what is). RJFJR 17:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Found it: green. RJFJR 05:17, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

2nd paragraph has an incomplete sentence.

"It is used as an insoluble heavy mudlike used in drilling oil wells" doesn't make any sense.

What's a "mudlike"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youbetterwork (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "mudlike material" ?.WFPM (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC) It is used to increase the specific gravity (weight) of the drilling fluid.WFPM (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Isotopes

The section Isotopes has what looks to me like an error. It says that barium-132 decays like xenon-132. But xenon-132 is stable according to the xenon article. (I suppose that it means that xenon-132 decays to xenon-132, but it is just a guess.) --Klausok (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what was meant is that ¹³²Ba is theoretically expected to decay to stable ¹³²Xe. I've fixed it. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

American vs British English

Regarding the change of barite to baryte, the article is currently written in American English and barite is the American English term. Should the article be changed to British English and terms such as magnetized changed to magnetised along with barite to baryte? Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It is impossible to compare the International Mineralogical Association (which suggests only ONE name for a mineral species; in this case it is baryte) with an association working on hmm... language? The only, approved, name for natural barium sulfate is baryte. Using "barite" in this and any other place is, simply, wrong.Eudialytos (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Barite is an acceptable alternate spelling. I do not have a problem personally with changing it to baryte, but the article is currently written in American English and the GA version {see here) used "barite" and other American English terms so consensus is needed to change per MOS:RETAIN. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There is not such a thing as "acceptable alternate spelling" in the IMA. IMA's mineral list is easily accessible via Google etc.Eudialytos (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If the IMA wishes to regulate spellings, I predict it will meet the same basic lack of success as the IUPAC has with trying to convince Americans to write "aluminium" and "caesium", and indeed it seems to have, judging from this website:

“ Controversy exists regarding the spelling of Barite. This mineral has always been spelled "Barite" in the United States. In the United Kingdom, the spelling has traditionally been "Baryte." The IMA originally referenced this mineral as "Barite," but then changed its spelling to "Baryte" many years later. This has been a very controversial move, with many questioning the IMA's logic behind this change. Most American mineral collectors and mineralogists still prefer the spelling Barite, and we reflect that spelling here in this guide as well. ”

Controversial if not, the only accepted name is baryte, not barite. You can suggest the IMA to re-change the name back to barite, but this is done via a special procedure within the IMA. Yes - MINERALOGY IS ALSO A SCIENCE.Eudialytos (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

While we have a long-standing guideline to follow IUPAC for the elements, even ignoring national varieties of English, AFAIK we do not yet have one such to follow the IMA for minerals without question. You are welcome to propose one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals, of course. Double sharp (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

IMA is the ONLY authority to decide what is the correct mineral name and there is only ONE correct name for a mineral species. But it seems like Wikipedia has its own rights... Well, maybe this is exactly Wikipedia...Eudialytos (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The enwiki article baryte is written in en-GB, so "baryte" looks ok there.

The enwiki article barium is written in en-US, so shows "barite" and correctly links by [[baryte|barite]].

Enwiki chemical articles surely write IUPAC defined names, but IMA is not an IUPAC-level of authority. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course, we could start a discussion proposing that we treat IMA's preferred spellings like we do IUPAC, but we will need to get consensus for doing so before we can change it on articles like this one. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.mindat.org/min-4723.html --> clearly states that "Name:The IMA officially approved spelling of this mineral is 'baryte'." "Barite" is a SYNONYM of baryte. Synonyms are NOT accepted by the IMA (nrmima.nrm.se) as separate mineral species.Eudialytos (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, when typing "barite" in the Wikipedia search field, one gets redirected to a page called BARYTE.... Seems like there is some inconsequence here....Eudialytos (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because that article is written in British English, where it is "baryte". This article is written in American English, which uses "barite". And as I have told you twice already, there is this inconsistency because unlike with the IUPAC spellings of the elements (aluminium, sulfur, caesium), we do not have a consensus that IMA overrides national spelling differences. If you would like to change this, please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals, and if enough editors are convinced, then it will become a new guideline. I actually do agree that we should treat minerals just like we do elements, but edit warring is not the way to accomplish this here. Fundamentally, Wikipedia works by consensus. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I wonder: what do people think of the idea of switching this article to British English to resolve this? Double sharp (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Not preferred, thats is not the way WP:ENGVAR works. Reading this thread, it stands out (in a difficult way) that IMA is proposed as one and only authority, while disallowing any other spelling than theirs. So here it is claimed that we are obliged to use one ENGVAR (en-GB), even in en-US articles. That is unacceptable. IMA is not IUPAC. I'd stay with the status quo: since this article is in en-US/IUPAC, we can use en-US spelling (which is accepted throughout sources, as I understand it).

What is missing so far is, a serious proposal (an RfC at WP:ROCKS?) to use IMA enwiki-wide as the authority, same as we did for IUPAC. This would set this issue in the best sustainable way. (Is this the only issue with IMA spellings). DePiep (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

For encyclopedical reasons, I'd prefer having both names used in this article. Like: barite (baryte). - DePiep (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I can agree with that, though I'd think that it's only necessary the first time (probably the first time in the lede and the first time in the body). Otherwise it is tiresome and evidently not the point. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Finally some agreement and understanding for the usually neglected mineralogy...Eudialytos (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)