Talk:Lutetium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details. This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia. |
||
 |
This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 10:53, 14 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 00:41, 11 July 2005).
Contents |
[edit] Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Lutetium. Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.
[edit] Least abundant element?
The occurrence section states that this element is "the least abundant of all naturally-occurring elements". The article on Astatine also makes this claim, when it says "Astatine is the rarest naturally occuring element". They can't both be the rarest natrally occuring elements. TerraFrost 02:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think this has already been corrected, but lutetium is ranked as about as abundant as silver. Scott Tygett Sept. 2007
[edit] Rare at all?
There's a contradiction between this article and the current article for rare earth elements. That article says that lutetium is 200 times more abundant than gold; this article says it "is the least abundant of all naturally occurring elements." Could someone clarify and update both articles? Thanks. Jeneralist 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk
I just looked up the price of Lu. It can be purchased in Kilo quantities for $3.29/gram (99.9%); much cheaper than gold. Scot.parker 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a pretty wide spread, from $75 to $4?? Can anyone confirm this?
I just visited the Los Alamos website and their web page and this now have one glaring omission: lutetium has the highest quantum spin number of the elements.
"Quantum spin" is something I do not completely understand. Someone knowledgeable might argue that referring to lutetium's use in tomography implies this, but lutetium being at the top of the pyramid, you'd think it would deserve mention. The spin is image-able and measureable. To be blunt, it looks like the Los Alamos material substantially weakened this page. User: Scott Tygett September 07, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.222.121 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If I remember the material correctly, lutetium is also the heaviest white element, according to a Molycorp pamphlet. Scott Tygett
[edit] Why lutetium is a lanthanide
Lutetium is a lanthanide because the elements that belong or don't belong to certain chemical groups is determined by international convention, and the appropriate body for determining this convention is IUPAC and IUPAC says in the second to last page here that it is a lanthanide. Do not confuse "lanthanide" with "f-block." Lutetium is the only d-block lanthanide until IUPAC changes its collective mind. Also, see the discussion here: Talk:Periodic_table_(standard). Flying Jazz 01:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
