Talk:Lanthanum/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Talk
I assume that the percentages in the shit that we talk about is bullshit
- Monazite and bastnasite are principal ores in which lanthanum occurs in percentages up to 25 percent and 38 percent respectively.
are % of total rare earth element content, right? Mkweise 20:16 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
- The structures of these minerals are in the cerium article now (structures, I'll note, that seem rather vague). You might pull out a calculator and check. Dwmyers 15:35 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
- Looking at the structures of monazite, and bastanite, it's entirely possible that lanthanum can be 25% and 38% by weight of the ore (which is what the text reads). The total metal content of these ores by weight is much greater than 50%, no matter how you slice it. Dwmyers 17:28 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
- AFAIK, all significant sources of rare earths are mischmetal ores, with typically about 50% cerium, 45% lanthanum and 5% other rare earth elements. I could be wrong, though; it's been 15 years since college. I'll have a look around the USGS site. Mkweise 18:23 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
- Please look. I'm not a geologist, my background is in biochemistry. I'm doing this stuff because I've always liked elemental chemistry, and your interests seem complimentary to what I know. Dwmyers 19:49 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
- AFAIK, all significant sources of rare earths are mischmetal ores, with typically about 50% cerium, 45% lanthanum and 5% other rare earth elements. I could be wrong, though; it's been 15 years since college. I'll have a look around the USGS site. Mkweise 18:23 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
- Actually I'm an electrical engineer, I just took chemistry courses out of interest :-). As far as I can tell, the percentages given are about right for the pure minerals. I did find some commercial specifications for mischmetal and found that the composition varies considerably between sources.
- Note that most ores found in nature are far from pure, but I haven't found any info relating specifically to monazite or bastnasite. I do know that many iron ore deposits are <= 20% iron as mined and has to be mechanically processed into what is called ore concentrate (around 50% iron) before smelting. Mkweise
Hi: I have entered some information relating to the above. If someone who knows more about editing Wikipedia than I do would insert an "Extractive Metallurgy" section, I could begin to populate it with information. Ideally, every element in Wikipedia should have either an Extractive Metallurgy Section or a Commercial Production Section (for the non-metals).68.57.53.102 13:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Block f ?
Does lanthanum really belong to block f ? It hasn't any f-electron, am I right? ;-) -- Chrumps 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- According to F-block: "Unlike the other blocks, the conventional divisions of the f-block follow periods of similar atomic number rather than groups of similar electron configuration. Thus, the f-block is divided into the lanthanide series and the actinide series." Femto 10:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
According to Lanthanoid and f-block Lanthanum should not have a d-electron; the first element with a d-electron is Lutetium (element 71). Also, by the Aufbau principle Lanthanum should have a 4f16s2 configuration, not a 5d16s2 configuration. --Lowjoel (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyright concerns
This article was tagged with copyright concerns on January 22, 2009, here. On investigation, I don't see the infringement. If a few phrases are copied verbatim from the identified source, here, and these do not represent uncopyrightable elements such as titles, please feel free to revise or clean those or to cite them in accordance with our non-free content criteria. If there is infringement which cannot be easily cleaned that I have missed, please feel free to retag and reopen the investigation at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 January 22, but please give some indication there of where specifically the text is problematic to help in identifying that infringement. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Lanthanum. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Lanthanum Statistics and Information[dead link], 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 was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.
- Do you have more details on what text and specific references were linked to USGS? I think USGS does not separate rare-earth elements anymore, and all info transitioned here. Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Untitled
Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by Dwmyers 15:35 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC) and Mkweise. Elementbox converted 10:44, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 13:33, 9 July 2005). 9 July 2005
Ln 3+
In the section called "Production", there is a image that has been uploaded. The final stage shows Ln 3+. Lanthanum's symbol is La! I'm not sure how to correct it, so I'll leave it to you. Vmelkon (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ln is a symbol for a lanthanide element, and La is a typical lanthanide. This diagram is general, but it can be used for this article. Materialscientist (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Lanthanum's Group
The article says that lanthanum is a group 3 element, but I have checked other websites (Jefferson lab; http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele057.html , Royal society of chemistry; http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/57/lanthanum ), and they say that the element is not a member of any group (jefferson) or that it is a member of its own group, the lanthanides (RSC). I would ask for someone to check it out further because I do not want to just change sensible information like that, but these seem to be reputable sources, and I ask that the information be changed to reflect more the consensus of the chemical community and not what seems like a reasonable (yet uninformed) supposition, that the lanthanides belong to grroup three. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melquiades Babilonia (talk • contribs) 01:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- There is no consensus: see Group 3 element#Group borders. But we should certainly be consistent with the convention we used in the infobox (all lanthanides and actinides are groupless). So I removed the part that said that La was in group 3.
- (Though I think we should change our definition to have group 3 contain scandium, yttrium, lutetium and lawrencium, not La and Ac. This is argued for eloquently by Jensen and makes sense chemically and physically. I will probably soon bring this up on WT:ELEM...) Double sharp (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Lanthanum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720091007/http://sgc.engin.umich.edu/erps/IEPC_2007/PAPERS/IEPC-2007-078.pdf to http://sgc.engin.umich.edu/erps/IEPC_2007/PAPERS/IEPC-2007-078.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
La(II)?
Regarding the example LaH2 – Holleman and Wiberg (p.1321, in the English edition) says it's actually La3+[(H−)2e−], thus containing La(III). (The same for Sc and Y, although it doesn't make this comment for Ac.) Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)