h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Noble Gases - A1002998
Author: Hell (I am back! party here: A2247284 ) - U171578

This is a very general overview Entry about the Noble Gases. There's enough space for more detailed Entries about each Noble Gas, their chemistry and specific properties.

I had written this one a long time ago, and in the meantime I think it's good for PR.

HELL

PS: The other Entry 'The History around Noble gases' is also up for PR and could be made interlinkable to this one during the Editing process.

Hi Hell

ON the chemical reactivity of nobel gases you say that they will not cmine with other element but also say that thy are not inert in a strict sense. You may therefore like to mention that there are inact a fair few oxides and flourides of many xenon but also krypton that have been isolated. This unfinished entry that I can't be bothered doing anything with may give a coupl of exampl you could include A1004888

Yours

A-ha... I knew that Entry. And for *exactly* that reason I had chopped off the 'chemistry of noble gases' bit from my Entry, as I thought yours was a lot better written etc. Maybe we could arrange things as follows: I'll write a small paragraph mentioning noble gas chemical compounds, and you finish off your Entry about the *chemistry* of noble gases when you have time.

I think that for a general overview the chemistry and the compounds would make the Entry too difficult and too broad.

Thanks,

HELL

PS: If you need help to round off your Entry just bop a note at my space. BTW, I think your Entry is almost there, with this general overview I have written you can concentrate on the chemistry and the compounds.

It's okay, just thought a mention that a few oides and fluorides were know would mak it more rounded. As for my entry, I've given up on it really, don't have the time to devote to them for the forseeable future, have a degree and a thesis to write

Why don't you combine the two entries together and have both your names in the author list?

Well in my opinion.... It's better to leave them separated. One being general, and the other one the special Entry. I think that combining both would make it too heavy, and I don't want to scare off lay-readers. People seeking for more on that topic could then move on to read the more detailed Entry.

I think there is enough space for both as separate Entries.

HELL

Neat - and I gave up on chemistry when I failed A-Level for the third time!
I didn't realize that Argon was so "common" only ever really heard of it in Potassium-Argon dating.

Oh, just a typo ....the fractioned destillation >distillation


Watermusic

Thanks for the typo-spotting... repaired.

I also added a small paragraph to account for the compounds and reactions.

Better now?

H

Rebumping... Well?

HELL

I just want to say that I think that this is an excellent entry I have a feeling that this is a matter of waiting...

There are a number of things that could be improved, I think.

After a link to the Periodic Table, you have '(cf. also there)', which seems to be rather pointless. You also have a footnote attached to that, which seems (to me) to be of sufficient importance to appear in the main text, perhaps in brackets.

In the table, there are two rows annotated 'ionization energy', which are distinguished by number. Just what are these, and why does radon have only one of them.

There is a technical problem, which is an h2g2 bug, so that in Brunel skin, the text within the tags is invisible (see F150784?thread=319596&post=4136094#p4135042 and following postings). You may wish to amend your table to overcome this. I can give you specific advice on this if need be.

only prob i could spot is typo of the word relatively good otherwise.

Hello. I got the footnote into the text, I agree it's kinda relevant.

The 1. and 2. ionization energies are the energies needed to remove one and two electrons from the element, respectively, ionizing it. It is common notation, anyone looking for this data will know how to use it and what it means. Laypersons might not understand it straightaway, but explaining that would lead too far IMO. Still it's good data for the table I guess.

Radon has only one of those, because as it is a radioactive element it is probably difficult (or irrelevant) to measure the 2nd ionization energy. Maybe someone did that, but it's not in the official table.

As to the caption and brunel.... OH, thanks for the link, I'll see what I can do.

HELL

Maybe changing the title to include the word 'farts' in some way or other would make it attract more readers?



Bossel

The table problem seems to have cropped up a number of times recently. To help with this, I wrote 'Reliable Table Captions' A2496062, which I hope everyone here will advertise widely and/or comment on.

Thanks OH, caption is now emulated.

Bossel: Difficult... Do you have any suggestions for the title?

HELL

Could always say something cheesy like:

Noble Gases: The Royalty of the Periodic Table

Or: 'The Noble Gases - Arrogant Atoms in the Periodic Table'

I still don't like these titles so much...

HELL

Title suggestion: Noble Gases for Berks

(Pun on Burkes Peerage)

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!