Talk:Rubidium

Applications

The Quantum surrogate for classical aviation GPS after Einstein's era?

What you think about these?

The article explains, that by 2023 aviation will be much safer for the cutting-edge quantum progress.

For so called Quantum navigation works by using an array of lasers to cool a cloud of rubidium atoms (the atoms ergo particles route alters; re-interference)...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/13/british-built-unhackable-navigational-system-takes-off/?s=09 Kartasto (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Comparative reactivity

While I agree that caesium is more reactive just by looking at the periodic table, the Brittanica reference may be taking a note from experimental evidence suggesting caesium is less reactive than rubidium, based off the idea that a same-size chunk of both will be more reactive for rubidium when thrown into a body of water due to a higher quantity of rubidium in the sample. Not a great thing to base the article on but could be something to consider. Reconrabbit 16:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence:

• As with potassium (which is slightly less reactive) and caesium (which is slightly more reactive), this reaction is usually vigorous enough to ignite the hydrogen gas it produces.

with no source.

We need to find a secondary source with this info. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This is so completely obvious that just about everything covering elementary chemistry is going to say it. So I stuck in a webpage from Stanford University.

(Also, the end of the paragraph literally had a citation to Ohly, and those are generally understood to cover more than one sentence. Those sentences were indeed in the article back when it passed GA in 2011. I would suspect from that that Ohly mentions it, but unfortunately Google Books only offers snippets of that source, and didn't allow me to confirm or disconfirm my hypothesis.) Double sharp (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Double sharp Assertions in edit summaries are not sources. The Stanford site says

• Alkali metals react with water to produce heat, hydrogen gas, and the corresponding metal hydroxide. The heat produced by this reaction may ignite the hydrogen or the metal itself, resulting in a fire or an explosion. The heavier alkali metals will react more violently with water.

It does not talk about Potassium. I think you are correct, but that's beside the point. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This reference suggests that the trends in reactivity of alkali metals in water are related to kinetics rather than thermodynamics, and thus may not all that simple.

• De Berg, Kevin. "Difficulties in Interpreting Alkali Metal Trends at the Senior Chemistry Level." Australian Science Teachers Journal 47.4 (2001).

Johnjbarton (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

would it be ok to just add this back

• As with potassium and caesium , this reaction is usually vigorous enough to ignite the hydrogen gas it produces. so it doesn't mention which is more or less reactive avoiding any conflict

Sanad real (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the challenge by @Sanad real, the relative reactivity needs a reliable reference. I removed the water reactivity because it was changed to include relative comparison unsupported by sources.

The Stanford source would support this version:

• Due to its strong electropositive nature, rubidium reacts explosively with water. As with all the alkali metals, the reaction is usually vigorous enough to ignite metal or the hydrogen gas produced by the reaction, potentially causing an explosion. Rubidium has also been reported to ignite spontaneously in air.

Johnjbarton (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

ok sounds good Sanad real (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I put that much in. I made myself a note to look for refs at the library, but I won't get there for some time. Hopefully someone has ref. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Rubidium's spontaneous ignition in air is supported by this reference. It's pretty short though and straight up says that the content was sourced from webelements anyway.

Reconrabbit 00:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's the relative effects between Rubidium, Caesium and Potassium that we are stuck on. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I did a pretty extensive search through my university's online library and didn't find anything that compared the reactivity of the alkali elements. Emsley doesn't even mention rubidium as water-reactive. Reconrabbit 01:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I literally put in a source explaining how the reactions look, which not only clearly indicates the order, but also exactly agrees with an Open University demonstration. The order is also totally consistent with Peter Wothers demonstrating it live. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok sorry I missed that you included a different ref (your aggressive edit summary was distracting). I added back content with that ref, please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The addition looks good, thank you. Yes, I should have called better attention to the new ref indeed. Double sharp (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

Massive edit war on 9/11. Is the edit warrior blocked? 2603:8080:D03:89D4:5455:CA76:D8EB:B94F (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Was the edit warrior an IP or a registered user? 2603:8080:D03:89D4:5455:CA76:D8EB:B94F (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I requested temporary protection for both rubidium and hafnium 2603:8080:D03:89D4:5455:CA76:D8EB:B94F (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no such edit war. Please WP:REGISTER an account. Otherwise these kinds of baseless posts look like a form of vandalism. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)