Talk:List of elements by density

Thanks to everyone who edited this page. I created a very simple version of this page in January 2005. Now I barely recognize it and I think it is great! I love the pictures of the elements, the descriptions of the elements and the notes. I am very proud that of all the "List of Elements by..." pages, this is by far the most interesting IMHO. I will change the column head of Mohs' Hardness into Description/Mohs' Hardness - I think this is less confusing since there are descriptions in addition to the Mohs' Hardness. Thanks for all the edits! -- FrankH 06:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed

Especially for some of the shorter-lived elements, like Astatine, Hassium or element 112, we really need to be citing sources (well, technically we should cite everything but it is most urgent when it is hard to tell what is measured, what is based on some relatively sound theoretical calculation, and what is just pulled out of thin air). I'm not (yet at least) going to litter the page with {{Fact}} tags, but WP:ATT does apply. Perhaps Isotopes_of_ununbium gives some idea of how to cite sources without totally messing up a tabular presentation. Kingdon 13:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Number densities

I don't know that's it's name but it would be useful to have the number of atoms per volume. JunCTionS 21:21, 02 July 2007 (UTC)

BUMP. I already did an Calc sheet where I calculated this dividing the density by the mass from the List of elements by atomic mass and multiplying it by the Avogadro constant. I don't know an easy way to export this into the proper column of the wiki, so I'll try to do it later when I have some time. But I think the name of the column needs aproval. I'm thinking maybe just plain: number of atoms per cm³.JunCTionS 20:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So I did it and here it is... but I didn't get the sort template right on it. also as far as I know about WP rules I shouldn't post such a mayor change without some support, specially if I don't know which title it should have. So I'd love it if somebody would collaborate with me on this. JunCTionS 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a worthwhile idea; consider it supported. 130.207.218.197 (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Osmium

Please verify the density of osmium, I learned this as the highest density naturally occurring element (possibly incorrectly) and it looks like the density of iridium may have been transposed.Superpulper (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Osmium is denser by about 0.1%. See iridium#Characteristics which discusses the issue and provides some references. --Itub (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I updated the ranking and densities of osmium and iridium as per their respective articles. Unfortunately I suspect the degree of accuracy required to split these two elements means that the values will be controversial. In fact, depending on the method used to determine density, iridium may be 22.56-22.65 g/cm^3 while iridium may be 22.59-22.61 g/cm^3. I think the best we can do is keep this list up to date with the main articles. Perhaps a note in the table regarding this matter would be welcome? LightYear (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

need the density of high speed steel disteel

do you know whats the density of a high speed steel metal disteel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.222.181 (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rutherfordium and other very rare elements

Do we really know the density of Rf exactly? If yes, put it in the Rf article, if not (or if it is an estimate), say so and source it. It is not completely outruled but I don't think enough Rutherfordium was ever produced to justify an exact (not estimated or extrapolated) value of density. And if it is really known, put it in the Rutherfordium article (only sourced of course). The same problem occurs with elements Fr, Bk, Cf and all other transactinides where the number implies this is an exact value. Possibly, there was enough Curium, so I won't criticise it with Cm, but estimates should be marked as estimates. --Eu-151 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Iron - number of stable isotopes in Notes

In the Notes for iron, it is stated that iron has the greatest number of stable isotopes. Is this correct? I thought that tin had the greatest number of stable isotopes with 10, and iron had 4. Everiverever (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)