Talk:Francium

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Francium article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Francium is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Francium is part of the Alkali metals series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 22, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 29, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
March 30, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
April 28, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
December 21, 2016	Good topic candidate	Promoted
October 25, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 7, 2019, January 7, 2021, and January 7, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Lead Image

I have noticed that the Francium article does not have a lead image of the pure sample like many other element pages. This is obviously because bulk francium has never been prepared.

However, later in the article, it shows an image of light of 200,000 francium atoms and an image of heat from 300,000 francium atoms.

Though this is obviously not the same as a bulk sample, I think we should use one of these images as a lead image, as it is the closest thing we have to a macroscopic sample of francium. We could also provide a caption with it that explains how it is a light or heat image.

2601:600:9080:A4B0:B17F:E0A9:50F5:577E (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has objected I will add the image. OmegaMantis (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, just realized it's a non-free image. Won't use it. OmegaMantis (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melting point

I wonder how scientists were able to get enough francium atoms together to be able to identify a specific melting point given its short half-life. MightyArms (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MightyArms: See Francium#Characteristics, which says (refs omitted):

Francium's melting point was estimated to be around 8.0 °C (46.4 °F); a value of 27 °C (81 °F) is also often encountered. The melting point is uncertain because of the element's extreme rarity and radioactivity; a different extrapolation based on Dmitri Mendeleev's method gave 20 ± 1.5 °C (68.0 ± 2.7 °F). A calculation based on the melting temperatures of binary ionic crystals gives 24.861 ± 0.517 °C (76.750 �� 0.931 °F).

I think that covers your question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this assumes that Fr continues the trend of the lighter alkali metals, which thanks to relativistic effects, should not be the case. It's likely that Fr has a slightly higher melting point than Cs. I've so far not seen anyone outright say this in a journal article, though. Double sharp (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Francium’s melting point is slightly higher than cesium (28.44). It’s the 14th lowest melting point out of all elements. 2603:8080:D03:89D4:5455:7E51:D6A9:6A7C (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of Francium in earth's crust

Two quite differentvalues are given for the estimate of the amount of Francium in the earth's crust. One, unreferenced, is 200-500 g, while the second, referenced, is an ounce (28 g, I presume). It would be good to either pull these two estiamted into the same place in the text, or decide which is more reasonable. The use of the word 'ounce' makes that estiamte seem to be from American popular literature, not a scientific assessment. 202.172.113.133 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The amount that exists is necessarily an estimate, because the short half-life means that any amount of francium only exists as a radioactive decay product of actinium, itself a radioactive decay product. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be consistent. The source says 1 ounce (28 g), so this value should be reflected in the lead. The 200-500 g value is inconsistent with the referenced value in the article. Polyamorph (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the abundance in the lead section for consistency with the currently referenced value. Polyamorph (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a page about the chemical and physical activity of Francium

yeah. ZokiZokias (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZokiZokias: There is little known for obvious reasons. What is known is already in the article, e.g. probably Fr is less reactive than Cs. Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But in Oganesson, it has predicted chemical and physical properties. Can't there be predicted properties for Francium? (besides that it is less reactive than Caesium) ZokiZokias (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZokiZokias: Yes, and we describe some of these at Francium#Characteristics. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Og is interesting because it seems like it will differ a lot from Rn. Whereas the predictions for Fr suggest it's like a slightly less reactive Cs, which makes it less interesting to predict in detail: it's neither something really new, nor something exciting for being extreme. Double sharp (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some chemists blindly state Francium is second most electropositive element after Caesium. This may not be true. I believe Francium will be even more reactive than Caesium. Let's compare Ba and Ra. Ra is more reactive than Ba and Ra(OH)₂ is more basic than Ba(OH)₂. The basicity follows NaOH > Ra(OH)₂ > LiOH, Ba(OH)₂ (Some sources say LiOH is slightly stronger base than Ba(OH)₂) > Sr(OH)₂. RaSO₄ is less soluble than BaSO₄. Theory predicts FrOH will be a stronger base than CsOH. FrClO₄ is less soluble than CsClO₄ which is less soluble than RbClO₄. The boiling points of NaCl, KCl, RbCl, CsCl and FrCl follows the periodic trend. Francium's ionization energy is shown to be slightly greater than that of Caesium. Not sure if it's verified correctly as Fr is extremly radioactive. Also, IE is not the only factor that determines the reactivity. Many examples are there including He & Ne, La & Eu/Yb etc. Anoop Manakkalath (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, including unpublished synthesis and extrapolation from other information, is not allowable Wikipedia article content. Therefore, please also refrain from it here on the article talk-page unless it can be tied directly to reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the Periodic Trends are correct, It might be as following:

Lithium, Sodium, Potassium (Solid)

Rubidium, Caesium, Francium (Transition to Liquid)

Period 8 Alkali Metal, Period 9 Alkali Metal, Period 10 Alkali Metal (Liquid)

Period 11 Alkali Metal, Period 12 Alkali Metal, Period 13 Alkali Metal (Transition to Gas)

Period 14 Alkali Metal, Period 15 Alkali Metal, Period 16 Alkali Metal (Gas)

Period 17 Alkali Metal, Period 18 Alkali Metal, Period 19 Alkali Metal (Transition to Room Temperature Plasma)

Period 20 Alkali Metal, Period 21 Alkali Metal, Period 22 Alkali Metal (Room-Temperature Plasma)

Periodic Trends also state that Alkali Metals get more and more reactive, with Period 22 Alkali Metal Plasma being the most reactive. No one knows what happens with elements so reactive. ZokiZokias (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caesium is the lightest Alkali to burn on contact with air. Francium, might also burn too (with air).

Information below is my guesses when alkalis reactwith air

Period 8 Alkali Metal, Period 9 Alkali Metal, Period 10 Alkali Metal, Period 11 Alkali Metal, Period 12 Alkali Metal, and Period 13 Alkali Metal might explode on contact with air. Period 14 Alkali Metal's explosion with air would be dangerous, because gases expand, and also it would explode but becomes bigger and then more bigger yet more milder. Until the explosion fills the container (like a lab) and the explosion aftermath would just be like Florida. Period 15 Alkali Metal and Period 16 Alkali Metal would be much worse. Period 17 Alkali Metal is a gas but heat it up a little bit (like your hand) and you got a plasma (maybe 100 fahrenheight). Period 18 Alkali Metal and Period 19 Alkali Metal would be worse. Period 20 Alkali Metal would have unpredictible patterns during its explosion with air. Same with Period 21 Alkali Metal and Period 22 Alkali Metal, but worse. So keep them all in containers. ZokiZokias (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And is there a single reliable source for any of this?

The IE of Fr is more likely to be correctly measured than solubility or boiling points, because the former just requires quantities measured in atoms, whereas the latter only make sense for a bulk (which for Fr is impossible). In any case, the important thing is that RS that address the matter at all think Fr should be less reactive than Cs.

I think Glenn Seaborg's prediction will be borne out, that eka-Fr (element 119) will basically be a denser potassium in properties. Of course, it'll take a while to know experimentally. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wanna argue it any way and sorry If I do or if I did but I feel like I agree with Anoop Manakkalath, he just need sources. ZokiZokias (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]