Talk:Hardnesses of the elements (data page)

message: This page is intended as an authoritative data collection with citation of sources, that may be cited as a central reference by other articles (such as for the chemical elements). Femto 11:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: This tabe is compiled, mostlu from G. V. Samsonov (auth.), G. V. Samsonov (eds.) - Handbook of the Physicochemical Properties of the Elements-Springer US (1968), but without much brain. Ranges of hardness are useless if you just want to know how hard is something. 188.252.198.43 (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Badly compiled

message: The three tables should be united into one, with side-by-side Vickers, Brinell, Rockwell and megapascal values. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, done. Values should be taken as very approximate. I personally do not trust them. Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States of Hardness 

message: The Brinell Hardness of gold seems to high. The stated Brinell value fpr gold is about 5 times that of iron, and about the same as for tungsten. I find this extremely difficult to believe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.73.77 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A misprint corrected. Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardness of Gold

message: I'm not an expert but aren't hardness measurements non-dependent of temperature? I don't know how useful or practical it would be but perhaps we could include more than just the elements that are solid at or near room temperature. That is, if anybody has bothered to measure them. 65.80.178.227 (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardness is temperature dependent, but is conventionally measured at ambient conditions. Spreading the temperature range would bring too much details (phase transitions, etc.), which are of little use to non-specialists. Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Please don't write in capitals. There are different ways to test hardness and they have they own specificities. Materialscientist (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardness of Cryo-solids 

message: That third column dataset seems to be based on bad data that's been put out by Wolfram, since the same table is on Wolfram alpha and copied around the web.  Lead is not harder than tin and silver.  This is pretty basic stuff.  The 4th column seems more accurate.  Even worse, all the articles on the elements seem to use this bad data in their infoboxes.  What a mess.  Gigs (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the problem, but can't find a consistent replacement set. Hardness depends on pretreatment (see ref. 2) and form (say, iron). Thus I came out with set 4 and changed some infobox values accordingly (tin - now, some others before, but not all, as there is some rough agreement between sets 3 and 4). Any help is welcome, especially with finding a dataset. Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The third column is completely wrong 

message: I'm struggling to see how the values here compare to the other values in wikipedia.
e.g, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness_comparison has all integer values for hardness, ranging from a minimum of 80ish. There are no SI units listed on this page (that I could work out), so perhaps a little note indicating the conversion? (I know very little materials science, so maybe I'm just showing my ignorance, if so, please suggest some reading for me)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.253.46 (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with other Wiki pages 

message: one ref listed for this chart is a book dated from 1968. A lot of updated info is now available . As for webelements.com, I don't see how this could be considered as a valid source, it's a private webpage owned by Mark Winter, and even though he is a university professor, he did not measure personally the values he presents on his webpage nor did he participate in the tests to find the said hardness values, by the way this site is only a project and many values are missing. Better rely on recent materials handbooks than such websites.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: okay 68.99.144.121 (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a joke?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hardnesses of the elements (data page). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402123344/http://ihtik.lib.ru/2011.08_ihtik_nauka-tehnika/2011.08_ihtik_nauka-tehnika_3560.rar to http://ihtik.lib.ru/2011.08_ihtik_nauka-tehnika/2011.08_ihtik_nauka-tehnika_3560.rar
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What in the world kind of hardness does ytterbium have right now? thats like 6 million at least. Periodicpro18 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tx for the heads up. Vandalism; now reverted. Sandbh (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ytterbium is messed up 

message: Since Mercury is listed, why not bromine? Also, how does the concept of hardness apply to liquids? 74.135.194.87 (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be frozen Hg. Chances are nobody has thought to check the hardness of frozen Br. —- Sandbh (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

text: The original source referred to by Samsonov should be Povarennykh, A. S., Hardness of Minerals. Izd. AN UkrSSR (1963). Unfortunately, I don't have access. Double sharp (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercury vs bromine