Talk:Platinum group

message: :(per page history, seven comments were added to this discussion page in 2008 or before.  This section heading was created in June 2009 to set those comments off from future discussion items. N2e (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The Sources section is excellent.--McTrixie 21:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion comments 2003-2008

message: The non-similarity to the iron group metals (iron, cobalt, nickel) and its causes should be explained. Normally you'd expect them to be chemically similar, since they are located above the platinum group in the periodic system. -- 92.229.88.194 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to [[Iron group]]? 

message: Bringing this article to GA would allow another good topic. Double sharp (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good topic? 

message: The article contains the following statement: "They have similar physical and chemical properties,...". This is repeated in the Palladium lede. In fact there are innumerable differences in reactivity and physical properties between these metals. Just for example, ruthenium and osmium form highly reactive volatile tetroxides, while the other four do not. Platinum is soluble in Aqua regia while iridium is not. Platinum is soft and the most ductile of metals while iridium and osmium are very hard and brittle. The melting point of Pd is an unremarkable 1555°C while that of Osmium is 3033°C, making it 4th highest element. What, then is the rationale for the statement that they are similiar. On the face of it their properties look very highly individualistic. Can we identify and state clearly which of their properties are similar enough to justify their grouping together as PGMs? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Properties 

message: Looks like a company has been formed, backed by multiple billionaires and a few hundred-millionaires to mine platinum group metals from extraterrestrial resources, in particular near-Earth asteroids. (Mining Quarries Millions Of Miles From Earth, National Public Radio, 27 Apr 2012)  If this were to work, we could see considerably different economics for platinum group metals after 2025–2035.  N2e (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly interesting, but I do not believe their production volumes will become significant any time soon (i.e. within the next 100 years). Billionaires have various quirks and motives, their support does not mean the enterprise will be practical for large-scale production of platinum group metals. Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, in the main; their production volumes will not become significant any time soon.  But I would differ with you on the time frame and say that it will not be significant in the next 10 or 15 years.  But that's just speculation.  As is your 100 year number.  Truth is, no one knows when asteroidal resources will become economically significant.  That's why it called entrepreneurship; such folks undertake projects, at risk, and if they make profits, then that shows resources in their enterprise are being put to good use.  If they make losses, then that would show they are wasting resources that could be put to better use by others.  It will be quite some time before we know the answer on the outcome of that company, or should they get competition, of that "indusstry."  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mining platinum group metals from extraterrestrial resources 

message: The parents, in this case, being Lutetium and Lawrencium in the periodic table.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.55.132 (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed (missing pipes were the problem). Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Platinum group. 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://www.webcitation.org/5nVpqXzWO?url=http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/mms-smm/busi-indu/cmy-amc/content/2004/71.pdf to http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/mms-smm/busi-indu/cmy-amc/content/2004/71.pdf
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) 13:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: — Assignment last updated by Naeim9146 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

message: This is a poorly written article. The editors can't even distinguish between "than" and "then". I wonder if the editors even know that "groups 8, 9, and 10 are also referred to as Group VIIIB as well as Group VIII (yes, all of them together). Hint: these older designations explain WHY the 6 are called "platinum group". There is a 1996 usage table...almost 30 years old! That table has one use type as "autocatalysts". Uh, an autocatalyst is a chemical compound that catalyzes its own reaction, which is completely different from an internal combustion engine exhaust decomposition catalyst. The editors apparently believe that list all of the obsolete and exotic aliases is important. It is not. The FIRST thing the lead should do is NAME the 6 elements. Do they all occur elementally? IDK, but if they do that's important enough to mention up-front. Is their Periodic Table period and row important? I don't think so, but if it is, WHY it is ought to be explained. (That is, it is NOT important enough to be in the lead, imho.) It is absurd that the periodic table displayed shows neither the Period Numbers nor Row Numbers. There's half a dozen, at least, other issues I have with this but life's too short.98.21.213.85 (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  poorly written