Talk:Fluoride volatility

message: Palladium (II) Fluoride has an MP of 952 C. Pd also forms a trifluoride. Marhault (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Elements. 

message: Something is wrong with coloured graph:
"red elements (...) themselves are volatile at very high temperatures"
All elements are volatile at very high temperatures. 
Silver and palladium have boiling points above 2000 Celcius degree,
caesium and rubidium have boiling points below 700 Celcius degree.
I can't see any common property - why these four are marked red?
And what happened with promethium-147? It has half-life 2.6 years and yield of about 2%.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.67.228 (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is ridiculous, started by a do-gooder who did not know much chemistry.  Anything that you can do to repair the article would be a good thing.  Unfortunately in Wikipedia, it is easy to start silly articles (check out toxic metal).  Fortunately, some silly articles eventually turn into useful ones.  So by all means address the points that you raise and be bold.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Achieved volatilization of caesium and rubidium (boiling point below 700 Celcius degrees). Linked document says that silver and pallaidum (and also caesium and rubidium and some other elements) could be absorbed by zeolite filter from solution.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.67.228 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sections 4.1 says: From the oxygen stream it is expected that the following oxides will be present: Iodine oxide, rubidium oxide, and silver oxide. From the argon stream it is expected that the following additional oxides will be present: low amounts of oxygen (liberated from decomposing U3O8 and other oxides), tellurium, and molybdenum. What document are you looking at? The word "solution" appears only 4 times in this document and not in this context. --JWB (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. These 4 elements simply have oxides, that are volatile at low partial pressures. Description should probably be changed.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.67.228 (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I meaned that there is no promethium on the coloured graph. It shoud be there with "afert 1 year" bar as half-life of Pm-147 is 2.6 years.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.67.228 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Volatilization without fluorination

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fluoride volatility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041117063325/http://www.fjfi.cvut.cz:80/Stara_verze/k417/web_ads/papers/P-g6.pdf to http://www.fjfi.cvut.cz/Stara_verze/k417/web_ads/papers/P-g6.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is an interesting article, but is not nearly as general as the title suggests.  This article is all about reprocessing of fission products in spent nuclear fuel from reactors, using Flourides.  The only diagram lists elements by their Fission Yield as a function of element, covering only the significant elements found in fission products.  The words Hydrogen, Sodium, Oxygen, Iron, and Copper don't appear, which would be strange in an article about general 'flourides'.
See, for instance, Fluorine_compounds which does talk about flourides generally.
This article needs a new title.  Maybe "Fluoride Volatility in Fission Product Reprocessing".  OsamaBinLogin (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is pretty awful, agreed.  People just write articles on topics that they dream up vs building an article upon a foundation of core literature.  Consequently Wikipedia gets stuck with a lot of such crap. And these articles are filled with big words and technical jargon, so naive readers conclude that these articles are legit. It takes a lot of time and knowledge to overcome the mediocrity. etc. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Title