Talk:Atomic radii of the elements (data page)

Comments[edit]

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 20:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cannot find a description anywhere (here on any of the linked pages) which explains what empirical technique is used for the "empirical" data. Is this the scattering cross section? Nimur 07:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, they're weighted means of radii measured by X-ray crystallography. They worry me as well... Physchim62 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To close this discussion, the method of creation is well-explained in the article by Slater, which is cited at the bottom of the page. This article has been cited ~500 times; it methods have been accepted by the field. They are, though, empirical, and do not correspond uniquely to a single physical measurement. They are instead intended to give a feeling for the 'average' size of an element across a large number of local environments and bonding types. This is a more robust way of thinking about an atomic radius in comparison to a single measure, such as a single bond covalent radius. However, as a result, these measurements are inherently approxmiate and heuristic.Mgibby5 (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metallic radii[edit]

I have added the figures for metallic radii from Greenwood and Earnshaw. The values for Ge and Sn are missing from that text even though they are quoted elsewhere. I expect this is because the structures are considered (quite reasonably IMHO) by G&E to be too covalent. Lead is also missing, and I am not sure why, as G&E does not discuss the lead structure. We need a modern source for this as my feeling is that it should be included. Axiosaurus 09:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful which phase of tin you choose for your metallic radius! Physchim62 (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake?[edit]

Probably I find mistake. All measurements given in the table are in picometres (pm) of course. And not in mm as it said in article. Kemiisto (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And someone seems to have added a strange comment to the references, but the page being locked I was unable to fix it. So, yeah, just FYI, random comment in the reference section, under the "Triple-Bond Covalent Radii" heading. Song (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken List sort[edit]

The list doesn't sort correctly 60.231.182.124 (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Template[edit]

Template:Atomic radii
Calculates the atomic volume by dividing the atomic mass by the density.

For example:
carbon = 12.011 neutron masses / (3510 kg/m^3) = 5.73 angstroms^3
(In other words 3510 kg/m^3 = 12.011 neutron masses/5.73 angstroms^3)

The resulting volume is multiplied by the Template:Atomic packing factor for the corresponding crystal system.

Just granpa (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Radius Anomaly[edit]

The radius for hydrogen given uses notation inconsistent with the rest of the radii. And, by the way, what is the notation used for hydrogen? Jim Bowery (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For calculated values, R_H is currently greater than three period 2 elements (O, F and Ne). This is not consistent with other type of atomic radii.

I have checked with the paper by Clementi et al. doi:10.1063/1.1712084 and found that Figure 3 in the paper does NOT have the value for hydrogen. The text below the Figure reads "... and in Fig. 3 the atomic radii in angstroms are given for helium to radon as calculated from the minimal-basis set wavefunctions ..."
The website webelements.com and Mathematica, however, provide 53 pm as for the 'calculated' atomic radius of hydrogen.

--Taweetham (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Radius for Praseodymium and Neodymium[edit]

The Van der Waals and Covalent (single bond) radius for Pr and Nd are obviously incorrect, they currently are 10, 11 respectively for Pr and 20, 20 for Nd, they can't be found in the respective sources IgnacioPickering (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al and Ga[edit]

on what basis do we say that atomic radius of Ga is less than that of Al? Here the empirical and observed radius both contradicts this saying. Vanshita poddar (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC) vanshita poddar[reply]