Talk:Lead glass

Glass Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Safety

We could do with some more information on lead safety, including some links. —Ben FrantzDale 20:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better links would be nice too. One sentence from Dianne Feinstein at a congressional hearing? The safety section in general needs to be reworked - it goes from discussing wineglasses to possible historical gout in aristocracy to an unpublished, unmentioned university study, on to a different study (without differentiating the two), then water quality standards, then a somewhat poorly phrased summary of another study... Medial Plexus (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the Safety section, Neil Degrasse Tyson seems like a poor choice of source for the statement that "There is no such thing as a 'safe' level of lead." He is referred to as a scientist, which he is, but he is an astrophysicist, which lacks relevance to the health effects of lead. Considering that the immediate preceding statement is that "An ordinary diet contains about 70 µg of lead per day", the statement is also a confusing addition which implies that even normal lead intake is an appreciable health hazard. I propose that Tyson's statement should either be removed, or a better source for a similar sentiment should be found, such as a biochemist or medical professional. RookDefence (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took a crack at editing and cleaning up the safety section, with an eye for updated scientific links and for the suggestions made above. Should the above comments be cleaned up now Viosi 12:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Density

I think the atomic number matters more than the atomic weight to the optical properties, since it dictates the number of electrons. Light won't care about neutrons. Besides the information on the density is redundant 2400kg/m3 equals a specific gravity of 2.4, no reason to state both. As for the high end, one sentence (verified) says "may exeed 4", the other claims "up too 5.9". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.100.170 (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For chemical properties the number of electrons, and thus atomic what is what is relevant. But for index of refraction, the density, and therefore atomic mass ("weight") is the relevant number. 68.60.174.26 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Higher atomic number increases the density (number per unit volume) of electrons. The electron shell radius decreases as Z increases, enough faster than the atoms get bigger. The variation of N at a specific Z is (usually) small enough. Gah4 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging "Lead crystal" into "Lead glass"

I think that lead crystal should be merged as a section in the lead glass article, as lead crystal is a lead glass. The interwikis are not decisive because they are divided between two articles which are of the same subject. Please note that similar suggestion was discussed and agreed, but the vote took place at 2006. Fuzzy (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fuzzy (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I found this article on searching lead crystal, wich was on the glass I was "researching" Rene

Lead/glass ratio

Currently the article states that lead glass "contains a minimum of 24% lead oxide" but fails to specify if it's weight/weight, weight/volume or volume/volume. Any ideas? Kinema τ 11:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the reference that's currently #5 (Council Directive 69/493/EEC)^[1] it's weight/weight. I not sure volume even makes sense. Medial Plexus (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Council Directive 69/493/EEC of 15 December 1969 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to crystal glass".

The ordinary usual way

"When lead-glass beverage containers are used in the ordinary usual way they do not pose a health risk." What is this supposed to mean? What is the " ordinary usual way"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.54.97 (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University Study?

I'm interested in the university study that's cited in the Safety category - is it original research? I can't find it on Google Scholar or the North Carolina State University website. No thesis paper, no obscure journal article, no mention in a CV - only stuff Google turns up are copy & pastes of the Wikipedia article. Anyone know where to find this study or at least a mention of it? Medial Plexus (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine glassware?

There is a tableware product called "fine glassware". This typically refers to certain types of water glasses or wine glasses.

I am unable to find sources describing what this is, but it is sometimes called crystal. Is "fine glassware" lead glass? Does anyone have a source for this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lead glass. 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/20120102020630/http://www.fotex.eu/page/companies/ajka to http://www.fotex.eu/page/companies/ajka

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lead glass. 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/20130501085738/http://www.asfourcrystal.com/about-us to http://www.asfourcrystal.com/about-us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Swarovski flacon.JPG has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: All these jewels are very probably copyrighted to the artists that created them. We need an authorisation by Swarovski to publish them. 
Deletion request: link

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Production continued

Many of the items in the manufacturers’ table contain the text ‘production continued’. What does this mean? Is it supposed to mean that the manufacturer is extant? If so can it be changed to something like ‘currently producing’ or ‘in production’ with a year when it was most recently confirmed that the company was manufacturing? Pdenisb (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ringing

When tapped, lead crystal makes a ringing sound, unlike ordinary glasses. Consumers still rely on this property to distinguish it from cheaper glasses. Since the potassium ions are bound more tightly in a lead-silica matrix than in a soda–lime glass, the former absorbs more energy when struck[dubious. This causes the lead crystal to oscillate, thereby producing its characteristic sound.  [1]

Since lead is four coordinate bonded in glass, where sodium and potassium are one, lead contributes more to sound conduction, so I am not surprised that it makes a better ring. That is, or course, not a WP:RS, and I didn't even do any WP:OR. Gah4 (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the leaded glass absorbed more energy, it would ring less than ordinary glass! So the sentence about absorbing more energy is definely incorrect. 68.60.174.26 (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me those statements in wikipedia are folktale, although it may have been true in a distant past. The statements are a mixed bag. "When tapped, lead crystal makes a ringing sound, unlike ordinary glasses" is unsourced and not well defined; it is found mainly on commercial websites. "Consumers still rely on this property to distinguish it from cheaper glasses" is a cynical statement about the gullibility of people, as consumers typically do not verify such statements, especially when it is not easy to determine if something is lead glass. The consumer would have to submerge the glass in water, determine its density, and decide if it is 2.8 g/cm3 (lead glass) or 2.4 g/cm3 (ordinary glass). "... This causes the lead crystal to oscillate, thereby producing its characteristic sound" is nonsense. The cause for oscillation is that glasses have mass and elasticity, but this is valid for ordinary glass too. Today, lead-free glasses produce a nice ringing sound too. Ceinturion (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A more likely explanation is that it dissipates vibrational energy less efficiently than ordinary glass does. 51.155.110.141 (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could possibly have nothing to do with the type of glass, and instead be a result of the shape, size, and thickness of particular pieces – i.e. if the lead glass as manufactured was [thicker, thinner, more symmetrical, whatever] compared to ordinary glass. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Council Directive 69/493/EEC of 15 December 1969 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to crystal glass".

[1]