Why Aren't Helium, Krypton, and Neon More Commonly Used in Incandescent Bulbs?

AI Thread Summary
Helium is not commonly used in high-temperature incandescent bulbs despite being the most inert gas due to several factors. Its ability to diffuse through glass makes it less practical for light bulbs, as it would escape easily. Additionally, helium is harder to ionize compared to other gases like krypton and argon. The heat capacity of argon is also greater, making it more effective for high-temperature applications, such as in inductively coupled plasma (ICP) instruments. Cost is another consideration; argon is more readily available and cheaper to produce since it can be extracted from the atmosphere, while helium is less abundant and more expensive. The discussion also touches on Graham's law, which explains that helium diffuses faster than argon due to its lower molar mass, but further research is needed to understand how gas composition and glass thickness affect diffusion rates.
Facial
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
I have a question about helium :

If it is the most inert substance, why isn't it used more than krypton or argon for high-temperature incandescent bulbs?

I don't see neon in light bulbs too often either.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Helium can diffuse through a thin glass wall, so it would escape from a light bulb (not very useful).
 
What would the color be with helium?
 
Would it matter? The OP was about incandescent, not fluorescent bulbs.
 
Helium is also much harder to ionize.
 
It might have something to do with heat capacity. High temperature instruments like ICPs use argon as the cooling gas because it can hold more heat than helium can (and take the heat away).
Might also have something to do with cost. Does helium cost more than argon or krypton?
 
rachmaninoff said:
Helium can diffuse through a thin glass wall, so it would escape from a light bulb (not very useful).

I suppose, then, that it can probably diffuse through a thick glass wall, but I'll have to look that up sometime with regards as to how much slower.
 
Facial said:
I suppose, then, that it can probably diffuse through a thick glass wall, but I'll have to look that up sometime with regards as to how much slower.
I did an experiment testing this last year. It turns out that effusion rates are proportional to molar mass (Graham's law?). If helium has a molar mass of something like 4 and krypton is way way up there in terms of mass, that's a considerable difference.
 
  • #10
Graham's law explains the relation between molar masses on the rate of diffusion. It should be the the inverse square root of the molar masses if I remember correctly, meaning Helium diffuses roughly 3.2 times as fast as argon (turns out that it has around 40 daltons of mass).

However, I need a reference on how 1) composition 2) thickness affect diffusion rates as well.
 
  • #11
ShawnD said:
Does helium cost more than argon or krypton?

For argon the answer must be yes. The atmosphere is about 0.7% argon (which is quite a bit if you think about it) by volume, meaning you can distill this gas right out of the air. The cost definitely makes sense here.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Back
Top