A question for the smarty pants.

[deepend]

  I take it there are a few around here.  This question concerns batteries.  It includes aspects of both chemistry and metallurgy.  Of course you know about the function of lead-acid batteries.  But what if depleted uranium was used instead of lead.  After all, from what I hear, uranium will eventually (after a very long time) will decay into lead.  A uranium atom has 92 electrons compared to a lead atom having 82.  Wouldn't uranium make for a better anode - cathode medium than lead?  And would such a thing require a stronger acid?

[exchemist]

9 hours ago, deepend said:

  I take it there are a few around here.  This question concerns batteries.  It includes aspects of both chemistry and metallurgy.  Of course you know about the function of lead-acid batteries.  But what if depleted uranium was used instead of lead.  After all, from what I hear, uranium will eventually (after a very long time) will decay into lead.  A uranium atom has 92 electrons compared to a lead atom having 82.  Wouldn't uranium make for a better anode - cathode medium than lead?  And would such a thing require a stronger acid?

I'm not a smartypants, though it looks as if you may think you are. 

Offhand, I can see no reason to think U would be an improvement over Pb in a battery. Its chemistry is quite different from that of Pb, it is even heavier, making power to weight ratio even worse and even depleted U is radioactive, making it unacceptable in domestic or road transport use.

The fact that the end product of its radioactive decay (after numerous intermediate steps) is Pb is irrelevant to its chemistry.

[swansont]

Even unprocessed uranium is much more expensive than lead ($30-40 per lb for uranium oxide vs $1 per lb for lead). Depleted uranium would cost even more.

[deepend]

15 hours ago, exchemist said:

I'm not a smartypants, though it looks as if you may think you are. 

Offhand, I can see no reason to think U would be an improvement over Pb in a battery. Its chemistry is quite different from that of Pb, it is even heavier, making power to weight ratio even worse and even depleted U is radioactive, making it unacceptable in domestic or road transport use.

The fact that the end product of its radioactive decay (after numerous intermediate steps) is Pb is irrelevant to its chemistry.

   If I was a "smarty pants" in this regard, I wouldn't have been asking the question.  As for chemistry, a metal has nothing to do with chemistry.  Apart from it's reaction to chemicals.  To me, chemistry is more in the realm of molecules.  But maybe that isn't accurate enough.  Because I have heard of sound waves traveling through water being called a chemical reaction.  When to a laymen like me it would seem to be a matter of physics.  A simple transfer of momentum.

  Next, DU is heavier than lead.  But being denser, maybe that just means less of it would be required.  It is also radioactive.  But not overly so.  I doubt if it is radioactive enough to qualify as nuclear waste.  Though I have heard that when it becomes fragmented as a projectile it can cause higher amounts of radioactivity.  But I don't know if that would be from the DU itself or the energy it was exposed to in becoming fragmented that was the cause of the higher radiation.  Lastly, I doubt if it is possible to turn DU into lead.  No matter how many steps it takes.  It seems to me that such a process only can come about after millions of years of natural decay.  Where through radiation loss the uranium atom loses a certain amount of protons and neutrons.  And of course, some electrons.  

  The whole point of all this is to make a battery that might last long enough to replace fossil fuels.  There is an amateur physicist named John Hutchinson who became rather infamous for making videos of strange physical effects that he was somehow able to cause to happen.  Though for some reason he wasn't able to replicate them with other people around.  From a television show I saw about him, he was able to make a battery that he claimed would last forever.  It was made by using layers of naturally occurring crystals.  According to the show, he sold the patent to some Japanese company.  I don't know whatever became of it.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, deepend said:

I have heard of sound waves traveling through water being called a chemical reaction

Where?

2 minutes ago, deepend said:

being denser, maybe that just means less of it would be required

No, that means you have fewer atoms for the same mass, which (all else being the same) means fewer chemical reactions

[deepend]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Even unprocessed uranium is much more expensive than lead ($30-40 per lb for uranium oxide vs $1 per lb for lead). Depleted uranium would cost even more.

 

  After decades of a nuclear weapon industry, the government probably has LOTS of it on hand.  As a byproduct of uranium enrichment.  Certainly enough to make projectiles out of it for the military.  Which by the way, I am not a fan of.  Because the things it hit and causes the DU to fragment makes it more radioactive than it is in it's natural state.  From what I hear, in its natural state it is safe to handle.  Because in it's natural state it isn't all that radioactive.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, deepend said:

After decades of a nuclear weapon industry, the government probably has LOTS of it on hand. 

And how does that change the cost of procuring and processing?

 

9 minutes ago, deepend said:

As a byproduct of uranium enrichment.  Certainly enough to make projectiles out of it for the military.  Which by the way, I am not a fan of.  Because the things it hit and causes the DU to fragment makes it more radioactive than it is in it's natural state.  

In a word, no.

Whatever you read you interpreted incorrectly. Fragmentation makes for dust which can be inhaled. Alpha decayers are very destructive internally, but not so much as an external dose. More dangerous/more damaging is NOT the same as more radioactive 

9 minutes ago, deepend said:

From what I hear, in its natural state it is safe to handle.  Because in it's natural state it isn't all that radioactive.

DU is less radioactive than natural uranium of equal mass (U-235 has a shorter half-life)

[deepend]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where?

No, that means you have fewer atoms for the same mass, which (all else being the same) means fewer chemical reactions

  I was watching some science show long ago.  A scientist said that sound waves traveling through water was in fact a chemical reaction.  That's what he said.  I never looked it up for myself.  There may not even have been an internet at the time to do so with.  Next, of course there would be fewer atoms for a given amount of mass compared to lead.  But I don't know if that would really matter.  You have fewer atoms, but more electrons with DU.  Also, apparently the lead anode and lead cathode in a lead - acid battery are made up of different kinds of lead.  Somehow, the sulfuric acid causes a transfer of electrons between them.  I don't know if something similar has ever been tried with two different kinds of DU.  And maybe it would take a stronger acid.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

And how does that change the cost of procuring and processing?

 

In a word, no.

Whatever you read you interpreted incorrectly 

DU is less radioactive than natural uranium of equal mass (U-235 has a shorter half-life)

 

   1.  Maybe the government has enough of it on hand that they don't need to make any more.  That aside, if it was efficient enough over a lead - acid battery, maybe the cost of producing DU would be worth doing so.

  2.  What I read about how they create DU is nothing.  I don't know how they do it.  It just seems unlikely to me that they would refine uranium ore just to make DU.  It seems more likely to me that they were seeking enriched uranium and DU was just a useful byproduct that the military could use in projectiles.

  3.  I said DU was safe to handle.  Apparently just plain uranium is safe to handle.  Powders and uranium oxides are a different matter.  Each day humans consume around 1.1 micrograms of uranium.

[TheVat]

My pants are dull-witted and need constant discipline with a belt, but I think the RTG nuclear battery is pretty handy, for certain niche uses.  Depleted U would not be good for this, however, given its very slow decay.  Other actinides, like plutonium 238, are suitable.  

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

[MigL]

While the density of depleated Uranium is useful in increasing the kinetic energy ( stopping power/penetration of tank armor ) of artillery shells, such as those of the General Dynamics GAU-8 gun of the A-10 Warthog. it it is useless ar a factor for reactivity with acid.
Lead-acid batteries exploit the red-ox reaction of the outer valence electrons.

Edited March 4, 2022 by MigL

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, deepend said:

   If I was a "smarty pants" in this regard, I wouldn't have been asking the question.  As for chemistry, a metal has nothing to do with chemistry.  Apart from it's reaction to chemicals.  To me, chemistry is more in the realm of molecules.  But maybe that isn't accurate enough.  Because I have heard of sound waves traveling through water being called a chemical reaction.  When to a laymen like me it would seem to be a matter of physics.  A simple transfer of momentum.

  Next, DU is heavier than lead.  But being denser, maybe that just means less of it would be required.  It is also radioactive.  But not overly so.  I doubt if it is radioactive enough to qualify as nuclear waste.  Though I have heard that when it becomes fragmented as a projectile it can cause higher amounts of radioactivity.  But I don't know if that would be from the DU itself or the energy it was exposed to in becoming fragmented that was the cause of the higher radiation.  Lastly, I doubt if it is possible to turn DU into lead.  No matter how many steps it takes.  It seems to me that such a process only can come about after millions of years of natural decay.  Where through radiation loss the uranium atom loses a certain amount of protons and neutrons.  And of course, some electrons.  

  The whole point of all this is to make a battery that might last long enough to replace fossil fuels.  There is an amateur physicist named John Hutchinson who became rather infamous for making videos of strange physical effects that he was somehow able to cause to happen.  Though for some reason he wasn't able to replicate them with other people around.  From a television show I saw about him, he was able to make a battery that he claimed would last forever.  It was made by using layers of naturally occurring crystals.  According to the show, he sold the patent to some Japanese company.  I don't know whatever became of it.

None of this makes sense.  But if you are river a.k.a current, that's not a surprise. An amber warning light to that effect has come on. 

1) Metals take part in chemistry just like any other chemical substance. "A metal has nothing to do with chemistry" is an absurd statement.   

2) If they did not take part in chemistry, a lead/acid battery would not work. Such batteries rely for their operation on electrochemistry, in this case the reversible reaction between Pb (metal) and PbO with H2SO4. 

3) The transmission of sound waves in water is not a chemical process. If you have a source that says to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

4) Uranium is denser than lead because its atomic nuclei are more massive. The nuclei play no role in chemical reactions. Chemistry is all about the valence (outer shell) electrons. It is the therefore the number of atoms and the behaviour of their valence electrons, not their mass, that is responsible for the energy change obtainable from the chemical reaction in a battery.

5) The notion of a battery that might last "long enough to replace fossil fuels" is nonsensical. Batteries are a temporary energy store that needs to be recharged. 

6) John Hutchison [sic] , i.e. not "Hutchinson", is a crank and self-publicist whose ideas don't work: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Hutchison

  

Edited March 4, 2022 by exchemist

[studiot]

Perhaps we should go for a reset here ?

 

On 3/2/2022 at 11:36 PM, deepend said:

Wouldn't uranium make for a better anode - cathode medium than lead?  And would such a thing require a stronger acid?

 

The actual thread topic / question is a very reasonable one put in a very reasonable way.
And you did the right thing in asking if your idea was viable.

Unfortunately the title included a somewhat perjorative term that clearly antagonised other members.

Setting that aside, it is not unreasonable for a lay person with some scientific interest to have picked up some idea that uranium metal is fairly unreactive as is lead and so propose it for electrodes.

Unfortunately the chemistry is against this proposal.

The electrodes in electrochemical cells come in two varieties.
Those which take part in the chemical reactions and those which don't and are merely the to provide electrical contact.
In the traditional lead-acid battery the electrodes are of the first type and are not both pure metal as the underlined passage notes in the first attachment.
Lead oxide is the actual chemical involved at one electrode.
The attachment also gives outline working of the chemistry of the cell along with resultant cell voltages, around a useful couple of volts per cell.

This should be compared with the second attachment for uranium.
One thing about chemical reactions is that they have to be not only energetically and chemically feasible, they have to be fast enough at working temperatures to be useful.
I have underlined the appropriate uranium reactions which are noted to be very slow and high temperature.
Also note that uranium has many more oxidation states than lead, which leads to undesirable potential side reactions.
It would be difficult to get a simple reaction to obtain useful output voltage reliably, as can be seen from the oxidation voltage diagram.

 

10 hours ago, deepend said:

Because I have heard of sound waves traveling through water being called a chemical reaction.  When to a laymen like me it would seem to be a matter of physics.  A simple transfer of momentum.

This really is off-topic but I do wonder if you have misheard or misremembered what was said.
Perhaps the scientist said, or meant but was not clear, that the sound was generated by a chemical reaction?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Whatever you read you interpreted incorrectly. Fragmentation makes for dust which can be inhaled. Alpha decayers are very destructive internally, but not so much as an external dose. More dangerous/more damaging is NOT the same as more radioactive 

Here is another example of 'only part of the story' and I thank swansont for this as I did not realise about the dust so I would say +1 if he did not already have too many plus points.

So thank you to the 'expert' on that topic.

 

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

6) John Hutchison [sic] , i.e. not "Hutchinson", is a crank and self-publicist whose ideas don't work: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Hutchison

Thanks also to exchemist for his work in debunking John Hutchinson. +1

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by studiot

[swansont]

10 hours ago, deepend said:

 Also, apparently the lead anode and lead cathode in a lead - acid battery are made up of different kinds of lead.

Different kinds of lead?

10 hours ago, deepend said:

 

   1.  Maybe the government has enough of it on hand that they don't need to make any more.  That aside, if it was efficient enough over a lead - acid battery, maybe the cost of producing DU would be worth doing so.

Which sidesteps the question about cost.

 

10 hours ago, deepend said:

  2.  What I read about how they create DU is nothing.  I don't know how they do it.  It just seems unlikely to me that they would refine uranium ore just to make DU.  It seems more likely to me that they were seeking enriched uranium and DU was just a useful byproduct that the military could use in projectiles.

  3.  I said DU was safe to handle.  Apparently just plain uranium is safe to handle.  Powders and uranium oxides are a different matter.  Each day humans consume around 1.1 micrograms of uranium.

None of this addresses my post. What is your point?

 

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

The actual thread topic / question is a very reasonable one put in a very reasonable way.
And you did the right thing in asking if your idea was viable.

Unfortunately the title included a somewhat perjorative term that clearly antagonised other members.

I don't think that was it. The difference in chemistry was addressed immediately by exchemist. Instead of asking for a followup, the OP doubled down on dubious claims trying to support the notion. I suspect that's the source of any real antagonism. The title was just foreshadowing.

[studiot]

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

Different kinds of lead?

That is true and explained in my last post.

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't think that was it. The difference in chemistry was addressed immediately by exchemist. Instead of asking for a followup, the OP doubled down on dubious claims trying to support the notion. I suspect that's the source of any real antagonism. The title was just foreshadowing.

When I originally saw this title , I decided to go no further.
Subsequently I read the first reply when I saw it was by exchemist.
And yes, I thought he dealt pretty well with the chemistry and other practicalities.

[John Cuthber]

13 hours ago, deepend said:

a metal has nothing to do with chemistry.

In the context of using it in a battery, that has to be the dumbest statement I have heard in a while.
What did you think you meant?

Uranium chemistry is complicated; I'm not saying it would be impossible to make a battery with it. A flow cell battery might be the best bet; something like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

 

But the high atomic weight of uranium is a drawback, not an advantage. That's why lithium is so popular; less mass to carry around for a given number of electrons.

However, none of that could possibly outweigh the problems that uranium is toxic and radioactive. (with even bigger problems for uranium mining waste)

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

In the context of using it in a battery, that has to be the dumbest statement I have heard in a while.
What did you think you meant?

Uranium chemistry is complicated; I'm not saying it would be impossible to make a battery with it. A flow cell battery might be the best bet; something like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

 

But the high atomic weight of uranium is a drawback, not an advantage. That's why lithium is so popular; less mass to carry around for a given number of electrons.

However, none of that could possibly outweigh the problems that uranium is toxic and radioactive. (with even bigger problems for uranium mining waste)

Is it also the case that Li is used because of the small size of the ion, which enables it to form reversibly the intercalation compounds with graphite and CoO2 etc  that are used in the Li ion cell?

I don't know much about the battery chemistry but I can imagine a small ion being less disruptive to the structure of the electrodes, as it enters or leaves, than a larger one would be.   

[deepend]

13 hours ago, exchemist said:

None of this makes sense.  But if you are river a.k.a current, that's not a surprise. An amber warning light to that effect has come on. 

1) Metals take part in chemistry just like any other chemical substance. "A metal has nothing to do with chemistry" is an absurd statement.   

2) If they did not take part in chemistry, a lead/acid battery would not work. Such batteries rely for their operation on electrochemistry, in this case the reversible reaction between Pb (metal) and PbO with H2SO4. 

3) The transmission of sound waves in water is not a chemical process. If you have a source that says to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

4) Uranium is denser than lead because its atomic nuclei are more massive. The nuclei play no role in chemical reactions. Chemistry is all about the valence (outer shell) electrons. It is the therefore the number of atoms and the behaviour of their valence electrons, not their mass, that is responsible for the energy change obtainable from the chemical reaction in a battery.

5) The notion of a battery that might last "long enough to replace fossil fuels" is nonsensical. Batteries are a temporary energy store that needs to be recharged. 

6) John Hutchison [sic] , i.e. not "Hutchinson", is a crank and self-publicist whose ideas don't work: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Hutchison

  

  Metals aren't chemicals.  They are metals.  So as metals, they have nothing to do with chemicals.  Now if they are part of a molecule, that is a different matter.  Next, lead by itself isn't a chemical.  But sulfuric acid is.  As for sound traveling through water supposedly being a chemical reaction, don't blame me for the statement.  That is just what some scientist on TV said once.  This may support that statement some.

schools.look4.net.nz › science › chemistryEnergy Transfer in Chemical Reactions — Schools at Look4

 

  Next, I said that DU has more electrons than lead.  I said nothing about the nucleus.  Next, John Hutchinson is said to have created a forever battery.  Believe it or don't.  But you can look it up.  He called them Crystal batteries or Hiroshima cells.  Maybe they are something like this.

greenrhino-energy.com › crystal-batteriesCRYSTAL BATTERIES™ - Green Rhino

 

  Next, you can call Hutchinson whatever you want.  But he did at least videotape some interesting effects.  If they are fake, nobody can figure out how he did it.  That in itself is an accomplishment.  Also, though he could never reproduce the effects with other people around, I did see something interesting once in his lab where he was being interviewed.  In the background, for no apparent reason a sponge flew up toward the ceiling from where it was sitting.  This is more in the realm of poltergeist activity.  But that it should have happened in his lab is interesting.

 

 

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Perhaps we should go for a reset here ?

 

 

The actual thread topic / question is a very reasonable one put in a very reasonable way.
And you did the right thing in asking if your idea was viable.

Unfortunately the title included a somewhat perjorative term that clearly antagonised other members.

Setting that aside, it is not unreasonable for a lay person with some scientific interest to have picked up some idea that uranium metal is fairly unreactive as is lead and so propose it for electrodes.

Unfortunately the chemistry is against this proposal.

The electrodes in electrochemical cells come in two varieties.
Those which take part in the chemical reactions and those which don't and are merely the to provide electrical contact.
In the traditional lead-acid battery the electrodes are of the first type and are not both pure metal as the underlined passage notes in the first attachment.
Lead oxide is the actual chemical involved at one electrode.
The attachment also gives outline working of the chemistry of the cell along with resultant cell voltages, around a useful couple of volts per cell.

This should be compared with the second attachment for uranium.
One thing about chemical reactions is that they have to be not only energetically and chemically feasible, they have to be fast enough at working temperatures to be useful.
I have underlined the appropriate uranium reactions which are noted to be very slow and high temperature.
Also note that uranium has many more oxidation states than lead, which leads to undesirable potential side reactions.
It would be difficult to get a simple reaction to obtain useful output voltage reliably, as can be seen from the oxidation voltage diagram.

 

This really is off-topic but I do wonder if you have misheard or misremembered what was said.
Perhaps the scientist said, or meant but was not clear, that the sound was generated by a chemical reaction?

Here is another example of 'only part of the story' and I thank swansont for this as I did not realise about the dust so I would say +1 if he did not already have too many plus points.

So thank you to the 'expert' on that topic.

 

Thanks also to exchemist for his work in debunking John Hutchinson. +1

 

  Ok.  Sorry about the "smarty pants" thing.  I was just trying to have a little fun.  Not insult anybody.  As for the rest, I see that posts aren't numbered here.  But if you look, you will see a reply of mine to exchemist with a couple of links to websites that might interest you.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Different kinds of lead?

Which sidesteps the question about cost.

 

None of this addresses my post. What is your point?

 

I don't think that was it. The difference in chemistry was addressed immediately by exchemist. Instead of asking for a followup, the OP doubled down on dubious claims trying to support the notion. I suspect that's the source of any real antagonism. The title was just foreshadowing.

  1.  Well different lead compounds.

  2.  

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

In the context of using it in a battery, that has to be the dumbest statement I have heard in a while.
What did you think you meant?

Uranium chemistry is complicated; I'm not saying it would be impossible to make a battery with it. A flow cell battery might be the best bet; something like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

 

But the high atomic weight of uranium is a drawback, not an advantage. That's why lithium is so popular; less mass to carry around for a given number of electrons.

However, none of that could possibly outweigh the problems that uranium is toxic and radioactive. (with even bigger problems for uranium mining waste)

 

  The point I was making was that the metal lead itself isn't a chemical.  In combination with other atoms in a molecule it is a chemical.  That is all.  Also, in another thread I mentioned a name that got an interesting reaction.  John Hutchinson.  He claimed to have created a "forever battery."  Which may not actually be "forever."  He called them Crystal batteries or Hiroshima cells.  Apparently they do exist.  One person experimenting with them said that strangely enough, hooking them up in series caused the voltage to drop.  I don't know if it is true or not, but another website speaks of them.  Here it is.

 

greenrhino-energy.com › crystal-batteriesCRYSTAL BATTERIES™ - Green Rhino

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, deepend said:

Ok.  Sorry about the "smarty pants" thing.  I was just trying to have a little fun.  Not insult anybody.  As for the rest, I see that posts aren't numbered here.  But if you look, you will see a reply of mine to exchemist with a couple of links to websites that might interest you.

I did actually put some effort into offering some factual scientific information on your proposal.

I cannot, however, tell from your response what you got out of it or if you even read that part.

What would you see as the most significant pat of my post ?

[deepend]

43 minutes ago, studiot said:

I did actually put some effort into offering some factual scientific information on your proposal.

I cannot, however, tell from your response what you got out of it or if you even read that part.

What would you see as the most significant pat of my post ?

  What I saw was that I wasn't a scientist.  I was just wondering if uranium would make a good replacement for lead in a lead acid battery.  After all, they are both heavy metals.  And uranium has more electrons.  Without any doubt some atoms are more resistant to chemical processes than others.  Such as gold.  It never oxidizes.  Though overall, I did get the answer I sought.  Which is that using uranium in a way that lead is used in a lead acid battery wouldn't work.  So for all who contributed to that answer, thank you.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, deepend said:

Metals aren't chemicals.  They are metals.  So as metals, they have nothing to do with chemicals. 

It's statements like these that are a real timesaver for me when pondering whether to follow a certain line of reasoning.

Thank you so much.

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, deepend said:

  What I saw was that I wasn't a scientist.  I was just wondering if uranium would make a good replacement for lead in a lead acid battery.  After all, they are both heavy metals.  And uranium has more electrons.  Without any doubt some atoms are more resistant to chemical processes than others.  Such as gold.  It never oxidizes.  Though overall, I did get the answer I sought.  Which is that using uranium in a way that lead is used in a lead acid battery wouldn't work.  So for all who contributed to that answer, thank you.

Argon has more electrons than oxygen. Doesn’t mean you can substitute one for the other.

[deepend]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Argon has more electrons than oxygen. Doesn’t mean you can substitute one for the other.

 

Oxygen isn't a metal.  My thread was based on a metal.  Though with other elements that constitute gases, maybe it is possible to make some sort of battery out of them.  Though I don't know how it would function.

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

It's statements like these that are a real timesaver for me when pondering whether to follow a certain line of reasoning.

Thank you so much.

 

  If you think a metal is a chemical, tell me all about it.

[joigus]

14 minutes ago, deepend said:

  If you think a metal is a chemical, tell me all about it.

No, no. You go.

I took Chemistry 101 many years ago.

You tell me. 😇

[swansont]

11 hours ago, deepend said:

Oxygen isn't a metal.  My thread was based on a metal. 

You are making claims about chemistry. Like it or not, the bulk effects of an atom interacting with another generally falls under the umbrella of chemistry. And the electron structure of an atom dictates the chemistry

[studiot]

13 hours ago, deepend said:

What I saw was that I wasn't a scientist.  I was just wondering if uranium would make a good replacement for lead in a lead acid battery.  After all, they are both heavy metals.  And uranium has more electrons.  Without any doubt some atoms are more resistant to chemical processes than others.  Such as gold.  It never oxidizes.  Though overall, I did get the answer I sought.  Which is that using uranium in a way that lead is used in a lead acid battery wouldn't work.  So for all who contributed to that answer, thank you.

Very big of you.

 

As to this issue,

 

14 hours ago, deepend said:

Metals aren't chemicals.  They are metals.  So as metals, they have nothing to do with chemicals.

A metal is actually a chemical term, very specifically defined. Many scientific terms are common across several disciplines. Each such discipline has its own particular interest in that term. Road engineers, geographers and lawyers for instance talk about a metalled road surface. What do you think that means ?

You started here by saying that you were a layman and asking questions.

Highly commendable.

But you then changed to preaching to a bunch of specialists.

Not so good.

So please feel free to ask some more questions, and if you like, tell us what you think a metal is.

That is proper discussion.