A question for the smarty pants.

[joigus]

Sorry I haven't been very helpful. To give you an idea of how central it is whether an element is a metal or not, or how much of a metal it is, is absolutely central to chemistry, here's a snapshot of the periodic table.

Alkaline (also called alkali metals)

Non-metals

Other metals

Transition metal

Metalloid

Rare earth

Alkalie metal

Halogen

Nobel gas

The concept of metal is so central to chemistry that you could understand a lot of what chemistry is about focusing on the concept.

You would miss another important central concept, which is acid/base, and has to do with transfer of protons, rather than electrons.

[John Cuthber]

20 hours ago, deepend said:

Metals aren't chemicals. 

Yes they are.

18 hours ago, deepend said:

What I saw was that I wasn't a scientist.  

It shows.

[iNow]

19 hours ago, deepend said:

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

 

[deepend]

22 hours ago, joigus said:

No, no. You go.

I took Chemistry 101 many years ago.

You tell me. 😇

 In other words, metals aren't chemicals.  Thanks, but I already knew that.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

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

 

  If you're going to start telling me things I already know, we aren't going to get very far.  Also, protons and neutrons are part of what makes up an atom's electrons.  So protons and neutrons are part of how atoms arrange themselves chemically.

10 hours ago, studiot said:

Very big of you.

 

As to this issue,

 

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.

 

    I just don't happen to think that all the same kind of atoms could be classified as a metal.  Metals have very specific characteristics.  I have heard that at the center of Jupiter, because of the pressure it is under, hydrogen becomes so dense that it will form a metal.  But to me, that isn't the same thing.

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Yes they are.

It shows.

 

  Are all atoms metals?  No.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

 

  That proves nothing.  Is carbon a metal?  I don't think so.  But it is an atom that can be widely found in many kinds of molecules.

Edited March 6, 2022 by deepend

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, deepend said:

I just don't happen to think that all the same kind of atoms could be classified as a metal.  Metals have very specific characteristics.  I have heard that at the center of Jupiter, because of the pressure it is under, hydrogen becomes so dense that it will form a metal.  But to me, that isn't the same thing.

 

So you don't want to discuss this then ?

 

Quote

I just don't happen to think that all the same kind of atoms could be classified as a metal. 

I think I know what you are trying to say, but I think you are using the wrong words.

 

Quote

Metals have very specific characteristics. 

I agree, do you know what they are ?

 

 

I did ask what you think a metal is. Why did you not reply ?

But I haven't mentioned atoms, molecules , electrons etc.
Metals were identified long before such things were known.

 

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, deepend said:

If you're going to start telling me things I already know, we aren't going to get very far. 

You aren’t making it obvious what you already know, given your mistaken and/or vague assertions.

40 minutes ago, deepend said:

Also, protons and neutrons are part of what makes up an atom's electrons.  So protons and neutrons are part of how atoms arrange themselves chemically.

No, electrons are in orbitals that are mostly outside of the nucleus, and protons and neutrons are in the nucleus; they do not “make up an atom’s electrons”. Proton number dictates the number of electrons in a neutral atom, because the magnitude of charge on each is equal. 

Neutrons, being neutral, have no effect on the number of electrons, and have a limited impact on chemistry. (they e.g. affect reaction rates because more massive objects at a given energy move slower)

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

You aren’t making it obvious what you already know

How to troll seems to be part of his aspirations if not already within is existing skill set 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, deepend said:

Also, protons and neutrons are part of what makes up an atom's electrons. 

Oh my god, just stop talking.

[deepend]

On 3/5/2022 at 6:53 PM, swansont said:

You aren’t making it obvious what you already know, given your mistaken and/or vague assertions.

No, electrons are in orbitals that are mostly outside of the nucleus, and protons and neutrons are in the nucleus; they do not “make up an atom’s electrons”. Proton number dictates the number of electrons in a neutral atom, because the magnitude of charge on each is equal. 

Neutrons, being neutral, have no effect on the number of electrons, and have a limited impact on chemistry. (they e.g. affect reaction rates because more massive objects at a given energy move slower)

 

  Well, if there are any electrons that orbit within the nucleus of an atom, that's news to me.  Next, I wasn't saying that protons and neutrons directly influence the ability of atoms to chemically bond with other atoms.  But the number of protons and neutrons in a nucleus has an effect on how many electrons an atom has.  It is the electrons, as far as I know, that enable atoms to form chemical bonds with other atoms.  You also forced me to find out that a nucleus with a different number of protons and neutrons is known as an isotope.  All very interesting.  But all this has fallen down a rabbit hole in relation as to whether or not uranium could be used instead of lead in a battery.  This thread has lost my interest.

[John Cuthber]

11 hours ago, deepend said:

But all this has fallen down a rabbit hole in relation as to whether or not uranium could be used instead of lead in a battery

We answered.

It can't-, or, at best, it can't usefully- replace lead.

11 hours ago, deepend said:

Well, if there are any electrons that orbit within the nucleus of an atom

Consider yourself better informed. The s orbitals have a non zero electron density at the nucleus.
With some isotopes, they sometimes "fall in".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

Have you got to grips with the fact that metals are chemicals yet?

[swansont]

11 hours ago, deepend said:

Well, if there are any electrons that orbit within the nucleus of an atom, that's news to me. 

As you admit to being a neophyte in the matters of science, that's not surprising. But perhaps you should reconsider your approach here - there are some basic things you don't know, and yet you are stating things with with a confidence that is unwarranted. Further, you seem to have awarded a lot of credibility to whatever your source has been for previous statements, and yet when they've been called into question by knowledgeable people here, you push back.

Asking questions is good. Unfounded assertions, not so much.

11 hours ago, deepend said:

It is the electrons, as far as I know, that enable atoms to form chemical bonds with other atoms.

Yes, and different numbers of electrons mean the binding will be different,

12 hours ago, deepend said:

This thread has lost my interest.

Unfortunate. There are a lot of misconceptions that could be cleared up, were you motivated to make that happen.