Talk:Metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Elements
Chemistry Portal
This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.
Chemistry WikiProject This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
To-do list for Metal: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit: entire article to be clearer to a non-chemist!
  • Merge: Properties_and_uses_of_metals into this article
  • Expand: Section on metallurgy and applications/uses
  • Infobox: Develop a diagram of the periodic table, showing which are metals
  • Other: Answer these questions: how many metals are there? How abundant are they in the world? What are the most commonly used metals? What are the most expensive/cheapest metals? What academic societies exist for metal research?

Contents

[edit] A suggestion on the division of information

I suggest that the general chemical and physical properties of metals, all metals appear here, along with a little historical perspective. I'm working on some historical perspective in metalworking but it's slow because I'm trying not to trash completely was is/was there. Additionally, there is way more there than belongs there.

I suggest that the commercial, physical, and engineering application of metals be done in metallurgy with a link from this article to that. I suggest that the article Properties_and_uses_of_metals would be a good fit in metallurgy under the topic of the top five commercially used metals. Begs (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No edit war

I don't want to start an edit war, but some of the alkali metals can be cut with a knife, which means they are soft. The reason why usually high melting-points is necessary is mercury, rubidium, gallium, and cesium are all liquid at or near room temperature. While the concept of high MP or low MP differs, everyone on the planet would agree that these are low in comparison to the melting points of other metals (eg. tungsten). Mercury's melting point is below 0C. All people would agree that that is low.

What metal oxides are basic? Most metal oxides are completely inert. Al2O3, SiO2, TiO, etc. Metal hydroxides are basic (NaOH, KOH), sure, but that's an entirely different animal.

Eric 22:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just want to add a little more about acidic/basic properties of metal oxides. Some metal oxides in their highest oxidation state are far not inert being extremely aggressive oxidizers (dangerous in handling!) and definitely acidic because they produce pH < 7 when mixed with water (or willingly soluble in alkali) e. g., CrO3, MoO3, WO3, V2O5, Mn2O7 unlike those of low oxidation state, which are neutral or even somewhat basic like TiO and PbO soluble in sulfuric acid. From another hand, TiO2 and Pb3O4 are soluble in molten NaOH. Thus, yes, basicity/acidity conception is hardly helpful for definition of what metals are, though nevertheless, it is true: most of metal oxides in their low oxidation states are basic or amphoteric. In general, the higher group number of an element in Periodic Table the less basic is the corresponding oxide. {Nick Moskalev, September 25, 2005}

The article does point out that the alkaline properties of metal oxides is a rule of thumb, not an absolute truth.

[edit] metal forming

How is metal processed in a way to punch a hole and then thread it, with hole boed in the direction of how the hole was made?
Boring is machining with a rotary drill, punching is done with a non-movable bit and a press or hammer. The diffrence is that since Boring is done with less orthagonal stresses, the subsiquent threading operation, i.e. cutting of threads, is more likely to produce threads of uniform pitch, and less likely to deform under fatigue. On car parts, it is common practice to electroweld a nut so that the resulting thread anchor is much stronger. Go and ask a machinist. --67.174.157.126 (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Precious metals - Plutonium and uranium

Regarding the statement: "Plutonium and uranium could also be considered precious metals." Why could plutonium and uranium be considered precious metals? That's doesn't appear to be explained in the article. -- Iotha 17:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

They are NOT precious metals. Precious metals are metals known since antiquity, used in jewery. l@@k it up. --67.174.157.126 (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History/prehistory of metals?

In my personal opinion the article badly needs some short words at least about the history & prehistory of metals and how they were discovered. Anyone? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that go under metallurgy? Or perhaps this article needs summary sections on mining, ore, metallurgy and applications of metal? — RJH (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid?

As soon as I saw the phrase "metal is stupid" at the very beginning of the article, I assumed I misread it. When I confirmed that it did indeed say "metal is stupid," I then assumed it was vandalism. However, I don't know anything about chemistry (See: Soviet education system) so if the word "stupid" has some other meaning in chemistry, I would have no way of knowing or refuting it. Could someone that actually has some amount of knowledge on this subject confirm whether this is or is not vandalism or a typo or what-have-you?MVMosin 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • LOL! Right now there's some nonsense about crap up there, I'd edit it out but it seems to be a recurring problem. Obviously, this article is a target for those who dislike the genre of music known as metal, and ought to be protected from edits by new and unregistered users. -AndromedaRoach 02:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Yeah... there are currently continually ongoing edits and reversions, but the reversions still contain vandalism. -AndromedaRoach 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I reverted to the version before the vandalism. I hope it's the correct one, since it was the last revert before today's vandals. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electron gas?

The line

The electrical and thermal conductivity of metals originate from the fact that in the metallic bond the outer electrons of the metal atoms form a gas of nearly free electrons

I think it is clear what is meant here, but I think the way it is stated is kind of clumsy. Maybe a 'cloud' of electrons might be a better way to say it?

People unclear on the concept. a Gas is a free floating arrangment of atoms, distinct from a solid. According to the shell model of the atom, they share co-vailient electrons, that are shared (thermal) and flow( electrical) . Cloud of electrons is a diffrent model. I dont object to using either model, I just object to mixing metaphores from diffrent models. Tunneling (Q.E.D, and Quantum models) are a diffrent electrical property. --67.174.157.126 (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram

Surely this article needs a diagram of the periodic table at the top to show which are and are not metals, rather than a description of same? IceDragon64 (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely, you are collapsing the chemical classification, with the material property, and leave the mention of the music out of it. The Musical discussion of Metal is, well really beyond the comprension of the author(s) of the Metal(music) article. It did get a long and loud laugh from Ripper Owens, and Rob Halford has yet to comment.
This artcle has been said to be in need of a total rewrite.
and btw, Precious metals refer to materials used since antiquity in jewelry. --~~~~ Insert formula here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

I support the merge of this page with Properties and uses of metals. And also agree that a periodic table would be a good idea. I am a lemon (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Support the merge too. --Rajah (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the mearging of the Properties of metals, but not the uses of metals. That is much too large a topic....--67.174.157.126 (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect percentages

"The Sun and the Milky Way Galaxy are composed of roughly 70% hydrogen, 30% helium, and 2% "metals" by mass.[1]" <-- That can't possibly be right, where's this extra 2% coming from?. --Rajah (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Roughy its 3/4 Hydrogen 1/4 Helium and a pinch of the rest...if you want more precise numbers...
[1]:

Hydrogen and helium are estimated to make up roughly 74% and 24% of all baryonic matter in the universe respectively. Despite comprising only a very small fraction of the universe, the remaining "heavy elements" can greatly influence astronomical phenomena. Only about 2% (by mass) of the Milky Way galaxy's disk is composed of heavy elements.

i.e. 74+24+2=100, but

In astronomy, a "metal" is any element other than hydrogen or helium.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'll take this one.

I've got a few books regarding metals/chemistry from the library, and will be adding references/content over the course of the next n weeks, where n = randInt(0,52). Ziggy Sawdust 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Band structures

Metals do not necessarily have 'overlapping' conduction and valence bands. It is sufficient to have some incompletely filled band. I.e. the Fermi level needs to fall inside a band rather than in a gap between bands. (One might add that the band has to be broad enough that it overcomes any localizing potentials, but this is a refinement related to Hubbard's U etc.) Jcwf (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)