Crosswords0 min ago
liquid metal
Which metal is liquid at normal temperatures? Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mallory. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have answered many questions relating to matters, which I am told I have particular expertise in. As well as being a university professor, and a government advisor, I explain scientific matters to children from the age of seven to seventeen. Each of these groups requires a different approach when explaining scientific concepts, but they all are only able to understand matters within the boundaries of pre-existing knowledge. As an example, would you as a chemistry graduate discuss tetrahedral intermediates involved in the formation and hydrolysis of carboxylic acid esters with a group of twelve year olds? I think we can guess the answer.
It follows that is important to know whether a questioner is a scientist or otherwise. Take a practical step to prove it yourself: post the question on Google Groups Chemistry and be prepared for the abuse that follows from our fellow scientists.
I read the question, judged the likely knowledge of the questioner and answered accordingly.
Scientists are required to be accurate and precise admitingly, but I suggest to you that common sense must occasionally prevail. After all, no scientist has gone out on the street as far as I�m aware and tried to persuade the general public that steel is not a metal. I wonder who shall be the first and the reception that person receives would be something I would not miss for the world. Will you volunteer?
It follows that is important to know whether a questioner is a scientist or otherwise. Take a practical step to prove it yourself: post the question on Google Groups Chemistry and be prepared for the abuse that follows from our fellow scientists.
I read the question, judged the likely knowledge of the questioner and answered accordingly.
Scientists are required to be accurate and precise admitingly, but I suggest to you that common sense must occasionally prevail. After all, no scientist has gone out on the street as far as I�m aware and tried to persuade the general public that steel is not a metal. I wonder who shall be the first and the reception that person receives would be something I would not miss for the world. Will you volunteer?
Shammydodger:
To continue, I agree with you that the list of metals posted prior to my melting post list, are not truly within what I would term �normal temperatures.� I would be prepared to consider the metals up to 37 degrees Celsius within the range due to it being the normal human body temperature as this is a convention followed by others in the past.
Nevertheless, I trust you will note that I provide the list using only the elements provided by previous posters and did not add any of my own : I merely wished to clarify the issue for other readers. Listing elements beyond a melting point of forty degrees Celsius would have been unacceptable.
Unfortunately, I have to point out that you are Zevon are incorrect to assume that Mercury is the only answer. If we remain pedantic and think of elements alone, I would suggest that you obtain a small rod of Gallium and place it on the back of your hand. You will observe it melting before your eyes in very few seconds. Now from your definition, Hawley and no doubt numerous other works, Gallium is a metal. Are you prepared to revise your list? I�ll leave you to check Francium and Caesium.
Continued
To continue, I agree with you that the list of metals posted prior to my melting post list, are not truly within what I would term �normal temperatures.� I would be prepared to consider the metals up to 37 degrees Celsius within the range due to it being the normal human body temperature as this is a convention followed by others in the past.
Nevertheless, I trust you will note that I provide the list using only the elements provided by previous posters and did not add any of my own : I merely wished to clarify the issue for other readers. Listing elements beyond a melting point of forty degrees Celsius would have been unacceptable.
Unfortunately, I have to point out that you are Zevon are incorrect to assume that Mercury is the only answer. If we remain pedantic and think of elements alone, I would suggest that you obtain a small rod of Gallium and place it on the back of your hand. You will observe it melting before your eyes in very few seconds. Now from your definition, Hawley and no doubt numerous other works, Gallium is a metal. Are you prepared to revise your list? I�ll leave you to check Francium and Caesium.
Continued
Shammydodger:
I have already explained why it is of considerable consequence whether the questioner was a scientist or nay, as you put it. Did you consider that the poster might have posted the question in the singular inadvertently? It would be feasible that this could occur if the poster had a preconceived idea that mercury was the only one. It could also be a typo. The age of the poster could also have some relevance here.
It is incorrect to confine yourself to mercury alone for reasons I have given elsewhere. I also find your reasoning for dismissing alloys in the context of this question and the fact we are on AB quite astonishing, but I have discussed my reasons elsewhere.
In your final post once again, you mention that you do not wish to �fall out� with me. Yet you also concur with me . I would politely suggest that you need to look up a general chemistry reference work, such as Hawley�s dictionary if possible to confirm to yourself that Gallium and Caesium are metals. You will find they even meet your criteria. I fail to see the problem in accepting them as such. Try looking them up in Wikipedia if all else fails.
I have already explained why it is of considerable consequence whether the questioner was a scientist or nay, as you put it. Did you consider that the poster might have posted the question in the singular inadvertently? It would be feasible that this could occur if the poster had a preconceived idea that mercury was the only one. It could also be a typo. The age of the poster could also have some relevance here.
It is incorrect to confine yourself to mercury alone for reasons I have given elsewhere. I also find your reasoning for dismissing alloys in the context of this question and the fact we are on AB quite astonishing, but I have discussed my reasons elsewhere.
In your final post once again, you mention that you do not wish to �fall out� with me. Yet you also concur with me . I would politely suggest that you need to look up a general chemistry reference work, such as Hawley�s dictionary if possible to confirm to yourself that Gallium and Caesium are metals. You will find they even meet your criteria. I fail to see the problem in accepting them as such. Try looking them up in Wikipedia if all else fails.
I concurred with you insofar as that you did not make any false statements. It remains, however, that "metal", to a scientist (and this is, after all, a science forum) has a strict definition. Alloys do not fall under that definition. By all means let "the man on the street" think that steel and the like are metals.
The question was quite specific. "Which metal is....." Not, "which metals is" or "which metal are", that would allow for typos. That allows for only one answer. One could debate the meaning of "normal" till the cows come home. To a scientist, there are two temperatures that are generally used when considering physical properties. One is zero degrees Celsius, or the Kelvin equivalent, and the other is 25 degrees Celsius, or the Kelvin equivalent. The latter is sometimes referred to as "room temperature" as in the phrase "room temperature and pressure." While "room temperature" might, to a layman, seem a rather vague term, it has a strict meaning to a scientist, be they a chemist or not. So, as the question states "normal temperatures", I don't think it is unreasonable to answer the question from the standpoint of either temperature. Therefore, I don't think it is unreasonable to answer "mercury" to the exclusion of all other metals. This is obviously something upon which we will have to agree to disagree.
And please don't attempt to insult me, a chemistry graduate (since you raised the subject of degrees), by suggesting I consult a reference work to ascertain what are and are not metals. I am well aware that caesium and gallium are such. I am also well aware, Wikipedia or not, that neither are liquid at what are generally considered "normal temperatures." And you can, with my consent, try holding a pellet of caesium in your hand to see if it melts.
Shammydodger:
I'll begin by apologising for not replying earlier. This has been due to work commitments. In view of the fact that you took four days to reply to my last post, you�re not the most rapid replier yourself.
I'll admit that I had begun to think that you had seen the logic in the argument. Nevertheless, It was also feasible that you had joined the ranks of those posters who prefer not to admit to the flaws in their arguments after they have been pointed out to them.
As you seem to desire to be classified as neither, here I am.
I'll begin by apologising for not replying earlier. This has been due to work commitments. In view of the fact that you took four days to reply to my last post, you�re not the most rapid replier yourself.
I'll admit that I had begun to think that you had seen the logic in the argument. Nevertheless, It was also feasible that you had joined the ranks of those posters who prefer not to admit to the flaws in their arguments after they have been pointed out to them.
As you seem to desire to be classified as neither, here I am.
Shammydodger:
Firstly, the reason I referred to Wikipedia was that I have no knowledge of the resources you have at your fingertips and I have found that a considerable number of people on AB, qualified or not, seem to rely upon it as a dependable source of reference.
It is encouraging to see that your opinion differs from the norm.. However, would I be correct in detecting a note of irony and anger in your first post?
You see Shammydodger, no matter what our opinion is of Wikipedia, it sufficed to confirm laconically the information that may be gleaned from more academic texts. It is a popular resource that anyone reading AB can refer to for confirmation or otherwise when access to such things as the Knovel Library, Beilstein and Gmelin are outside the realms of the general public.
I like people to have the ability to confirm such matters themselves, AB readers included, in order to view matters from a wider perspective. To do otherwise, would lead to accusations of scientists being unbending dictators of information and not informers.
It is all too easy for scientists to hide behind their esoteric journals, textbooks and reference sources. I have already discussed the disadvantages of confining ourselves to one discipline in an earlier post. Take a moment to look at the bigger picture of this thread.
Firstly, the reason I referred to Wikipedia was that I have no knowledge of the resources you have at your fingertips and I have found that a considerable number of people on AB, qualified or not, seem to rely upon it as a dependable source of reference.
It is encouraging to see that your opinion differs from the norm.. However, would I be correct in detecting a note of irony and anger in your first post?
You see Shammydodger, no matter what our opinion is of Wikipedia, it sufficed to confirm laconically the information that may be gleaned from more academic texts. It is a popular resource that anyone reading AB can refer to for confirmation or otherwise when access to such things as the Knovel Library, Beilstein and Gmelin are outside the realms of the general public.
I like people to have the ability to confirm such matters themselves, AB readers included, in order to view matters from a wider perspective. To do otherwise, would lead to accusations of scientists being unbending dictators of information and not informers.
It is all too easy for scientists to hide behind their esoteric journals, textbooks and reference sources. I have already discussed the disadvantages of confining ourselves to one discipline in an earlier post. Take a moment to look at the bigger picture of this thread.
Shammydodger:
Full marks for mystifying me (and no doubt, readers of this thread), on the matter of your concurrence with my statements thus:
In your 00:58 post on 08/06/06, you state:
�I concur with all that you have said in your latest post�
In your 00:00 post on 14/06/06 you state:
�I concurred with you insofar as that you did not make any false statements�
It should be apparent to all readers that in one statement you concur with all I said, yet in the other, you have modified your view on the matter and used the word concur innapropriately.
Let us simplify matters. Either you agreed with what I said or you did not. There is no place here for conditional agreement and in the event your agreement was conditional, you should have stated that in your replies. If you intended your agreement to be conditional, we would have appreciated your admission because I could then have taken the steps to justify the outstanding matters. You chose not to do so and I am puzzled by this attitude.
If you disagree with my statements, then please say so. There really is no need to conceal your misgivings over my assertions and you have no need to spare my blushes because as scientists, we should not be reluctant to admit our mistakes. Wouldn�t you agree?
I would have said that the AB Science forum was not the place for scientists to demonstrate their readiness to move the goalposts.
Full marks for mystifying me (and no doubt, readers of this thread), on the matter of your concurrence with my statements thus:
In your 00:58 post on 08/06/06, you state:
�I concur with all that you have said in your latest post�
In your 00:00 post on 14/06/06 you state:
�I concurred with you insofar as that you did not make any false statements�
It should be apparent to all readers that in one statement you concur with all I said, yet in the other, you have modified your view on the matter and used the word concur innapropriately.
Let us simplify matters. Either you agreed with what I said or you did not. There is no place here for conditional agreement and in the event your agreement was conditional, you should have stated that in your replies. If you intended your agreement to be conditional, we would have appreciated your admission because I could then have taken the steps to justify the outstanding matters. You chose not to do so and I am puzzled by this attitude.
If you disagree with my statements, then please say so. There really is no need to conceal your misgivings over my assertions and you have no need to spare my blushes because as scientists, we should not be reluctant to admit our mistakes. Wouldn�t you agree?
I would have said that the AB Science forum was not the place for scientists to demonstrate their readiness to move the goalposts.
Shammydodger:
I am pleased that you will allow the man in the street to think that steel is a metal. Persuading them otherwise would be a thankless and futile task. No doubt you will also find it acceptable for them to consider that other alloys are metal too.
I will not reiterate my reasons why I consider it perfectly acceptable for the man on the street to consider alloys and metals alike as metals as they are available on an earlier post. However, I do note that you have not detailed a single convincing argument as to why the general public should think otherwise. You clearly admit that you are happy for the public to retain their concept of a metal. Yet, you are sufficiently pedantic to state that are alloys are not metals. Do you not find yourself at odds with these beliefs?
You state that this is a science forum and appear to imply that we must confine ourselves to the strict definition of a metal in our replies. I would remind you that AB is a public forum with a science forum category � it�s as simple as that. The science category allows both non-scientists and scientists to ask the most complicated or basic of questions to scientists, or the general public.
Pedantry over metals and alloys is uncalled for in such a forum, but then I have given my reasons elsewhere. I have always found a narrow, pedantic viewpoint to be one of the first to tumble under the weight of common sense especially the assertor is happy not to modify the beliefs of the public at large. The phrase �own goal� comes to mind here.
I am pleased that you will allow the man in the street to think that steel is a metal. Persuading them otherwise would be a thankless and futile task. No doubt you will also find it acceptable for them to consider that other alloys are metal too.
I will not reiterate my reasons why I consider it perfectly acceptable for the man on the street to consider alloys and metals alike as metals as they are available on an earlier post. However, I do note that you have not detailed a single convincing argument as to why the general public should think otherwise. You clearly admit that you are happy for the public to retain their concept of a metal. Yet, you are sufficiently pedantic to state that are alloys are not metals. Do you not find yourself at odds with these beliefs?
You state that this is a science forum and appear to imply that we must confine ourselves to the strict definition of a metal in our replies. I would remind you that AB is a public forum with a science forum category � it�s as simple as that. The science category allows both non-scientists and scientists to ask the most complicated or basic of questions to scientists, or the general public.
Pedantry over metals and alloys is uncalled for in such a forum, but then I have given my reasons elsewhere. I have always found a narrow, pedantic viewpoint to be one of the first to tumble under the weight of common sense especially the assertor is happy not to modify the beliefs of the public at large. The phrase �own goal� comes to mind here.
Shammydodger:
The fact that the initial words were phrased in the manner they were does not preclude the possibility that the OP thought that there was more than one possible answer. As I stated, there could be many reasons to account for the way the question was worded and I am surprised that you feel unable to acknowledge that.
Turning to the phrasing of the first sentence of the second paragraph in your 00:00 14/06/06 post, what are you trying to convey when you state �which metals is� and �which metal are� My apologies, but this seems gobbledegook to me. It�s not very good English is it? Furthermore, it hardly supports any argument you wish to put forward as the sequence of words in the sentence makes the overall meaning totally meaningless. I remain at a loss.
We could indeed debate the meaning of �normal� �till the cows come home. Once again I have previously discussed the concept from a conventional historical scientific standpoint elsewhere. Consequently, I maintain that �normal temperature� in the context of the question equates very roughly to room temperature. Out of curiosity, I�ve asked members of the public and they�ve told that they concur with my view. Go on, give it a try yourself or do I detect pedantry raising its ugly head again?
The fact that the initial words were phrased in the manner they were does not preclude the possibility that the OP thought that there was more than one possible answer. As I stated, there could be many reasons to account for the way the question was worded and I am surprised that you feel unable to acknowledge that.
Turning to the phrasing of the first sentence of the second paragraph in your 00:00 14/06/06 post, what are you trying to convey when you state �which metals is� and �which metal are� My apologies, but this seems gobbledegook to me. It�s not very good English is it? Furthermore, it hardly supports any argument you wish to put forward as the sequence of words in the sentence makes the overall meaning totally meaningless. I remain at a loss.
We could indeed debate the meaning of �normal� �till the cows come home. Once again I have previously discussed the concept from a conventional historical scientific standpoint elsewhere. Consequently, I maintain that �normal temperature� in the context of the question equates very roughly to room temperature. Out of curiosity, I�ve asked members of the public and they�ve told that they concur with my view. Go on, give it a try yourself or do I detect pedantry raising its ugly head again?
Shammydodger:
It would seem that you think I have intended to insult you amongst my posts. Nothing could be further from the truth. What would I have to gain by doing so? You are after all, entitled to your opinion in the same way as other posters on the forum. If you have considered that I have insulted you, please accept my deepest apologies, as this was not the intention. Rest assured, I appreciate the fresh viewpoint of a chemistry graduate
I am pleased that you accept that Caesium and Gallium are metals. I am however having difficulty in appreciating why you think I would desire to hold a pellet of Caesium in my hand. Do I detect here sarcasm combined with elements of anger, frustration and desperation? I trust you do not make a habit of recommending such an irresponsible action. I also trust you�re not employed in the academic field.
Can you not accept that Indalloys exist and to they have the same physical and chemical properties as metals and would be regarded as metals by the majority of the population including the OP? The components of alloys are ordinarily themselves metals, (with the exception of a few alloys such as steel). It�s a simple enough equation and not difficult to understand:
Metal A + Metal B = Metal C (alloy)
We are after all not asking the public to believe that combining Metal A and Metal B results in wood, which is almost as far from metal as you would like us to believe alloys are.
It would seem that you think I have intended to insult you amongst my posts. Nothing could be further from the truth. What would I have to gain by doing so? You are after all, entitled to your opinion in the same way as other posters on the forum. If you have considered that I have insulted you, please accept my deepest apologies, as this was not the intention. Rest assured, I appreciate the fresh viewpoint of a chemistry graduate
I am pleased that you accept that Caesium and Gallium are metals. I am however having difficulty in appreciating why you think I would desire to hold a pellet of Caesium in my hand. Do I detect here sarcasm combined with elements of anger, frustration and desperation? I trust you do not make a habit of recommending such an irresponsible action. I also trust you�re not employed in the academic field.
Can you not accept that Indalloys exist and to they have the same physical and chemical properties as metals and would be regarded as metals by the majority of the population including the OP? The components of alloys are ordinarily themselves metals, (with the exception of a few alloys such as steel). It�s a simple enough equation and not difficult to understand:
Metal A + Metal B = Metal C (alloy)
We are after all not asking the public to believe that combining Metal A and Metal B results in wood, which is almost as far from metal as you would like us to believe alloys are.
Shammydodger:
I have obtained a quantity of one of the Indalloys I mentioned from the USA and sure enough it was flowing around in a beaker in the laboratory earlier today. Placing it in a fridge restores it to a solid metal within a very short time.
I note that you have chosen to reply to only some of the points I raised in my posts and have not challenged or questioned others. This is not the first time I have encountered this attitude on AB and it usually signifies a significant degree of agreement with my views or the fact that the poster cannot provide a substantive unchallengeable or provable assertion to the contrary. Clearly as your lasts posts are relatively concise, you have little to complain about my posts. I am grateful.
I have already tried to account for the delay in replying to your posts. In my position, I would not be in the job long if I backed off and ran each time someone challenged my opinion. You appear to imply that I have done so. I would also suggest that you check what the word �eloquent� means.
I have obtained a quantity of one of the Indalloys I mentioned from the USA and sure enough it was flowing around in a beaker in the laboratory earlier today. Placing it in a fridge restores it to a solid metal within a very short time.
I note that you have chosen to reply to only some of the points I raised in my posts and have not challenged or questioned others. This is not the first time I have encountered this attitude on AB and it usually signifies a significant degree of agreement with my views or the fact that the poster cannot provide a substantive unchallengeable or provable assertion to the contrary. Clearly as your lasts posts are relatively concise, you have little to complain about my posts. I am grateful.
I have already tried to account for the delay in replying to your posts. In my position, I would not be in the job long if I backed off and ran each time someone challenged my opinion. You appear to imply that I have done so. I would also suggest that you check what the word �eloquent� means.
I will simplify matters for you.
Mercury is a metal. It is a liquid at room temperature. That is, a temperature at which physical properties of chemical substances are routinely quoted. The species you mentioned are neither. Simple enough? Your qualifications don't frighten me. Nor does your position as a government advisor.
Mercury is a metal. It is a liquid at room temperature. That is, a temperature at which physical properties of chemical substances are routinely quoted. The species you mentioned are neither. Simple enough? Your qualifications don't frighten me. Nor does your position as a government advisor.
I�m pleased you�ve replied Shammydodger. Didn�t you state that my silence was �eloquent� because I didn�t reply for three days? You�ve been missing for six days. Ah Well.
Let me begin by stating that the specific Indalloy I referred to is certainly a liquid at room temperatures. It behaves in exactly the same way as Mercury in vitro with almost identical physical properties. In no sense could it be termed a solid. Subjecting the alloy to low temperature does solidify it, but then again the same things happens to Mercury albeit not at the same temperature.
According to Hawley�s Condensed Chemical Dictionary (14th edition) an alloy may be defined as:
�A solid or liquid mixture of two or more metals, or of one or more metals with certain nonmetallic elements, as in carbon steels�
The Indalloy in my laboratory is an alloy of two metals but when solid, it looks like a metal, feels like a metal and has a metallic lustre. It is a conductor of electricity, has rather high chemical reactivity, is quite hard and has high physical strength.
Now here�s Hawley�s definition of a metal;
�Most are crystalline solids with metallic lustre, conductors of electricity, and have rather high chemical reactivity; many are quite hard and have high physical strength�
Ring any bells?
To summarise and conclude, like it or not, for the purpose of this question, Indalloy can be regarded as a metal.
Please be assured that I�ve never used my qualifications and/or status in academia or elsewhere to frighten or intimidate others. You really need not feel frightened or intimidated.
I will admit that some of my esteemed colleagues are less accommodating than myself and maintain an air of superiority throughout their careers. Perhaps your attitude here may be attributable to your own personal encounter with such an individual. Nevertheless, please
Let me begin by stating that the specific Indalloy I referred to is certainly a liquid at room temperatures. It behaves in exactly the same way as Mercury in vitro with almost identical physical properties. In no sense could it be termed a solid. Subjecting the alloy to low temperature does solidify it, but then again the same things happens to Mercury albeit not at the same temperature.
According to Hawley�s Condensed Chemical Dictionary (14th edition) an alloy may be defined as:
�A solid or liquid mixture of two or more metals, or of one or more metals with certain nonmetallic elements, as in carbon steels�
The Indalloy in my laboratory is an alloy of two metals but when solid, it looks like a metal, feels like a metal and has a metallic lustre. It is a conductor of electricity, has rather high chemical reactivity, is quite hard and has high physical strength.
Now here�s Hawley�s definition of a metal;
�Most are crystalline solids with metallic lustre, conductors of electricity, and have rather high chemical reactivity; many are quite hard and have high physical strength�
Ring any bells?
To summarise and conclude, like it or not, for the purpose of this question, Indalloy can be regarded as a metal.
Please be assured that I�ve never used my qualifications and/or status in academia or elsewhere to frighten or intimidate others. You really need not feel frightened or intimidated.
I will admit that some of my esteemed colleagues are less accommodating than myself and maintain an air of superiority throughout their careers. Perhaps your attitude here may be attributable to your own personal encounter with such an individual. Nevertheless, please
