News1 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.
To clarify my 00:07 29/06/06 post above, I was of course referring to the physical properties of the Indalloy sample at below 6.5 degrees Celsius whilst it is in a solid form.
The Indalloy melts completely at 7.6 degrees Celsius.
Here's a riddle: When is an alloy not an alloy?
Answer: When it's Gun Metal, Babbitt Metal, Britannia Metal, Admiralty Metal or a whole host of others.
It seems our scientific forefathers have a lot to answer for - or do they?
The Indalloy melts completely at 7.6 degrees Celsius.
Here's a riddle: When is an alloy not an alloy?
Answer: When it's Gun Metal, Babbitt Metal, Britannia Metal, Admiralty Metal or a whole host of others.
It seems our scientific forefathers have a lot to answer for - or do they?
I'm glad that you thought it necessary to take up so much of your time to reply.
I'll repeat, again. Mercury is a metal. It is a liquid at normal temperature. It is a liquid at temperatures that scientists quote physical properties. The species you mention, fascinating as they may be, do not satisfy these requirements. I'm flattered that you have taken so much of your valuable time to contribute to this thread, and to reply to my posts in particular. By all means, continue to attempt to convince your students that the species you quote are metals and are liquid at "normal temperature." Continue to advise the government. I don't care.
I'll repeat, again. Mercury is a metal. It is a liquid at normal temperature. It is a liquid at temperatures that scientists quote physical properties. The species you mention, fascinating as they may be, do not satisfy these requirements. I'm flattered that you have taken so much of your valuable time to contribute to this thread, and to reply to my posts in particular. By all means, continue to attempt to convince your students that the species you quote are metals and are liquid at "normal temperature." Continue to advise the government. I don't care.
I'm privileged in that I can find as much time as necessary to reply to this thread.
I also feel duty bound to continue replying in order to prevent readers from being misled by other information posted here. I'm pleased you appreciate my continuing input.
I have demonstrated elsewhere that your narrow and inflexible view on this matter is flawed. Remarkably, you appear to wish to challenge the information contained within standard reference works such as Hawley. I should not have to remind you that the definitions expressed in such works are the work of scientists far better qualified than you or I. I would suggest you think very carefully before sticking your neck out in this way unless you can prove that you are a greater authority than they.
Flattery was not the objective here, although clearly it would be possible to view the matter as such if one was so mistakenly predisposed.
With regard to convincing students that the species mentioned are metals and are liquid at "normal temperature", I have no need to do so. If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that I am a professor of biochemistry with degrees in chemistry, biology and biochemistry.
(continued)
I also feel duty bound to continue replying in order to prevent readers from being misled by other information posted here. I'm pleased you appreciate my continuing input.
I have demonstrated elsewhere that your narrow and inflexible view on this matter is flawed. Remarkably, you appear to wish to challenge the information contained within standard reference works such as Hawley. I should not have to remind you that the definitions expressed in such works are the work of scientists far better qualified than you or I. I would suggest you think very carefully before sticking your neck out in this way unless you can prove that you are a greater authority than they.
Flattery was not the objective here, although clearly it would be possible to view the matter as such if one was so mistakenly predisposed.
With regard to convincing students that the species mentioned are metals and are liquid at "normal temperature", I have no need to do so. If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that I am a professor of biochemistry with degrees in chemistry, biology and biochemistry.
(continued)
Nevertheless, despite having Bachelor, Master, PhD, D.Phil and Sc.D degrees in chemistry as well as the obligatory fellowships, I do not lecture pure chemistry to any student at this university and due to the uniqueness of the question, "convincing" them on this issue as you put it, is a matter that is unlikely to arise. Bearing in mind that I have provided details of my professorship previously and that you should be familiar with university protocol, it is surprising that you have made such a fundamental mistake. What type of university did you attend?
Incidentally, now that I've put the cards on the table regarding my qualifications, I think it's only fair that you enlighten us all by revealing yours. Shall I take a guess as to which of us is more qualified and experienced to provide the definitive answer to this question? Will it be you or I that would be relegated to an "et al" upon publishing a paper on the issue? Are you claiming to be better qualified to provide the definitive answer here than the many chemistry lecturers, readers and professors here at this prestigious university?
You see, regardless of your contempt for my experience, views and paper qualifications, the bottom line is that I am better qualified to provide the definitive answer here, although I have no intention of demeaning your degree and experience. Let us also not forget the hierarchy involved here, regardless of your admiration or contempt for the protocol.
(continued)
Incidentally, now that I've put the cards on the table regarding my qualifications, I think it's only fair that you enlighten us all by revealing yours. Shall I take a guess as to which of us is more qualified and experienced to provide the definitive answer to this question? Will it be you or I that would be relegated to an "et al" upon publishing a paper on the issue? Are you claiming to be better qualified to provide the definitive answer here than the many chemistry lecturers, readers and professors here at this prestigious university?
You see, regardless of your contempt for my experience, views and paper qualifications, the bottom line is that I am better qualified to provide the definitive answer here, although I have no intention of demeaning your degree and experience. Let us also not forget the hierarchy involved here, regardless of your admiration or contempt for the protocol.
(continued)
Isn�t it curious that other chemistry graduates who post on AB seem to have dropped out of offering their opinions on this issue leaving just you and I. Think about it. I can take a pretty good guess as to the reason why. Can you? Here�s a clue: How many other professors� post on AB? This is not about pulling rank � it is a matter of experience and knowledge.
I will continue to advise the government from my other part-time posts and I am grateful for your approval.
Your final sentence displays to us once again a degree of tetchiness and frustration unbecoming someone who has apparently dedicated a few years to achieving a chemistry degree. It's not impressive and is the sort of response I would expect from an adolescent rather than a graduate. Furthermore, when this irritability is combined with your puerile, dangerous and irresponsible suggestion that I hold a pellet of Caesium in my hand, it makes me wonder whom I am dealing with here. You wouldn't be looking for a job would you?
Finally, on a general note, I would remind others that again you have chosen to reply selectively to my posts and have evaded answering specifically. You may be working under the guise of conciseness. To me, it displays nothing other than your failure to provide cogent specific counter-arguments and the phrase �clutching at straws� seems very apt right now.
I will continue to advise the government from my other part-time posts and I am grateful for your approval.
Your final sentence displays to us once again a degree of tetchiness and frustration unbecoming someone who has apparently dedicated a few years to achieving a chemistry degree. It's not impressive and is the sort of response I would expect from an adolescent rather than a graduate. Furthermore, when this irritability is combined with your puerile, dangerous and irresponsible suggestion that I hold a pellet of Caesium in my hand, it makes me wonder whom I am dealing with here. You wouldn't be looking for a job would you?
Finally, on a general note, I would remind others that again you have chosen to reply selectively to my posts and have evaded answering specifically. You may be working under the guise of conciseness. To me, it displays nothing other than your failure to provide cogent specific counter-arguments and the phrase �clutching at straws� seems very apt right now.
I would add that I haven't bothered reading most of theProf's posts, because I could gauge quite early on how hysterical they were becoming. I was, however, rather flattered that they paid so much attention to my own. I still don't feel the need to lay may own qualifications before everybody. I'd rather let the truth of my postings speak for me.
Well I thought Newtron had it right all along.
There's nothing like ignoring questions when you can't answer them is there? Too many questions for you were there? Can't stand up and be counted or is it a question of limited knowledge?
Flattery wasn't involved - you made a point or asked a question and I replied. I suppose if you're that way inclined and acknowledge that your the only poster, you could become conceited and develop a big-head in no time at all.
I thought you weren't reading my posts. If not how did you know I asked about your qualifications. Did I mention something about tetchiness?
Indalloy. I said in the original post that it was an alloy. Newtron picked up on it yet you've chosen to ignore my admission. As he/she said, I did not give any false information.
Finally folks, shammydodger wishes to tell you all that steel, bronze, brass and innumerable other "metals" are not really "metals" at all, not even in a loose sense. I wonder what he will tell us they are? Are they a new species unknown to science? Are they a type of wood or plastic? Who knows.
Tell us all, you do have a degree don't you? It's not from the OU by any chance?
I'll say again. for the purposes of this question, Mercury is not the only answer.
There's nothing like ignoring questions when you can't answer them is there? Too many questions for you were there? Can't stand up and be counted or is it a question of limited knowledge?
Flattery wasn't involved - you made a point or asked a question and I replied. I suppose if you're that way inclined and acknowledge that your the only poster, you could become conceited and develop a big-head in no time at all.
I thought you weren't reading my posts. If not how did you know I asked about your qualifications. Did I mention something about tetchiness?
Indalloy. I said in the original post that it was an alloy. Newtron picked up on it yet you've chosen to ignore my admission. As he/she said, I did not give any false information.
Finally folks, shammydodger wishes to tell you all that steel, bronze, brass and innumerable other "metals" are not really "metals" at all, not even in a loose sense. I wonder what he will tell us they are? Are they a new species unknown to science? Are they a type of wood or plastic? Who knows.
Tell us all, you do have a degree don't you? It's not from the OU by any chance?
I'll say again. for the purposes of this question, Mercury is not the only answer.
I thought for years that multiple-choice questions were only something that was encountered in an examination room.
How mistaken I've been. Clearly some people appear to want to choose which questions or comments they reply to on AB and ignore those that they cannot answer.
Education nowadays has a lot to answer for.
How mistaken I've been. Clearly some people appear to want to choose which questions or comments they reply to on AB and ignore those that they cannot answer.
Education nowadays has a lot to answer for.
At last my friend you've confirmed you're not a chemist but a charlatan. Can you not word a post without vulgarity? It's very unbecoming of a so-called "qualified chemist" - been loking on wikipedia have you? Come on, own up, you've really not got any qualifications in chemistry at all have you?
I'll repeat: whether you like it or not, to the man in the street, steel, bronze and brass are metals. You're pedantry has no place here. Alloys are, after all, composed of metals are they not? Bronze and brass are both a mixture of metals and both behave as metals when alloyed. They are metals to joe public whether you like it not. Go on, stick you're neck out and tell them their plastics!
Before you start ranting and raving again, wasn't it you who said you that you didn't wish to disagree with anything I said in one of you're earlier posts. In that case, do us all a favour and don't bang you're head on the wall anymore.
Somewhere in an earlier post, I read you've admitted to posting while drunk. Been at it again have you? It really does spoil the clarity of your posts.
I've got no need to bask my friend. The great and the good hold me in high esteem. Whether you do or not is insignificant.
You've taken an age to reply again. Tut-tut. Pot calling the kettle black?
Oh by the way, I forgot to be hysterical again!
I'll repeat: whether you like it or not, to the man in the street, steel, bronze and brass are metals. You're pedantry has no place here. Alloys are, after all, composed of metals are they not? Bronze and brass are both a mixture of metals and both behave as metals when alloyed. They are metals to joe public whether you like it not. Go on, stick you're neck out and tell them their plastics!
Before you start ranting and raving again, wasn't it you who said you that you didn't wish to disagree with anything I said in one of you're earlier posts. In that case, do us all a favour and don't bang you're head on the wall anymore.
Somewhere in an earlier post, I read you've admitted to posting while drunk. Been at it again have you? It really does spoil the clarity of your posts.
I've got no need to bask my friend. The great and the good hold me in high esteem. Whether you do or not is insignificant.
You've taken an age to reply again. Tut-tut. Pot calling the kettle black?
Oh by the way, I forgot to be hysterical again!
:) You really do allow yourself to get wound up, don't you?
What do you mean by "we"? Nobody else seems to be bothered. You really do need to get down off your perch. If you think I am insulted by someone such as yourself, regardless of how much fruit salad you display on your chest, then you are seriously deluded.
What do you mean by "we"? Nobody else seems to be bothered. You really do need to get down off your perch. If you think I am insulted by someone such as yourself, regardless of how much fruit salad you display on your chest, then you are seriously deluded.
Thank you, by the way, for keeping me entertained; although I never was and never will be your "friend." I'm glad I seem to be keeping you troubled. Brass, brass, brass, bronze, bronze, bronze, metal, metal, metal. I don't need to try to insult you by asking if you are really a scientist. You've insulted yourself.
