Could metal be made liquid?

Here's a question for you.

If you charge a metal to a highly positive state, that is to say, remove a great many electrons will it loose it's ability to remain a solid? Assuming you have removed most but not all of the binding electrons would it become a liquid?

I'm just looking for opinions.

I don't think you simply charge a metal enough to turn it into a metal without heating it. I'm not really sure though.

Of course mercury is already a liquid at room temperature and other metals can be heated to a molten state.

I have a quantity of Gallium (GA) which is ofcourse liquid at 28 degrees C.

I do not think you can artifically force a liquid state, unless you resort to supercooling. I beleive water can be liquid far below the freezing point if you apply the correct techniques.

I think you should change your thread title to include the words "certain" and "at room temperature".

True.

I second that.

I'm here in the work lab making a lot of liquid metal, one solder joint at a time.

I suppose you mean "other than by heating it", to which I'll say lots of metals can be chemically dissolved, which would fit.

Actually, to address your comment, I'm not sure that removing electrons will cause any state change at all. Sitting here thinking about it and can't come up with a single example.

You can do really unusual and permanent things to the structure of metals with chemicals, although usually it's in the direction of being more and not less brittle.

Are you asking about electrorheological metal gels? (sorry about the one liner)

As a thought experiment, I think if you were able to put a sample of metal into a perfect vacuum then begin extracting the electrons from it, the metal would probably eventually sublime into a gas. But I don't know if it would be possible in the real world to extract enough of the electrons to do that.

Originally posted by angryScientist
Here's a question for you.

If you charge a metal to a highly positive state, that is to say, remove a great many electrons will it loose it's ability to remain a solid? Assuming you have removed most but not all of the binding electrons would it become a liquid?

I'm just looking for opinions.

Possibly , after all there is no law of gravity only theories of observation.....

From what I know of materials science, assuming you could do this, the metal would still be a solid. If you removed enough electrons, you might break enough bonds that the solid piece of metal might fracture into many smaller pieces, those where the electrons were still a part of the crystalline bonding.

Pressure on a substance also affects what state the matter is in. In the case of metal, however, nearly all metals are still solid even in vacuum, assuming they haven't been heated to melting. Intense pressure can 'force' a gas into a liquid or a liquid into a solid, even at temperatures it isn't normally able to do so. Looking up 'phase diagrams' and 'triple point' on google or wiki or something should explain it. Conversely, if you are on a tall mountain, for example, where the pressure is not as great as at sea level, water (and everything else) will boil at a slightly lower temperature than it would at sea level.

Could metal be made liquid?

YES

If you charge a metal to a highly positive state, that is to say, remove a great many electrons will it loose it's ability to remain a solid? Assuming you have removed most but not all of the binding electrons would it become a liquid?

your answer is NO

if you remove electrons from any substance(and deny it from gaining a new electron), you change the composition of that material. if the material is able to gain/lose protons and neutrons you will have a different material.

electrons are necessary for an atom to stabilize. if there are not enough electrons the atom breaks down into a more stable form(which is a different material).

covalent bonds are the closest thing that can be related to your question.[molecules sharing electrons]

solid-liquid-gas are states of temperature difference of a material. every element on the periodic table can exist as any of the three state(givin that the right environment is at hand).

if you original material drops to a new material. that share the same temperature ranges it can stay a solid, if that new material has a different tempratue range it could become a liquid (or a gas).



[edit on 12/2/07 by Glyph_D]

Originally posted by Glyph_D

if you remove electrons from any substance(and deny it from gaining a new electron), you change the composition of that material.

Incorrect. You will change the chemical behavior of the material but the composition will not change. Electron states relate to chemical changes, it requires a nuclear change to become a different material.

if the material is able to gain/lose protons and neutrons you will have a different material.

That part is right.

electrons are necessary for an atom to stabilize. if there are not enough electrons the atom breaks down into a more stable form(which is a different material).

Incorrect. The state of the electron shell has no effect on the nucleus. The atom will not 'break down'. It's fairly common for atoms to be in some sort of ionized state.

This has nothing to do with room temperature, the op is asking wether an electric charge can change a metal from solid to liquid or gas. Of course, electrolysis of table salt at 800 celsius will decompose the salt to sodium and chlorine.

Let's start with, how would you get rid of all those electrons? It would take a tremendous amount of energy to do so. But, I guess it would become gaseous-like, possibly plasma, since there wouldn't be any attraction between atoms.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Radekus]

Originally posted by a1ex
Possibly , after all there is no law of gravity only theories of observation.....

What does that even mean????

Just ask Jupiter. It the right substained temperature any metal can liquify. But by adjusted protons, neutrons, and electrons, you creat a different metal. It would be a hybrid.

Not being a chemist but having taken a chemistry course, I would speculate that removing the electrons would leave a pile of positively charged dust (ions as was already stated). I am not sure why people are saying the atoms would become gaseous since there was no assumption of a temperature increase. It also doesn't seem as though the material could remain a solid since there would be no way to maintain the ionic bonds that exists within metals. Removing the electrons would barely change the overall weight of an atom so they should just form a pile. But then wouldn't these atoms then become extremely attracted to negatively charged ions... not sure on that one... and if so maybe they attach to whats in the immediate environment.

EDIT: I should have said positively charged powder since dust might suggest something of a more specific composition. Also, from the basics of chemistry, only by adding or removing PROTONS will the atom change to some other element. So if you start with a chunk of aluminum, you should end up with a pile of aluminum powder according to my simple thought process.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by ThreadTrekker]

Well, when you heat a substance, you are increasing the energy of each atom, and spacing them enough that the structure is no longer solid. Typically it's easiest to do this with thermal energy, but, I would assume that you can charge the atoms with direct energy, and get the same result.

The thing is though, you will get thermal energy from charging the metal ayways, so it would be pretty difficult to prove it was the electricity, and not the thermal energy that resulted, that caused the metal to become a liquid.

Essentially when you arc or mig weld you are doing just that. Energizing the metal to the point where it can liquify together... but, like I said, you get alot of thermal energy off of that too.

Perhaps there is no way to charge something to the point of liquification, without building up enough thermal energy to reach melting point.
I suppose you would need to charge the metal, and find a way to ensure against thermal radiation from it.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

electrons are necessary for an atom to stabilize. if there are not enough electrons the atom breaks down into a more stable form(which is a different material).

Incorrect. The state of the electron shell has no effect on the nucleus. The atom will not 'break down'. It's fairly common for atoms to be in some sort of ionized state.

just to touch up here the electron field has very much to do with the nucleus, its the relationship between the electrons and protons that create stability.

if you remove electrons from any substance(and deny it from gaining a new electron), you change the composition of that material.

Incorrect. You will change the chemical behavior of the material but the composition will not change. Electron states relate to chemical changes, it requires a nuclear change to become a different material.

you are right about the behavior, but the OP was asking if enough electrons were removed what would happen.

as i said above- hypothetically if you remove an electron, AND are able to deny that atom from replacing said electron. you create a situation of instability which will cause an atomic restructuring(nuclear change).

but this scenario is not likey due to the natural transfer of electrons.



as johnsky mentioned its all based on temperature change.


[edit on 12/2/07 by Glyph_D]

Years ago a tutor said to me that gold was pretty much full of electrons in its outer layer/shell. That was why it was a good conductor.

He went on to say, take even one electron away and it becomes an insulator. So you still have gold but its property has changed. I have never looked this up but I find it amusing that such an important conductor for electronics could be an insulator...gold capacitors

Whatever be the case, surely removing electrons must have an effect on an atom, other than just making it an ion. The electrical charge changes so its ability to react with others must change. I mean as a thought experiment remove all 92 electrons from a Uranium atom what happens?
Surely it must be more than just an ion?

Any theoretical chemists out there?