Mitolyn Reviews- Safe Pure Cbd For...
How it Works4 mins 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've been thinking about this question and we seem to be confining ourselves to elements with these answers. What about alloys?
The lowest melting-point alloys I could think of offhand were Wood's Metal and Field's metal but these don't exactly melt at room temperature.
However, I've just had a chat with a Metallurgical Chemist in the university and he told me about Indalloy alloys manufactured by the Indium Corporation.
It seems that several of these specialised alloys, based on Indium, are liquid at room temperature and are often used as substitutes for Mercury.
The lowest melting eutectic alloy has a melting range of between 6.5 degrees Celsius and 7.6 degrees Celsius!
The lowest melting-point alloys I could think of offhand were Wood's Metal and Field's metal but these don't exactly melt at room temperature.
However, I've just had a chat with a Metallurgical Chemist in the university and he told me about Indalloy alloys manufactured by the Indium Corporation.
It seems that several of these specialised alloys, based on Indium, are liquid at room temperature and are often used as substitutes for Mercury.
The lowest melting eutectic alloy has a melting range of between 6.5 degrees Celsius and 7.6 degrees Celsius!
Shammydodger, you are correct that in the strict chemical sense a metal is not an alloy. Let us define the terms metal and alloy.
A metal may be defined as any of a class of elements that generally are solid at ordinary temperatures, have a grayish color and a shiny surface, and will conduct heat and electricity.
However, an alloy may be defined as a substance composed of two or more metals or of a metal and a nonmetal intimately united usually by being fused together and dissolving in each other when molten.
I trust you will therefore concede that an alloy contains at least one metal.
Let us go one step further. Steel may be defined as any of various alloys of the elements iron and carbon containing less than 2.5% carbon, usually also with lesser amounts of other elements.
Returning to the original post for a moment, I think it would be a wrong assumption to consider that the poster himself/herself was a chemist. After all, a chemist would know precisely what a metal was and the question was phrased simply. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the poster was not a chemist. Are we in agreement on this?
Now to a non-scientist, Steel is a metal. To the man in the street, it is not a plastic, a ceramic, wood or one of the many other substances that come to mind. Steel is magnetic in its common state and resembles a metal and behaves as a metal. Find me the man out there that will tell you otherwise. In essence, the man in the street does not distinguish between an alloy and a metal in considering their properties within the knowledge to hand.
It follows that it is reasonable not to distinguish between metals and alloys as far as this question is concerned.
Whatever was that person who called the eutectic alloy of Bismuth, Tin, Lead and Cadmium thinking of when he named it Wood's Metal.
A metal may be defined as any of a class of elements that generally are solid at ordinary temperatures, have a grayish color and a shiny surface, and will conduct heat and electricity.
However, an alloy may be defined as a substance composed of two or more metals or of a metal and a nonmetal intimately united usually by being fused together and dissolving in each other when molten.
I trust you will therefore concede that an alloy contains at least one metal.
Let us go one step further. Steel may be defined as any of various alloys of the elements iron and carbon containing less than 2.5% carbon, usually also with lesser amounts of other elements.
Returning to the original post for a moment, I think it would be a wrong assumption to consider that the poster himself/herself was a chemist. After all, a chemist would know precisely what a metal was and the question was phrased simply. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the poster was not a chemist. Are we in agreement on this?
Now to a non-scientist, Steel is a metal. To the man in the street, it is not a plastic, a ceramic, wood or one of the many other substances that come to mind. Steel is magnetic in its common state and resembles a metal and behaves as a metal. Find me the man out there that will tell you otherwise. In essence, the man in the street does not distinguish between an alloy and a metal in considering their properties within the knowledge to hand.
It follows that it is reasonable not to distinguish between metals and alloys as far as this question is concerned.
Whatever was that person who called the eutectic alloy of Bismuth, Tin, Lead and Cadmium thinking of when he named it Wood's Metal.
Prof
I don't wish to disagree with anything that you say. Or, at least, I do not wish to fall out with you. I concur with all that you have said in your latest post. However, as scientists we are obliged to be both accurate and precise. The original question, be it posted by a scientist or nay, enquired about a metal. As a scientist, I could merely entertain only those metals that are defined as such by convention. The phrase "normal temperatures" admits to a wider choice than I would otherwise grant access. In this case, I go with Zevon, not unreasonably I do suppose. In which case, Mercury can be the only answer.
Prof
To continue, I don't think it is of the slightest consequence whether the questioner was a a chemist or nay. The question was quite simply put, and enquired about a metal, singular. To me, the answer is mercury, and mercury alone, notwithstanding the "at normal temperatures." There are several possibilities around "normal temperatures", but I believe you and others do a disservice if you insist that the questioner meant anything other than "room temperature" or thereabouts.
I do not wish to fall out with you, but I cannot accept your proffering several species that are not recognised as metals. Science is indeed an exacting subject, and depends on strict definitions. Whether we like this or not is not the question. It happens to be so.
I for one am glad that somebody didn't just answer Mercury and left it at that. The extra discussion was interesting and that is what is cool about this site. Also, I think theprof did a good job at judging his audience and answering the question accordingly. He did state that they were alloys and not metals, so he didn't give any wrong information.
Newtron:
Thank you for your comments. It is pleasing that you were able to see that my replies were deliberately phrased for a wider audience, were more generalist in nature and did not confine themselves to strict convention.
On occasions on AB, I have found it necessary to discuss matters in some detail and sometimes questioners are clearly either university graduates or undergraduates. However, as you have astutely observed, I did not receive that impression here regarding the question posted by Mallory and my replies were phrased accordingly.
Perhaps it is the fact that I hold degrees in Chemistry, Biochemistry and Biology that enable me to look at the wider picture. Scientists confining themselves to one discipline are often at a disadvantage.
Thank you for your comments. It is pleasing that you were able to see that my replies were deliberately phrased for a wider audience, were more generalist in nature and did not confine themselves to strict convention.
On occasions on AB, I have found it necessary to discuss matters in some detail and sometimes questioners are clearly either university graduates or undergraduates. However, as you have astutely observed, I did not receive that impression here regarding the question posted by Mallory and my replies were phrased accordingly.
Perhaps it is the fact that I hold degrees in Chemistry, Biochemistry and Biology that enable me to look at the wider picture. Scientists confining themselves to one discipline are often at a disadvantage.
Shammydodger:
I am pleased that you concur with all that I said in my last post. For the benefit of other readers, I trust you will allow me to define concur as stated in Collins English Dictionary:
�Concur: to agree; be of the same mind; be in accord�
It is reasonable from this definition that you both agree and do not dispute anything I have said. In essence, you are telling me I�m correct.
If I am correct, why would you wish to disagree with anything I said? Furthermore, what reason would you have to fall out with me? We are, after all, in agreement. My compliments on a most fascinating paradox.
Returning to your first post, I have conceded previously that it is possible to answer this question from within the bounds of chemistry alone. However, I would suggest to you that it is not correct to do so because I remain convinced that we have to look at the question from a wider perspective than chemistry and corresponding convention allows us to. Pedantry was a concept that was not required in reply to this question and I maintain that answers here have to fit within the bounds of knowledge of the questioner.
Continued
I am pleased that you concur with all that I said in my last post. For the benefit of other readers, I trust you will allow me to define concur as stated in Collins English Dictionary:
�Concur: to agree; be of the same mind; be in accord�
It is reasonable from this definition that you both agree and do not dispute anything I have said. In essence, you are telling me I�m correct.
If I am correct, why would you wish to disagree with anything I said? Furthermore, what reason would you have to fall out with me? We are, after all, in agreement. My compliments on a most fascinating paradox.
Returning to your first post, I have conceded previously that it is possible to answer this question from within the bounds of chemistry alone. However, I would suggest to you that it is not correct to do so because I remain convinced that we have to look at the question from a wider perspective than chemistry and corresponding convention allows us to. Pedantry was a concept that was not required in reply to this question and I maintain that answers here have to fit within the bounds of knowledge of the questioner.
Continued
