martillo

Trolling??? No, no way, not at all. I wouldn't waste my time that way, never. I got confused in many things in this thread and made many big mistakes, I admit, but trolling no... I'm not handling this discussion here anymore. I think I will not continue...

I can't believe, I got astonished. I was considering you very knowledgeable and you can't think in the hydrogen atom as a dipole. Hydrogen atom has just one proton and one electron, right? A positive proton and a negative electron, right? So, a positive charge and a negative charge. Now, from wikipedia the definition of a dipole: "An electric dipole deals with the separation of the positive and negative charges found in any electromagnetic system. A simple example of this system is a pair of electric charges of equal magnitude but opposite sign separated by some typically small distance." Can't then the hydrogen atom be considered a dipole? Why? Please, I don't really understand how you can disagree... I was confusing covalent bonds with ionic bonds at that time. I apologize, Chemistry actually is not my area and we strongly entered it. I think I will not be able to handle the discussion anymore now...

And I would be another one. I'm a bit crank, I admit, although with great reason sometimes... Just disappointed now...

I would like to know what they would think about what I'm saying now here. By te way, I find this thread very productive for me. I apologize for my mistakes. I was wrong many times. I deserve those negative likes...

I think you missed what I was editing: Now you may ask for negatively ionized H20 in the clouds. I think that the system of surface of earth and clouds can be modelled as a capacitor but I need to think more about this... Thinking in the molecule of H2O and considering the rare negative ion of hydrogen (which I admitted before as possible negative ion) I'm thinking in the clouds' molecules of H2O (which is very asymmetric) composed with that negative hydrogen ion and disposed down to earth... I have a reason to admit that negative ion of hydrogen as possible. I think in the normal hydrogen atom as a dipole with the positive proton in one side and the negative electron on the other side. The configuration for the negative ion for hydrogen would be: electron - proton - electron aligned in a straight line. It is possible since each electron "sees" the proton nearer than the other electron and so it "sees" a net positive electric field in front attracting it. The configuration would be stable. Then I'm forced to admit other possible negative ions to exist. Those composed with this negative hydrogen ion now, I know. Thinking a lot about all this. Productive thread!

They could be captured by some positively charged atom. Thinking in Earth, lot of positively atoms exist due to the photoelectric effect caused by sun's radiation of photons, at least temporarily. By the way, the surface of Earth is in average positively charged since it attracts electrons from clouds producing lightning.

As an Electrical Engineer y know that free electrons can also go to the "ground", other "objects" or even to the deep space...

Much things would remain to be explained. Thanks to pointing out some of them now. The picture in the link shows Cs+ positive ions of Cs created. Wouldn't this machine create positive ions in spite of negative ones as it is said may be wrongly in the page of the link? I'm suspicious about it... It also shows an oven in the apparatus what means heat and for me what heat produce is lose of electrons in atoms due to the photoelectric effect. Everything makes me think the machine actually produce positive ions!!!

I appreciate your comments about those experiments and observations. What I'm handling as a possible alternative explanation for ionic bonds is inspired in the H2O molecule which is very asymmetric as everybody would know. With this in mind I came up with the idea that negative ions could actually be just very asymmetric atoms which would be neutral but due to the asymmetry could behave as an electric dipole presenting a positive side and a negative side. This way the negative side could well make an "ionic bond" with a positive ion. I have no problem with positive ions since they would come up from a neutral atom just losing an electron. I'm thinking this could be a valid explanation but I need further research about first, I know... I would need an explanation for this too as I can see now...

Is obvious for who not care about more electrons than protons existing in an atom. I'm worried about that and thinking if it would be really possible. A good explanation received by exchemist was involving two electrons with opposite spins occupying same level of energy in agreement with Pauli's exclusion principle but I'm considering if other way is possible without two electrons in the same level. I know now that it will not be so easy to present it as really possible and that would need to study several phenomena for that as exchemist pointed out. I'm well aware about that. Is there any experiment detecting negative ions the way your picture shows? I mean gas chambers or similar. I agree now, I must study the subject a lot before pointing out such possibility. I'm not thinking in a non existing ionic bond but just in it working in a different way than it is explained. Hard thing to do anyway, aware now.

Never? How do you explain positive ions then?

You mention two possibilities for making the bonds. I stay with the second one. I think chemical bonds with shared electrons can be perfectly explained with electrons in outers positions of the atom in a way that can be easily shared by atoms with other atoms which would have a structure that would accept those shared electrons. This way there´s no need to consider that possibility of atoms becoming negative ions.

Right but I'm explaining them with just single electrons in the orbitals only, not needing extra electrons in the atom. I mean they would not become negatively charged... You were right in pointing the mistake: I already edited it. Luckily had time to the edition removing "the nucleus" from the phrase.

Again, I think I can explain them with the spatial structure of them "having some outer electrons in their atomic structure which can be shared for chemical bonds with other atoms" as I pointed above...

Well, I have to apologize for me being wrong in some things while trying to defend the statement of the title of the thread, I admit. I made a deep review of my point of view and it needs some big corrections. Taking a look at the TRIUMFF cyclotron working with the rare ion of hydrogen having one proton and two electrons I must make just one exception to rule. In mathematics it is said that the exception makes the rule. In my case the exception to the "rule" that no "material" (thing composed by atoms and at least one atom) can be negatively is that rare hydrogen ion. The other ions are perfectly explained by the spatial distribution of their positive protons and negative electrons having some outer electrons in their atomic structure which can be shared for chemical bonds with other atoms. The other subject already pointed in the thread several times is that common "materials" at normal temperatures are all neutral with zero charge. I realized now that is right but that can be explained by the distribution of the charges. I mean at normal temperatures there are electrons expulsed from the atoms (which become positively charged) but these electrons stay orbiting around although not in any of the atoms' quantum levels. This way the "materials" they compose stay neutral with zero net charge as "seen" by other "materials" around. So I was wrong in my statements about things just being at some positive potential at normal temperatures and that just a difference in the potentials would explain it all, I admit. Things are normally neutral with zero net charge... The problem of the charged balloons repelling each other also need a review now. I think now that the balloons become positively charged and not negatively. I mean they lose electrons, not gain electrons... But there is precisely the key on the subject of the thread... I think I can explain them with the spatial structure of them "having some outer electrons in their atomic structure which can be shared for chemical bonds with other atoms" as I pointed above...

Thinking deeply on the subjects of the last posts... It could take some time for me... A question now: Do you mean that Pauli's exclusion principle does not hold?

You are right... Which is your definition of a "negative ion"? An atom with more electrons than protons? How that can be?

No. It's you are misunderstanding what I say. "Molecules" are made of atoms of course. You are taking a divergent approach in the thread making the thing a words' salad. You are not being fair in the discussion. Ions are just atoms that lose one or more of its electrons but you know, I don't want to lose my time and the time of other ones in the forum discussing trivial intuitive concepts. Why? What I say is that at normal environment's temperature the things have the same potential that is called "neutral" but that actually is not zero. Is just the also called "ground" potential. Basic electrical experiments just involve difference of potentials all being actually positive.

I know the concept "material" can become confusing, I know... Here in this thread I mean by "material" as a thing made of atoms including molecules of course. "Substance" actually meaning the same. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons all being "matter" in the universe, I know... Y apologize, I was wrong stating atoms are neutral at 0ºK only. As I said after:

The other material absorbing the electron becomes just more negative than it previously was. Why do you assume it was neutral at the first time? Again the same as above. The balloon isn't neutral at the first time. It just became mor negative than it previously was. I mean by "material" a single atom or a substance made of atoms. As I said the subject becomes to be more and more complex as other phenomena comes to be analyzed. The collisions of atoms is a very complex subject to treat and goes beyond of the scope of the thread I think. I would need to study some things about "thermal ionization" to be able to answer you but I don't know if it would be really necessary. The basic phenomena that make atoms lose their electrons is the "photoelectric effect" where photons are involved. When an atom absorbs enough energy of photons it can lose an electron. I think "thermal ionization" is actually the same thing... Well, I have received many negative "likes"... I wonder if I will lose them if I'm right... Seems not...

The subject became complex. More complex than I have expected. The statement of the title "No material can have a net negative charge" is right but I wasn't totally right in two things: First, there´s one and only one thing that is really negative: the proper electron. When I say "material" I mean a substance made of atoms. It could be a single atom or more. Second, atoms don't have all of its electrons at 0ºK only. There are many excited states where it still have the electrons until beginning to lose them at some higher temperature where the photoelectric effect begins to happen. So there's some temperature at which atoms still have all of their electrons. The emission and absorption spectrums are obtained with the electron still in the atoms but in different states of configuration and so energy. At some temperature atoms begin to lose electrons becoming positively charged and more positive as temperature increases and with the increase of temperature substances made of atoms normally pass from solid to liquid and to gas states... All the subjects can become very complex to treat here in this thread. Please, I ask you to try to stay as much as on the subject of the thread as possible. I don't know if I would be able to answer all of the questions that could surge.

Yes I dispute. An atom could be really neutral at 0ºK only having equal number of protons and electrons at that temperature only. Hydrogen has only one proton and can have only one electron if it would be the case. The Hydrogen's spectrums (emission or absorption) are obtained by the spectrums in the energies of the photons it emits or absorb but this depends on the possible energy the atom can absorb or emit. I mean the energy is stored in the atom composed by the proton and the electron in the different configurations it can have. . Of course there is.

"Neutral" doesn't mean physically zero potential. It means a used reference potential which is commonly variable depending on temperature and determined but the charge obtained from the difference between the quantity of protons and electrons of the "neutral" atom or compound of the material taken as reference. Actually some positive potential. It starts out positive, not at zero potential which, as I said, would happen at 0ºK only.

Cl has 17 protons and Na 11. The number of electrons they can have depends on their temperature. A totally neutral atom would have the maximum possible of electrons it can have but this would mean it has reached a temperature of 0ºK. As temperature increases they lose electrons due to the photoelectric effect. At ambient temperature they would be in a dynamic equilibrium absorbing and emitting photons and having some average quantity of electrons. I don't know the energy of repulsion between electrons. It would depend on how much closer they would be at the initial state. Electrons are expulsed from atoms due to the photoelectric effect which has a formula about the energy involved in the process. The electrons get free of the atoms may be absorbed by surrounding materials like air for instance. No way. The balloon takes electrons from the hair. The device works. Any "negative ion" is just more negative than an assumed neutral potential. This neutral potential depends on temperature. Chemistry is wrong assuming "negative ions" actually are negatively charged. They are just more negative in relation to a "neutral" potential of some atom or compound which actually is physically positive since it has more protons than electrons.

I asserted that no material can be negatively charged. I say they can just be more negative than it previously was. What do you mean by "this did not happen"? By the way I'm thinking in replying your previous post. I just begun answering replies with some little problems on my PC.