No material can have a net negative charge. [Answered: Wrong!]

[martillo]

No material can have a net negative charge.

Negative charges are produced by electrons and they can only exist in the
atomic structure attracted by the positive nucleus of the atoms. The maximum
number of electrons that any material can have is that which neutralizes the
positive charges of the nucleus. More electrons than this can only be free
electrons and they would repel each other out of the material.

Then any material can only be neutral or positive charged.

Negative ions also don't actually exist. Only more or less positive ions exist.

[Ghideon]

51 minutes ago, martillo said:

Negative ions also don't actually exist. Only more or less positive ions exist.

Can you provide a description of the ions in regular table salt (NaCl)? 

Also please explain what happens (per your ideas) in a static electricity balloon experiments, I was under the assumption that a balloon, when rubbed against someone's hair, acquires a net negative charge. That seems to contradict your statements.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Ghideon
spelling, grammar

[swansont]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

No material can have a net negative charge.

Negative charges are produced by electrons and they can only exist in the
atomic structure attracted by the positive nucleus of the atoms. The maximum
number of electrons that any material can have is that which neutralizes the
positive charges of the nucleus. More electrons than this can only be free
electrons and they would repel each other out of the material.

Then any material can only be neutral or positive charged.

How much energy would it take to “repel each other out of the material”?

Where do theses electrons go? Charge is conserved.

When you rub a balloon on your hair, how does your hair accumulate a positive charge without the balloon having a negative charge?

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Negative ions also don't actually exist. Only more or less positive ions exist.

The TRIUMF cyclotron uses H- ions. Are you claiming these actually don’t exist, and yet the device works anyway?

There are actually a number of negative ions possible

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/ion-examples.html

[martillo]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Can you provide a description of the ions in regular table salt (NaCl)? 

They are called "Cl-" and "Na+" in Chemistry what only means that "Cl-" is twice more negative than "Na+" because the difference in the charge between both is +1 - (-1) = 2. Actually means that "Cl-" has two more electrons than "Na+".

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Also please explain what happens (per your ideas) in a static electricity balloon experiments, I was under the assumption that a balloon, when rubbed against someone's hair, acquires a net negative charge. That seems to contradict your statements.

The ballon acquires more electrons right but becomes just more negative than it previously was . The total quantity of charge of the balloon depends on the quantity of its atoms that acquired one or more electrons.

Edited July 13, 2022 by martillo

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, martillo said:

The ballon acquires more electrons right but becomes just more negative than it previously was . The total quantity of charge of the balloon depends on the quantity of its atoms that acquired one or more electrons.

But you asserted this did not happen. 

[martillo]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you asserted this did not happen. 

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.

[Bufofrog]

12 minutes ago, martillo said:

Actually means that "Cl-" has two more electrons than "Na+".

This like the rest of your posts is wrong.  Cl- has 18 electrons and Na+ has 10 electrons.

4 minutes ago, martillo said:

I asserted that no material can be negatively charged. I say they can just be more negative than it previously was.

So you are just playing a silly semantics game.  You could just as easily say there are no positively charged bodies, just more positive than previously.  Quite disingenuous in my opinion.  You're wasting every ones time.

[martillo]

34 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

This like the rest of your posts is wrong.  Cl- has 18 electrons and Na+ has 10 electrons.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How much energy would it take to “repel each other out of the material”?

Where do theses electrons go? Charge is conserved.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

When you rub a balloon on your hair, how does your hair accumulate a positive charge without the balloon having a negative charge?

No way. The balloon takes electrons from the hair.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The TRIUMF cyclotron uses H- ions. Are you claiming these actually don’t exist, and yet the device works anyway?

The device works. Any "negative ion" is just more negative than an assumed neutral potential. This neutral potential depends on temperature.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/ion-examples.html

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.

Edited July 13, 2022 by martillo

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

If it’s “more negatively charged” then it has a negative charge. It starts out neutral.

[martillo]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

If it’s “more negatively charged” then it has a negative charge. It starts out neutral.

"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.

Edited July 13, 2022 by martillo

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, martillo said:

 

I don't know the energy of repulsion between electrons. It would depend on how much closer they would be at the initial state.

So there’s no science behind all this.

22 minutes ago, martillo said:

Electrons are expulsed from atoms due to the photoelectric effect and it has a formula about the energy involved in the process.

That’s one method, but rubbing a balloon on your head does not involve the photoelectric effect

22 minutes ago, martillo said:

The electrons get free of the atoms may be absorbed by surrounding materials like air for instance.

Which means the air has a negative charge.

22 minutes ago, martillo said:

No way. The balloon takes electrons from the hair.

OK, then the balloon has a negative charge

 

22 minutes ago, martillo said:

The device works. Any "negative ion" is just more negative than an assumed neutral potential. This neutral potential depends on temperature.

H (or whatever atom) is neutral. Do you dispute this?

More negative, then, is a negative charge

22 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

A neutral hydrogen has more protons than electrons? It’s actually just a proton? Explain how it has a spectrum explained by the physics of it being an electron bound to a proton.

[martillo]

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

H (or whatever atom) is neutral. Do you dispute this?

More negative, then, is a negative charge

Yes I dispute. An atom could be really neutral at 0ºK only having equal number of protons and electrons at that temperature only.

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

A neutral hydrogen has more protons than electrons? It’s actually just a proton? Explain how it has a spectrum explained by the physics of it being an electron bound to a proton.

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.

.

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

So there’s no science behind all this.

Of course there is.

Edited July 14, 2022 by martillo

[Eise]

6 hours ago, martillo said:

Of course there is.

Nope.

Triboelectric effect

Quote

Cause
Although the part 'tribo-' comes from the Greek for "rubbing", τρίβω (τριβή: friction), the two materials only need to come into contact for electrons to be exchanged. After coming into contact, a chemical bond is formed between parts of the two surfaces, called adhesion, and charges move from one material to the other to equalize their electrochemical potential. This is what creates the net charge imbalance between the objects. When separated, some of the bonded atoms have a tendency to keep extra electrons, and some a tendency to give them away, though the imbalance will be partially destroyed by tunneling or electrical breakdown (usually corona discharge). In addition, some materials may exchange ions of differing mobility, or exchange charged fragments of larger molecules.

Bold by me.

6 hours ago, martillo said:

An atom could be really neutral at 0ºK only having equal number of protons and electrons at that temperature only.

Source?

Your position would invalidate all of chemistry, physics, and daily experience (especially at children's parties). This is worse than 'Einstein was wrong'. Only 'the earth is flat' tops you here.

Edited July 14, 2022 by Eise

[Sensei]

12 hours ago, martillo said:

No material can have a net negative charge.

If you have a neutral metal and emit photons of sufficient energy into it ( photoelectric effect ), the electrons will be ejected from it.. they don't disappear, do they? So where do they end up? On another material, of course, making it negatively charged.. So your statement is easy to dispute..

...after a while, or not, positively charged atoms or molecules, intercept electrons from surrounding environment, making it one again, neutral..

Edited July 14, 2022 by Sensei

[Ghideon]

9 hours ago, martillo said:

The ballon acquires more electrons right but becomes just more negative than it previously was . The total quantity of charge of the balloon depends on the quantity of its atoms that acquired one or more electrons.

Sorry, I don't see any explanations, just more and more contradictions. The neutral balloon that becomes negatively charged in the case above for instance contradicts the title  "No material can have a net negative charge".

 

[studiot]

11 hours ago, martillo said:

No material can have a net negative charge.

 

There are so many things wrong with the way you are developing this proposition that it's difficult to know where to start.

So to start with your first sentence, I suppose it partly depends upon what you mean by .material', what you count as material.

This is difficult since you are misusing several important and fundamental terms in your development.

 

To start with all atoms are electrically neutral.

Neutral means they do not interact with charged bodies in accordance with the laws of electrostatics that is no steady interbody electrostatic force is observable.

Atoms can loose or gain one or more electrons and when they do so they become ions.

They can also gain or loose one or more protons. When this happens, they may become charged ions or they may also loose the corresponding number of electrons to become different atoms.

OK so we are now involving atoms, ions, protons, electrons.

Which of these, if any,  do you regards a 'material'  ?

 

 

 

[martillo]

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.

[exchemist]

9 hours ago, martillo said:

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.

To remove the electron from a hydrogen atom you have to ionise it. This take a a lot of energy and does not happen until very high temperatures are reached, enough to turn hydrogen into a plasma. The ionisation energy is known: ~1300kJ/mol or ~13eV.  So what you say is wrong.

It is true that you get release of electrons from a metal when you heat it enough, via thermionic emission. This requires overcoming the work function for the material, for many metals of the order of 4eV. This is a lot less than the ionisation energy of hydrogen, but still high enough to require a significantly high temperature. Note that overcoming the work function is ionisation of only the topmost, tiny fraction of the most loosely bound electrons in a metallic bonding system, so it is far lower than the ionisation energy for an individual atom. 

Furthermore, what you say about the chlorine atom is also wrong. A neutral Cl atom has an electron affinity of ~350kJ/mol, which means that much energy is released when it captures an extra electron, i.e. the Cl- anion is more stable than the neutral atom. This anion has a net -ve charge of -1.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

Please stop confusing the photoelectric effect with thermal ionisation. They are quite different. Thermal ionisation requires electrons to be knocked out of the valence shell of the atom by collisions with other atoms or molecules. The photoelectric effect is due to absorption of radiation.

As for the rest of what you say, it would really help if you could confine yourself to one wrong statement per post. 😆

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by exchemist

[martillo]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

If you have a neutral metal and emit photons of sufficient energy into it ( photoelectric effect ), the electrons will be ejected from it.. they don't disappear, do they? So where do they end up? On another material, of course, making it negatively charged.. So your statement is easy to dispute..

...after a while, or not, positively charged atoms or molecules, intercept electrons from surrounding environment, making it one again, neutral..

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?

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Sorry, I don't see any explanations, just more and more contradictions. The neutral balloon that becomes negatively charged in the case above for instance contradicts the title  "No material can have a net negative charge".

 

Again the same as above. The balloon isn't neutral at the first time. It just became mor negative than it previously was.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

OK so we are now involving atoms, ions, protons, electrons.

Which of these, if any,  do you regards a 'material'  ?

I mean by "material" a single atom or a substance made of atoms.

34 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Please stop confusing the photoelectric effect with thermal ionisation. They are quite different. Thermal ionisation requires electrons to be knocked out of the valence shell of the atom by collisions with other atoms or molecules. The photoelectric effect is due to absorption of radiation.

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...

Edited July 14, 2022 by martillo

[studiot]

28 minutes ago, martillo said:

I mean by "material" a single atom or a substance made of atoms.

 

Thank you.

Unfortunately you have now introduced another technical term ie 'substance'.

You have also implied there are substances not made of atoms.

What about the other objects I referred to.

I take it that by your definition of material substances other objects made of ions are not material ?

 

Personally I regard electrons as material.

I can weigh them, I can use them to knock down targets, I can weld with them, I can heat things up with them, I can ionise things with them I can stand things in their shadow and much more besides.

Finally what about molecules?

Most substances are actually made of molecules.

 

 

[martillo]

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Thank you.

Unfortunately you have now introduced another technical term ie 'substance'.

You have also implied there are substances not made of atoms.

What about the other objects I referred to.

I take it that by your definition of material substances other objects made of ions are not material ?

 

Personally I regard electrons as material.

I can weigh them, I can use them to knock down targets, I can weld with them, I can heat things up with them, I can ionise things with them I can stand things in their shadow and much more besides.

Finally what about molecules?

Most substances are actually made of molecules.

 

 

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...

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Your position would invalidate all of chemistry, physics, and daily experience (especially at children's parties). This is worse than 'Einstein was wrong'. Only 'the earth is flat' tops you here.

Y apologize, I was wrong stating atoms are neutral at 0ºK only. As I said after:

1 hour ago, martillo said:

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.

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by martillo

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Again the same as above. The balloon isn't neutral at the first time. It just became mor negative than it previously was.

That seems to contradict trivial observations when handling balloons or performing typical simple experiments with balloons and static electricity. 
 

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, martillo said:

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...

So 'atoms' includes 'molecules'.

That certainly is a novel concept that yoy did not stat at the outset.

And you did not reply to my comment about ions.

 

I suggest you take a long hard look at your foundations and get your working definitions sorted out so people do not misunderstand what you mean to say.

Edited July 14, 2022 by studiot

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Well, I have received many negative "likes"... I wonder if I will lose them if I'm right... Seems not...

Only when you reach at 0ºK. 😊

No material can be cold, just colder, except at at 0ºK. That's what I call cold. 

[martillo]

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

So 'atoms' includes 'molecules'.

That certainly is a novel concept that yoy did not stat at the outset.

And you did not reply to my comment about ions.

 

I suggest you take a long hard look at your foundations and get you working definitions sorted out so people do not misunderstand what you mean to say.

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.

16 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That seems to contradict trivial observations when handling balloons or performing typical simple experiments with balloons and static electricity. 
 

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.

Edited July 14, 2022 by martillo