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

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

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.

Well, it's great that you are willing to learn, at least.

As for experiments detecting -ve ions, I've already mentioned several pieces of evidence for ionic bonding in my previous post. One of the most simple, perhaps, is the production of the element at the anode of an electrochemical cell. If you dissolve common salt in water and electrolyse it with a torch battery, you can smell the chlorine gas evolved at the anode (the +ve electrode). This is evidence that Cl⁻ ions are present, which are neutralised by giving up an electron to the electrode, to form elemental chlorine. You can't do this with a covalently bonded compound.

Secondly, Cl forms a single covalent bond in a wide range of compounds. (It can occasionally form covalent compounds with 3, 5 or 7 bonds, by bringing its 3d orbitals into play, but these compounds tend to be unstable or highly reactive.) However if you look at X-ray diffraction models of NaCl - which is highly stable of course -  you will see that each chlorine "atom"  is surrounded by 6 Na ions in an octahedral arrangement. And if you look at caesium chloride it is 8-coordinate. This does not correspond to any covalent bonding scheme for Cl. So the bonding must be non-directional, unlike covalent bonding. 

Thirdly, if you get an electron density map for these compounds, the electron density is a minimum between Cl and Na. This is in contrast to covalent bonding, where the electron density is especially high along the direction of the bonds. So it must be electrostatic in nature.

Fourthly, metal chlorides are generally very soluble in polar solvents such as water. This is because the partial +ve charge on the hydrogen atoms can stabilise the -ve charge on the chloride ion (the part -ve charge on the oxygen atom does the same for the Na ion), enabling these compounds to dissolve readily in water, in spite of the strength of the bonding in the solid (as shown by the high melting point).     

Edited July 14, 2022 by exchemist

[Eise]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

(Neutral particles are straight lines, circles to the left and right, are charged particles and their opposites

This is wrong. Neutral particles make no visible tracks. The V-formed track somewhere in the middle is a neutral Lambda particle that decays there into two charged particles, that seem to pop up from nowhere. The tracks that seem to go in straight lines are just very fast charged particles, so you do not see that they have also curved paths in the magnetic field.

[exchemist]

8 minutes ago, Eise said:

This is wrong. Neutral particles make no visible tracks. The V-formed track somewhere in the middle is a neutral Lambda particle that decays there into two charged particles, that seem to pop up from nowhere. The tracks that seem to go in straight lines are just very fast charged particles, so you do not see that they have also curved paths in the magnetic field.

Ah yes of course, it is the charge that causes the condensation. 

[Sensei]

25 minutes ago, exchemist said:

it is the charge that causes the condensation. 

Actually, the photo is of a bubble chamber with a relatively dense medium - liquid hydrogen.

In newer LHC detectors:

https://www.lhc-closer.es/taking_a_closer_look_at_lhc/1.detectors

"Charged particles – electrons, protons and muons – leave traces through ionisation. Electrons are very light and therefore lose their energy quickly, while protons penetrate further through the layers of the detector. Photons themselves leave no trace, but in the calorimeters, each photon converts into one electron and one positron, the energies of which are then measured. The (kinetic) energy of neutrons is measured indirectly: neutrons transfer their (kinetic) energy to protons, and these protons are then detected. Muons are the only particles that reach (and are detected by) the outermost layers of the detector."

 

[studiot]

Psst, wanna buy an industrial unit for making negative ion beams guv ?

Here ya go.

https://www.pelletron.com/products/mc-snics/

Quote

This source is most commonly used in Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) systems for the production of beams such as C, Be, I, Cu, Cl, and the actinides, although like the SNICS, it can create negative ion beams from all elements that form a stable negative ion.

A steady stream of material with a negative charge.

nuff said.

[exchemist]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Psst, wanna buy an industrial unit for making negative ion beams guv ?

Here ya go.

https://www.pelletron.com/products/mc-snics/

A steady stream of material with a negative charge.

nuff said.

Crikey, looks like the Ed 209 from Robocop. "Just a glitch, Sir!"

[martillo]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Well, it's great that you are willing to learn, at least.

As for experiments detecting -ve ions, I've already mentioned several pieces of evidence for ionic bonding in my previous post. One of the most simple, perhaps, is the production of the element at the anode of an electrochemical cell. If you dissolve common salt in water and electrolyse it with a torch battery, you can smell the chlorine gas evolved at the anode (the +ve electrode). This is evidence that Cl⁻ ions are present, which are neutralised by giving up an electron to the electrode, to form elemental chlorine. You can't do this with a covalently bonded compound.

Secondly, Cl forms a single covalent bond in a wide range of compounds. (It can occasionally form covalent compounds with 3, 5 or 7 bonds, by bringing its 3d orbitals into play, but these compounds tend to be unstable or highly reactive.) However if you look at X-ray diffraction models of NaCl - which is highly stable of course -  you will see that each chlorine "atom"  is surrounded by 6 Na ions in an octahedral arrangement. And if you look at caesium chloride it is 8-coordinate. This does not correspond to any covalent bonding scheme for Cl. So the bonding must be non-directional, unlike covalent bonding. 

Thirdly, if you get an electron density map for these compounds, the electron density is a minimum between Cl and Na. This is in contrast to covalent bonding, where the electron density is especially high along the direction of the bonds. So it must be electrostatic in nature.

Fourthly, metal chlorides are generally very soluble in polar solvents such as water. This is because the partial +ve charge on the hydrogen atoms can stabilise the -ve charge on the chloride ion (the part -ve charge on the oxygen atom does the same for the Na ion), enabling these compounds to dissolve readily in water, in spite of the strength of the bonding in the solid (as shown by the high melting point).     

 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...

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Psst, wanna buy an industrial unit for making negative ion beams guv ?

Here ya go.

https://www.pelletron.com/products/mc-snics/

A steady stream of material with a negative charge.

nuff said.

I would need an explanation for this too as I can see now...

Edited July 14, 2022 by martillo

[exchemist]

2 minutes ago, martillo said:

 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...

How would it work for NaCl, then? What direction(s) would the bonds go in? Would you have diatomic molecules of Na-Cl? Ot a giant covalent structure like quartz or diamond?  How would it dissolve in water? How would the solution conduct electricity and release chlorine at the anode? How could there be a covalent bond if there is no electron density between Na and Cl? 

[martillo]

53 minutes ago, exchemist said:

How would it work for NaCl, then? What direction(s) would the bonds go in? Would you have diatomic molecules of Na-Cl? Ot a giant covalent structure like quartz or diamond?  How would it dissolve in water? How would the solution conduct electricity and release chlorine at the anode? How could there be a covalent bond if there is no electron density between Na and Cl? 

Much things would remain to be explained. Thanks to pointing out some of them now.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Psst, wanna buy an industrial unit for making negative ion beams guv ?

Here ya go.

https://www.pelletron.com/products/mc-snics/

A steady stream of material with a negative charge.

nuff said.

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!!!

Edited July 14, 2022 by martillo

[Sensei]

7 hours ago, martillo said:

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!!!

...if you make positive ions, you also have to make negative ions.. electrons don't disappear.. they are intercepted by some other atoms..

e.g.

2Na + Cl₂ -> 2 ( Na⁺ + Cl^- )

Neutral Sodium has 11 protons and 11 electrons, Q_na=0e

Neutral Chlorine has 17 protons and 17 electrons, Q_cl=0e

Sodium gives electron to Chlorine,

Positive ion of Sodium has 11 protons and 10 electrons, Q_na=+1e , because +11e-10e=+1e

Negative ion of Chlorine has 17 protons and 18 electrons, Q_cl=-1e , because +17e-18e=-1e

Overall Q= Q_na + Q_cl = 0e all the time (conservation of charge).

 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

...if you make positive ions, you also have to make negative ions.. electrons don't disappear.. they are intercepted by some other atoms..

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

Edited July 15, 2022 by martillo

[exchemist]

33 minutes ago, martillo said:

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

But the electrons don't disappear even then. They convert some of the atoms and molecules in the earth to anions, that's all. 

But I see, depressingly, that you are yourself an electrical engineer. I seem always to be coming across electrical engineers on these forums with crank ideas about science. My heart sinks now when I learn some poster is an electrical engineer, because I wonder what nonsense may be coming. This ballocks of yours about there being no -ve ions is a vintage example of the genre.

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by exchemist

[martillo]

12 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But the electrons don't disappear even then. They convert some of the atoms and molecules in the earth to anions, that's all.

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.

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by martillo

[exchemist]

4 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

And the electrons liberated by the photoelectric effect go where, then? Either they attach to molecules in the air, forming anions, or they drop back into the substance they came from, in which case they don't help explain where your extra grounded electrons go. 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

And the electrons liberated by the photoelectric effect go where, then? Either they attach to molecules in the air, forming anions, or they drop back into the substance they came from, in which case they don't help explain where your extra grounded electrons go. 

I think you missed what I was editing:

1 hour ago, martillo said:

By the way, the surface of Earth is in average positively charged since it attracts electrons from clouds producing lightning.

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!

Edited July 15, 2022 by martillo

[studiot]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

 

But I see, depressingly, that you are yourself an electrical engineer. I seem always to be coming across electrical engineers on these forums with crank ideas about science. My heart sinks now when I learn some poster is an electrical engineer, because I wonder what nonsense may be coming. This ballocks of yours about there being no -ve ions is a vintage example of the genre.

 

 

I can assure you that there are plenty of electrical engineers with an exceedingly good grasp of maths and/or physics about.

Professor Hammond, of Southampton University, Professor Krauss of Ohio State and the Professor from the Colorado School of MInes I used to deal with but whose name escapes me.

[exchemist]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I can assure you that there are plenty of electrical engineers with an exceedingly good grasp of maths and/or physics about.

Professor Hammond, of Southampton University, Professor Krauss of Ohio State and the Professor from the Colorado School of MInes I used to deal with but whose name escapes me.

Oh sure. Some of my best friends are................😁

I don't suggest - of course - that all electrical engineers are cranks, that would be absurd. In fact one of the best contributors on another forum I belong to is one. It is merely that science forum cranks are often, in my experience, electrical engineers. As to why, I have a hypothesis, but it is just speculation.

 

[martillo]

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I can assure you that there are plenty of electrical engineers with an exceedingly good grasp of maths and/or physics about.

Professor Hammond, of Southampton University, Professor Krauss of Ohio State and the Professor from the Colorado School of MInes I used to deal with but whose name escapes me.

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...

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

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!

Now I begin to suspect you are trolling. Only an imbecile would genuinely think the hydrogen atom is a dipole with the proton on one side and the electron on the other. 

[martillo]

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It is merely that science forum cranks are often, in my experience, electrical engineers. As to why, I have a hypothesis, but it is just speculation.

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

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Now I begin to suspect you are trolling. Only an imbecile would genuinely think the hydrogen atom is a dipole with the proton on one side and the electron on the other. 

Just disappointed now...

[studiot]

27 minutes ago, martillo said:

I would like to know what they would think about what I'm saying now here.

Perhaps you should read some of their books?

That might help you avoid some of the more obvious misstatements about maths and/or physics you have made in this thread, for instance about potential.

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by studiot

[Eise]

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

Actually, the photo is of a bubble chamber with a relatively dense medium - liquid hydrogen.

Yes, I know. Here the details of this picture:

Quote

This image from 1960 is of real particle tracks formed in CERN's first liquid hydrogen bubble chamber to be used in experiments. It was a tiny detector by today's standards at only 32 cm in diameter. Negatively charged pions with an energy of 16 GeV enter from the left. One of them interacts with a proton in the liquid hydrogen and creates sprays of new particles, including a neutral particle (a lambda) that decays to produce the "V" of two charged particle tracks at the centre. Lower-energy charged particles produced in the interactions spiral in the magnetic field of the chamber. The invention of bubble chambers in 1952 revolutionized the field of particle physics, allowing real particle tracks to be seen and photographed, after releasing the pressure that had kept a liquid above its normal boiling point.

From here.

And really, very relative:

Quote

Gargamelle was a bubble chamber at CERN designed to detect neutrinos. It operated from 1970 to 1976 with a muon-neutrino beam produced by the CERN Proton Synchrotron, before moving to the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) until 1979.

Gargamelle was 4.8 metres long and 2 metres in diameter. It weighed 1000 tonnes and held nearly 12 cubic metres of heavy-liquid freon (CF3Br).

Bold by me.

In fact, for a bubble chamber liquid hydrogen is less dense than anything else that can be used for a bubble chamber...

And in case you wonder why I know your picture so well: I am wearing this T-shirt at the moment:

Of course I looked up where the picture was coming from. I was pleasant surprised that the picture was made in my birth year...

For you, I drew the path of the neutral Lambda particle in red.

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Eise

[swansont]

19 hours ago, martillo said:

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"

It's not enough to explain. We already have that, and more. We have an actual theory, which makes quantitative predictions, and allows for ideas to be falsified. If you want to supplant that, you need to explain and predict even more phenomena, and/or do it to a higher precision, along with what we can already do, without contradicting existing experimental evidence.

18 hours ago, martillo said:

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.

But negative ions have been observed, so you absolutely must consider them. Any theory on the subject has to be able to account for them.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

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

Just disappointed now...

Imagine how I feel, then, having devoted some time to explaining the evidence for ionic bonding to you, several times, only to have you come up now with this ridiculous turd about a hydrogen atom having a proton on one side and the electron on the other. 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Imagine how I feel, then, having devoted some time to explaining the evidence for ionic bonding to you, several times, only to have you come up now with this ridiculous turd about a hydrogen atom having a proton on one side and the electron on the other. 

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...

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It's not enough to explain. We already have that, and more. We have an actual theory, which makes quantitative predictions, and allows for ideas to be falsified. If you want to supplant that, you need to explain and predict even more phenomena, and/or do it to a higher precision, along with what we can already do, without contradicting existing experimental evidence.

But negative ions have been observed, so you absolutely must consider them. Any theory on the subject has to be able to account for them.

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...

Edited July 15, 2022 by martillo