exchemist

If you read a bit more about how magnetic moment arises within an atom, you will find it is due either to orbital angular momentum of the electron or to "spin" (intrinsic angular momentum), of the electron or nucleus or both. Classically, both would indicate motion of a charge - which would generate a magnetic field. In the QM model it is a bit different, as you are dealing with a wave-particle entity that has no defined classical trajectory, but magnetism remains associated with momentum. As for making your own model for atomic particles, be warned that the QM model science uses today is built up from over a century of experimental evidence, which it accounts for very well. If you try to create your own model it will need to account for all the phenomena that QM can account for. You will need to do a lot of studying before you can hope to accomplish that. Do not imagine that what you have learnt as an electrical engineer will be sufficient.

I imagine KCl will be the electrolyte only. You will also need electrodes of different metals, to create an electrochemical cell. A digital clock is often chosen for the demonstration as it only requires a tiny current, at a voltage of 1V or less, to to work. The classic clock battery of this kind is made by shoving copper and zinc rods into a lemon or a potato. My son did this when he was small (though it evidently did not inspire him much: he's now at uni studying Ancient History!). Usually the electrolyte is liquid as in these two examples. If using KCl, it would need to be at least damp, in order to conduct, I think. You could use an off-cut of a piece of copper pipe to make a copper-sided canister, fill it with wet KCl and put a magnesium or aluminium rod in the centre (making sure it does NOT contact the copper in any way), then connect wires to the rod and copper. There is more on this sort of thing here: https://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/batteries/batteries.html

I think the persulphate may oxidise starch. But it could be tried, at least. Alkali I think can make starch more gelatinous - which could be what is wanted.

That may be for the best. If you are genuine, I suggest you either do some reading, or else ask questions instead of making assertions, when the topic is outside your area of knowledge.

No chance. I'm not risking an infection with a computer virus.

I'm not opening a file from an unknown source. It could contain malware. Also it is a rule of the forum that you present points for discussion without readers needing to go off-site or click on unknown files. I think you have been told this before.

You chose to enter the arena of chemistry by making a ridiculous statement, without supporting evidence, that there are no -ve ions, something that contradicts one of chemistry's most basic concepts, understood by every intelligent schoolchild. I am not going to indulge you by getting into a discussion of the structure of the hydrogen atom. If you really don't know, you can perfectly easily look it up on the internet and revert with questions. But I'm afraid I simply do not believe that someone who can ask questions about the Pauli Exclusion Principle one moment can, at the next, fail to understand something as basic as this. I think you must be trolling.

No. There is nothing in physics - or indeed biology - that would account for the emission of light from the eyes, seeing as eyes are designed not to emit it but to absorb it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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).

No that's quite wrong. We know that there are three main types of bonding: ionic, covalent and metallic - though there are often situations that are intermediate between these three archetypes. You can't just decide, arbitrarily, there is no such thing as ionic bonding. That's ignorant bullshit. Ionic bonding is evident from the types of structures formed (absence of finite numbers of fixed bonds, in ionic crystals), from electron density maps (X-ray diffraction) that show you there are areas of low, not high, electron density between atoms - and of course from simple properties such as electrical conductivity in the liquid phase, solubility in polar solvents, and so on. Chemical bonding is a huge and extremely well studied topic. You need at least to learn a bit about it before you start making these pronouncements.

I don't follow you. Atoms with incomplete valence shells can accept more electrons either by becoming negative ions (which really do have a net negative charge, as has been explained to you), or by accepting a share of more electrons through covalent bonding, which usually does not lead to a whole net -ve charge (though it can in the case of dative, or coordinate, bonding). I repeat: a chlorine atom accepts an extra electron and becomes an anion, which has a net -ve charge: 17 protons and 18 electrons. That is what you have in common table salt- and in hundred of other compounds of Chlorine with metallic elements. I really do not understand what your problem is with this.

Yes, that's what we call the "valence shell", i.e. the outermost, incompletely filled shell. It is electrons in the valence shell orbitals that take part in chemical bonding. Keep going: at this rate you may learn some chemistry!

Indeed. Somewhat counterintuitively, to a chemist, most elements have a +ve electron affinity. To your point, even alkali metals have a +ve electron affinity. But Chlorine, as it happens, has the greatest electron affinity of any element, I think. It has to be borne in mind that electron affinity applies to atoms, in the gas phase. In reality most elements are not generally found as single atoms - hydrogen being a case in point. Generally this ability to accept more electrons is satisfied via bonding.

Not at all. If the exclusion principle did not hold, all the electrons could pile into the lowest energy orbital - and there would be no chemistry. But one of the quantum numbers is a spin quantum number. Each orbital can accept 2 electrons, with opposed spin orientations, because that satisfies the exclusion principle. In Chlorine and the other halogens, there are 5 p electrons, so one orbital has only single occupancy and can thus accept another one.

Simple: an atom in which one of the unoccupied, or only singly occupied, orbitals accepts an extra electron from somewhere. I've already told you that the chlorine atom has an "electron affinity". What this means is that if it gains an extra electron, which can go into one of the p valence orbitals, since these are not fully occupied, the overall energy of the atom goes down, i.e, it is more stable than the neutral atom. That change is energetically favoured. In practice, in many chemical compounds, the extra electron is taken from a metal atom, which has a relatively low ionisation energy. So the overall change is to make a chemical compound that is more stable than atoms of the element. Na + Cl -> Na⁺Cl⁻ . An example of ionic bonding, one of the three main types of bonding in chemistry.

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. 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. 😆

No. This looks like mad ballocks.