In Defense of the Metallic Bond

John J. Gilman
Materials Science and Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095
J. Chem. Educ., 1999, 76 (10), p 1330
DOI: 10.1021/ed076p1330
Publication Date (Web): October 1, 1999

Abstract

This paper is a rebuttal of the suggestion that the term "metallic bond" be stricken from the chemist's lexicon. The argument of the critics of current usage is that the metallic bond is simply a special case of the covalent bond and that it can be discussed adequately in terms of molecular orbital theory. They define a "metal" as a substance with high electronic conductivity. The rebuttal points out that the historical definition of a metal has (for millennia) been in terms of the ductility of a substance - a property not possessed by "organic" and "ceramic" electronic conductors. This complex and unique property is supported by the characteristics of the metallic bond. In particular, it requires a sufficiently high concentration of nearly free electrons to form a Fermi liquid because ductility requires the bonding to be as nondirectional as possible. This is the antithesis of covalent bonding, as in diamond, for example.

Keywords (Audience):

General Public

Keywords (Domain):

Inorganic Chemistry

Keywords (Subject):

Covalent Bonding

Citing Articles

Citation data is made available by participants in CrossRef's Cited-by Linking service. For a more comprehensive list of citations to this article, users are encouraged to perform a search in SciFinder.

This article has been cited by 2 ACS Journal articles (2 most recent appear below).

Tools

SciFinder Links

SciFinder subscribers:  Click to sign in | Not a SciFinder subscriber? Learn more at www.cas.org

Explore by:


History

  • Received: August 03, 2009

Recommend & Share

  • Share on ACS NetworkACS Network
  • Add to FacebookFacebook
  • Tweet ThisTweet This
  • Add to CiteULikeCiteULike
  • Add to NewsvineNewsvine
  • Digg ThisDigg This
  • Add to DeliciousDelicious

Related Content