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.
Our Secondary School editors work hard to distill all the JCE materials to produce a fraction of particular interest to high school teachers. We call it CLIC.
In recent years we have worked hard to better match our advertisers with our readers. When shopping for chemistry education materials, visit our advertisers' WWW sites first.
Take JCE along on your outreach missions. Copies of the Journal, guest access to JCE Online, our publications catalog, and more are available for your participants.