Is there an otherwise liquid material that has angle of repose?

I wonder whether there is a material which consists from individual molecules (that is, fluid), which has its [angle of repose](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_repose) thus exhibiting propertes of a powder?




A [liquid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid) by definition has no fixed shape and therefore [can have no angle of repose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_(substance)#Comparison_with_other_substances). I have noticed you have asked a [similar question](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/183186/is-there-a-definite-boundary-between-a-powder-and-a-fluid) on Physics.SE; the presence or absence of this kind of property can be used as a means to classify powders versus fluids. 


Note also that the conical "fixed shape" observed in powders is due to [frictional](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction) forces between the particles, whereas any surface curvature in liquids from [surface tension](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension) (e.g., a [meniscus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meniscus)) is due to [intermolecular forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force) between individual molecules.


Furthermore, take into account the melting point of the substance: it's a powder if the temperature of interest is below the melting point, and a liquid if it is above. 


 5

Such materials are called [Bingham plastics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_plastic). An angle of repose means that the material must withstand a non-zero shear stress (from its own weight) while still exhibiting zero shear rate. 


Examples include toothpaste, ketchup, mayonnaise, latex paint, and concentrated suspensions of coal particles in a otherwise newtonian liquid. I'm not sure if any of these materials meets your requirement that it consist "of individual molecules". I don't think a single-component, single-phase, non-polymeric substance will ever exhibit Bingham plastic behavior, although (I might be wrong and) I can't cite any theoretical reason why this is so.


 4