Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Avandia: Off the Market or Not? | Main | Write A Book, Why Don't You »

February 23, 2010

Things I Won't Work With: Dioxygen Difluoride

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The latest addition to the long list of chemicals that I never hope to encounter takes us back to the wonderful world of fluorine chemistry. I'm always struck by how much work has taken place in that field, how long ago some of it was first done, and how many violently hideous compounds have been carefully studied. Here's how the experimental prep of today's fragrant breath of spring starts:

The heater was warmed to approximately 700C. The heater block glowed a dull red color, observable with room lights turned off. The ballast tank was filled to 300 torr with oxygen, and fluorine was added until the total pressure was 901 torr. . .

And yes, what happens next is just what you think happens: you run a mixture of oxygen and fluorine through a 700-degree-heating block. "Oh, no you don't," is the common reaction of most chemists to that proposal, ". . .not unless I'm at least a mile away, two miles if I'm downwind." This, folks, is the bracingly direct route to preparing dioxygen difluoride, often referred to in the literature by its evocative formula of FOOF.

Well, "often" is sort of a relative term. Most of the references to this stuff are clearly from groups who've just been thinking about it, not making it. Rarely does an abstract that mentions density function theory ever lead to a paper featuring machine-shop diagrams, and so it is here. Once you strip away all the "calculated geometry of. . ." underbrush from the reference list, you're left with a much smaller core of experimental papers.

And a hard core it is! This stuff was first prepared in Germany in 1932 by Ruff and Menzel, who must have been likely lads indeed, because it's not like people didn't respect fluorine back then. No, elemental fluorine has commanded respect since well before anyone managed to isolate it, a process that took a good fifty years to work out in the 1800s. (The list of people who were blown up or poisoned while trying to do so is impressive). And that's at room temperature. At seven hundred freaking degrees, fluorine starts to dissociate into monoatomic radicals, thereby losing its gentle and forgiving nature. But that's how you get it to react with oxygen to make a product that's worse in pretty much every way.

FOOF is only stable at low temperatures; you'll never get close to RT with the stuff without it tearing itself to pieces. I've seen one reference to storing it as a solid at 90 Kelvin for later use, but that paper, a 1962 effort from A. G. Streng of Temple University, is deeply alarming in several ways. Not only did Streng prepare multiple batches of dioxygen difluoride and keep it around, he was apparently charged with finding out what it did to things. All sorts of things. One damn thing after another, actually:

"Being a high energy oxidizer, dioxygen difluoride reacted vigorously with organic compounds, even at temperatures close to its melting point. It reacted instantaneously with solid ethyl alcohol, producing a blue flame and an explosion. When a drop of liquid 02F2 was added to liquid methane, cooled at 90°K., a white flame was produced instantaneously, which turned green upon further burning. When 0.2 (mL) of liquid 02F2 was added to 0.5 (mL) of liquid CH4 at 90°K., a violent explosion occurred."

And he's just getting warmed up, if that's the right phrase to use for something that detonates things at -180C (that's -300 Fahrenheit, if you only have a kitchen thermometer). The great majority of Streng's reactions have surely never been run again. The paper goes on to react FOOF with everything else you wouldn't react it with: ammonia ("vigorous", this at 100K), water ice (explosion, natch), chlorine ("violent explosion", so he added it more slowly the second time), red phosphorus (not good), bromine fluoride, chlorine trifluoride (say what?), perchloryl fluoride (!), tetrafluorohydrazine (how on Earth. . .), and on, and on. If the paper weren't laid out in complete grammatical sentences and published in JACS, you'd swear it was the work of a violent lunatic. I ran out of vulgar expletives after the second page. A. G. Streng, folks, absolutely takes the corrosive exploding cake, and I have to tip my asbestos-lined titanium hat to him.

Even Streng had to give up on some of the planned experiments, though (bonus dormitat Strengus?). Sulfur compounds defeated him, because the thermodynamics were just too titanic. Hydrogen sulfide, for example, reacts with four molecules of FOOF to give sulfur hexafluoride, 2 molecules of HF and four oxygens. . .and 433 kcal, which is the kind of every-man-for-himself exotherm that you want to avoid at all cost. The sulfur chemistry of FOOF remains unexplored, so if you feel like whipping up a batch of Satan's kimchi, go right ahead.

Update: note that this is 433 kcal per mole, not per molecule (which would be impossible for even nuclear fission and fusion reaction (see here for the figures). Chemists almost always thing in energetics in terms of moles, thus the confusion. It's still a ridiculous amount of energy to shed, and you don't want to be around when it happens.

So does anyone use dioxygen difluoride for anything? Not as far as I can see. Most of the recent work with the stuff has come from groups at Los Alamos, where it's been used to prepare national-security substances such as plutonium and neptunium hexafluoride. But I do note that if you run the structure through SciFinder, it comes out with a most unexpected icon that indicates a commercial supplier. That would be the Hangzhou Sage Chemical Company. They offer it in 100g, 500g, and 1 kilo amounts, which is interesting, because I don't think a kilo of dioxygen difluoride has ever existed. Someone should call them on this - ask for the free shipping, and if they object, tell them Amazon offers it on this item. Serves 'em right. Morons.

Comments (136) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Things I Won't Work With


COMMENTS

1. RB Woodweird on February 23, 2010 9:50 AM writes...

1. I had to go through regulatory hell just to use some TMSCN. I think I will apply to use some FOOF and watch the guys in Safety pass out from the stress.

2. FOOF is Satan's kimchi would be a good name for a band.

3. In conjuction with 1. above, I would like to order a couple of kilos of FOOF from Hangzhou Sage Chemical just to see the crater on Google Maps.

4. One of the links in the commentary leads eventually to "Galvanic Experiments on the Dead Body of a Criminal":
http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/ymboa/ymboa.html

Permalink to Comment

2. Seminymous Coward on February 23, 2010 10:13 AM writes...

Streng also has a paper on Dioxygen Chlorine Trifluoride (O2ClF3) and several dealing with other oxygen fluorides, including everything from 1 to 6 oxygens with 2 fluorides.

Permalink to Comment

3. CanChem on February 23, 2010 10:14 AM writes...

I really like in the J. Fluor. Chem. paper how much of the reaction progress is gauged by "pings" in the reaction vessel.

And Hangzhou? Man, those guys really do have everything.

Permalink to Comment

4. Henrik Vanger on February 23, 2010 10:18 AM writes...

Some days, I addictively return to this blog just to have phrases like "whipping up a batch of Satan's kimchi" put a smile on my face. Hunter Thompson would be proud.

Permalink to Comment

5. A Nonny Mouse on February 23, 2010 10:30 AM writes...

The Chinese would probably ship it in a padded envelope like everything else.

Permalink to Comment

6. A Nonny Mouse on February 23, 2010 10:33 AM writes...

PS Makes that carbonyl difluoride, which I have been releasing in a reaction, look decidedly tame!

Permalink to Comment

7. edward on February 23, 2010 10:33 AM writes...

Hangzhou apparently has discontinued this reagent, and no other company offers to sell a kilo.

Permalink to Comment

8. p on February 23, 2010 10:37 AM writes...

Scifinder should eliminate Hangzhou from their commerical supplier list. Has anyone ever tried to order anything from them? They pop up on pretty much every compound and really pollute searches on commercially available substances.

Or, we could do as RB Woodweird says and order some of this stuff - that might end the company right there.

Permalink to Comment

9. okemist on February 23, 2010 11:11 AM writes...

There was some 1930's German papers doing fluorinations using liquid Cl2 as a solvent, you may be able to bubble O2 into the dissolved F2 to make FOOF but most likely it will just blow up the tube like EVERYTHING else we added, Hmmm...maybe try reverse addition.

Permalink to Comment

10. processchemist on February 23, 2010 11:22 AM writes...

About pollution of supplier list, some companies (chinese, of course) list almost ALL the products described in the Organic Synthese Collective. And when you ask for quotation and delivery time, price can high and dt 1-2 months from the order (and I'm not talking about 1 ton of material...)

Permalink to Comment

11. Dave on February 23, 2010 11:23 AM writes...

I'm surprised that FOOF even exists. Then, again, F will latch onto just about everything, even things that nothing else will; otherwise, how could you explain the existance of XeF8?

Dave

Permalink to Comment

12. CanChem on February 23, 2010 11:31 AM writes...

@11

Yeah, in the first paper Derek lists the authors talk about KrF2 forming too. All these things really give me the shivers. I'm glad I've never had to work with anything more fluorinated than C6F5OH.

Permalink to Comment

13. Sili on February 23, 2010 11:50 AM writes...

If I have not said this before, I'll say it now: Turn this series into a book! There must be a publisher for it.

You have a coupla fans over at Pharyngula already (some of them non-chemists). I wasn't even the first to link you.

Speaking of links: more XMRV whining from WPI. As usual destroyed by her ERVness.

Permalink to Comment

14. David P on February 23, 2010 11:57 AM writes...

This was an awesome read. The man Streng is a marvel, not in the least part because he was able to run multiple different series of reactions with the stuff. Either that or he had a supply of remarkably unquestioning grad students.

Permalink to Comment

15. Micah S. on February 23, 2010 11:59 AM writes...

'Audible “pings” and pressure excursions occurred when liquid O2F2 dripped onto uncooled portions of the apparatus.' lol fun times

Permalink to Comment

16. Pharma Conduct Guy on February 23, 2010 12:02 PM writes...

As a formally trained analytical chemist who was forced to live a more biologically oriented existence due to career demands, reading about basic chemistry principles brings back feelings of nostalgia. Do biologists ever really think about thermodynamics for practical purposes? Is the day of the chemist long gone?

Permalink to Comment

17. Thomas McEntee on February 23, 2010 12:38 PM writes...

Speaking of KrF2 and fluorine dissociating at 700 deg C, Bezmelnitsyn, Legasov, and Chaivanov reported in 1976 the continuous preparation of KrF2 by thermal cracking of fluorine on a nickel wire at 600-700 C followed by reaction with Kr on the reactor wall at -196 C ([Dokl Chem. (Eng Trans), 235, 365ff (1977)]. Readers interested in oxidative fluorinators should check out Karl O. Christie and David A. Dixon, "A Quantitative Scale for the Oxidizing Strength of Oxidative Fluorinators", JACS, 114, 2978-85 (1992)

Permalink to Comment

18. You're Pfizered on February 23, 2010 12:58 PM writes...

Wuss.

Permalink to Comment

19. milkshake on February 23, 2010 1:31 PM writes...

whatever they needed the stuff for, it was not made for improving human welfare.
This reminds me, when I was in college in Prague we had iodine trichloride preparation in freshman inorganic lab (!) that involved condensing chlorine gas into a flask on a colling bath, spooning solid iodine into that golden liquid and then carefully evaporating the produced goodness until ICl3 crystallized. I did it myself but I hear that the procedure is no longer given to freshmen after one very ugly spill...

Permalink to Comment

20. Rhenium on February 23, 2010 2:10 PM writes...

The question is whether Streng is still alive. :)

Permalink to Comment

21. Bored on February 23, 2010 3:02 PM writes...

Sili is right, Derek. Turn this series into a book. It would sell, man. "Things I Won't Work With" is already a perfect title.

Permalink to Comment

22. Katherine on February 23, 2010 3:48 PM writes...

My day gets better anytime I see "Things I Won't Work With" in my RSS feed. And I never got past Chem 111.

Permalink to Comment

23. coprolite on February 23, 2010 4:01 PM writes...

Derek, they're right. The first time I read your blog was when someone (not a scientist) sent me a link to Sand Won't Save You This Time, and I pass that one along to people now to weed out the weak-minded.

Permalink to Comment

24. cicely on February 23, 2010 4:05 PM writes...

I'm one of those non-chemist Pharyngulists of whom Sili speaks, and I would buy the book in a hot second.

Permalink to Comment

25. Cellbio on February 23, 2010 4:22 PM writes...

Great piece Derek! Who knew volatile chemistry could be so funny.

Permalink to Comment

26. widget on February 23, 2010 4:23 PM writes...

This very entertaining piece has made me enormously glad I'm a biologist...a total wuss maybe, but at least I still have all my fingers! Thanks for the laughs, Derek...you definitely have a flair! Totally agree with Sili and Bored--you've got a best seller here. The Dave Barry of science!

Permalink to Comment

27. Tim McDaniel on February 23, 2010 4:55 PM writes...

My only chemistry class was in one year of in high school, and I remember little of it. "Sand Won't Save You This Time" hooked me on this blog.

Permalink to Comment

28. metaphysician on February 23, 2010 5:37 PM writes...

Put me down as another person hooked by "Sand Won't Save You This Time", and another non-chemist to boot. And I concur, really, you could turn this into a book.

As for this entry. . . 433 kilocalories?! From only five molecules?! I didn't know you could *put* that much binding energy into a molecule. . .

Permalink to Comment

29. Hap on February 23, 2010 5:59 PM writes...

I was hooked at the "How Not To Do It: Liquid Nitrogen Tanks" post, though "Things I Won't Do: Isolating Ciguatoxin" was also pretty good.

433 kcal/mol is about five C-C single bonds, so it's in the realm of (unpleasant) possibility. 280 g of FOOF and 34 g H2S gets you...about a stick and half of TNT (I think that a stick of dynamite gives off about 1 MJ), with the bonus that the products aren't all that nice (I think SF6 is bulletproof, but HF gas can't be too fun), though I guess if the shock wave containing their highest concentrations is blowing by you at above the speed of sound, you don't have to worry for long.

Sounds like a good idea to pass.

Permalink to Comment

30. Vittorio Montanari on February 23, 2010 6:45 PM writes...

Actually fluorine does not need much encouragement to become atomic at any temperature, which is probably why CF3OF and CF2(OF)2 are so easily made from CO and CO2. No abstractions here, any number of kilos, if Messrs Huanzhou are not too busy making everything else let's watch them try. The legendary George Cady pretty much could not decompose CF3OF up to when CF3OF started reacting with the cylinder (it will ignite happily any organics and detonate C2F4 though). CF2(OF)2 now, you're in the far upcountry of the proverbial creek if you don't know what you're doing and never safe even if you do. Example of the beauty of the beast: my former boss DesMarteau made CF3OOCF2OF (which is the Rock of Gibraltar compared to most hypofluorites) from CF2(OF)2. It's a wonder: CF2(OF)2 oxidizes COF2 to CF3OF and is ultimately reduced to CF3OOCF2OF. I spent some time on that clean reaction back in the days and otherwise handled fluorine for a living. I miss the eerie elegance of the science and the good memories, but tell you what, do not volunteer anywhere near CF2(OF)2. Let Los Alamos handle that by remote control if they need.

Permalink to Comment

31. David Marjanović on February 23, 2010 7:11 PM writes...

Let me just jump on the "please turn it into a book" bandwagon.

Oh, and, streng is German for "strict".

Permalink to Comment

32. David Marjanović on February 23, 2010 7:17 PM writes...

Messrs Huanzhou

Hángzhōu is an ancient city in China, known for its fine silk and its violently hideous...

Permalink to Comment

33. Karl on February 23, 2010 7:31 PM writes...

"Things I Won't Work With" would certainly have a place of honor on the bookshelf, right next to my treasured copy of Clark's "Ignition!" (which has to be the funniest technical book I've ever read).

If you got together with milkshake to include some of his stories, the result might even take over the prime spot.

Permalink to Comment

34. Hap on February 23, 2010 7:37 PM writes...

I don't know the language, but I am guessing that Huanzhou is Chinese for "shoebox funeral", or "the graveyard of fluorine chemists". Maybe someone can request a site tour, as soon as the wreckage setlles to earth and the clouds of HF pass by.

Permalink to Comment

35. Doug on February 23, 2010 8:01 PM writes...

Second (or third or fourth) for the book. I was thinking it would be exactly the right thing to use in a high school to get kids interested in chemistry.

Great stuff!

Permalink to Comment

36. Anonymous BMS Researcher on February 23, 2010 8:35 PM writes...

widget on February 23, 2010 4:23 PM wrote...

> This very entertaining piece has made me
> enormously glad I'm a biologist...a total wuss
> maybe, but at least I still have all my fingers

Oh, biology has its thrills too, like BSL-4 pathogens (such as Ebola), not that I ever worked on anything that exotic! I last used a pipette in the bio labs maybe 20 years ago, now I work with computers so I am at risk of carpal tunnel.

Permalink to Comment

37. Josh on February 23, 2010 9:12 PM writes...

I have a minor in chemistry (major in zoology) but my main focus as my first job out of college was working in a BL-3 and high containment areas with anthrax, bot, serin, soman, and VX. FOOF scares me more than those....

Permalink to Comment

38. drjim on February 23, 2010 10:58 PM writes...

Duh....makes me glad I'm an EE!

Permalink to Comment

39. Curt Fischer on February 24, 2010 2:35 AM writes...

It's amazing that FOOF does not react with CO2.
When added to Dry Ice, dioxygen difluoride did not react and was only absorbed by the solid. Addition of acetone to this mixture resulted in sparking accompanied by an explosion.

Maybe he was pissed that the CO2 didn't blow and wanted to see some pretty colors, and that a bottle of acetone was close at had.

I was also touched by the acknowledgements section:
The author wishes to thank[...]Mrs. L. V. Streng [...]for their contributions in the experimental work.

That sounds like love.

Permalink to Comment

40. milkshake on February 24, 2010 3:04 AM writes...

I think Mrs Steng stood nearby with a fire extinguisher in one hand and first-aid kit in the other. She fluffed her husband's ego after each round of bloodcurdling mishaps with words "at least you are not a nuclear scientist"

Permalink to Comment

41. iridium on February 24, 2010 6:11 AM writes...

"Sand Won't Save You This Time" rules!

... it does not need to be a big book .... :)

Permalink to Comment

42. Fungus on February 24, 2010 6:45 AM writes...

A book dedicated to stories of fires and explosions in the lab (aka "war stories") would be a fantastic read. I have about 5 or 6 to share myself.

Permalink to Comment

43. Stephanie on February 24, 2010 7:14 AM writes...

Always love seeing "Things I won't work with" in my RSS feed. I'm a librarian, I'd make sure a book of these hit the bestseller list.

This post just made my day. I am not a chemist (although I spent most of my college years studying it), I always enjoyed the more, um.... explosive aspects of the discipline.

Now, I just have to figure out how to explain my giggling to my cubemates.

Permalink to Comment

44. Imants Zudans on February 24, 2010 10:03 AM writes...

What a great read! Thanks!

I like how you mentioned Hangzhou Sage Chemical. This is actually a very serious problem. For ordinary chemicals it is more difficult to catch suppliers that play these sorts of tricks. And we have seen a fair share of these. In our company we learn which supplier is relaible and which is not, avoid the ones that have a poor service. But there is no place all chemists can share this experience so that other don't make the same mistakes.
And I wonder how they decide what to put in their catalog. Random Wikipedia selection?

Permalink to Comment

45. Dave_n on February 24, 2010 10:09 AM writes...

In another life, many years ago and not in the USA, I used to work in organometallic chemistry, when "men were men and women were women" and did not worry about thermodynamics, only if it reacted well!! When someone ended their graduate career (with a PhD not a "bang"), we used to surround their reaction train with blast shields and give the newly minted PhD a switch to activate a break seal that would let air into the train. Then just before s/he pressed the button, an 8 mm camera would start rolling. Some pretty spectacular effects when fluorinated, and other energetic organ-ometallic compounds met oxygen.

In that same life time, I used to have (legal) target practice with 0.22 rifles on the "Winchester quarts" of reactants that had to be disposed of. Spectacular colors and explosions at a safe distance. Those were the days when you could own rifles and pistols in the UK. Today Health and Safety would never allow such enjoyable sport. Dave_n

Permalink to Comment

46. Sili on February 24, 2010 11:48 AM writes...

But there is no place all chemists can share this experience so that other don't make the same mistakes.
That's actually odd. In this age of 'Web 2.0', there should be an Ebay/Amazon of chemicals, where buyers can add feedback and reviews, that in turn can be voted on by other buyers. Of course such systems can be gamed, but they're not wholly useless. Permalink to Comment

47. hell to the chief on February 24, 2010 1:01 PM writes...

Of course in the old days when this stuff was published, it was common for reviewers to try and repeat the observations in the paper before publication.
So you can add "review the paper" to the list of things you would not do.

Permalink to Comment

48. Hap on February 24, 2010 2:03 PM writes...

I'm not a fan of less stringent review requirements, but I'd make an exception for that, because there is no way in hell (or anyplace else) that I would try to reproduce anything in that paper (nor in Klapotke's or Christe's work, to take two good examples) - even if I had the position and the equipment, I sure don't have the experience to do so, and I would guess that few people in chemistry do. Very few people would thus actually be able to attempt to reproduce the work, and thus review it (and likely most of those would be competitors). The work won't be published very much at all, and that would be a loss if for nothing else than the loss in entertainment value.

I like good chemical literature, but I'm not willing to die for it (and in a way that probably would remove me from the organ donor lists, thus assuring that my life would only be useful as a particularly pointed warning on what not to do.)

Permalink to Comment

49. Rustler on February 24, 2010 10:16 PM writes...

Dave-n

If you are ever in southern New Mexico, give me a ring. We'll go out on the outskirts of the Jornada Del Muerto and we'll sling some lead. One of my favorite targets is a 55 gallon drum into which I've put about one gallon of gasoline. On a hot July evening it makes a most satisfying fireball. Of course, you have to use the right ammunition. As a kid, I'd stretch plastic over the drum and cover it with powdered magnesium. We would pretend to re-enact the Trinity test, which happened just a few dozen miles away. It was really quite amazing. We would get the blinding flash and a miniature mushroom cloud. We'd laugh our heads off then do it again. And no radioactivity!

Permalink to Comment

50. Spectrochimico on February 25, 2010 12:37 AM writes...

The very first project I worked on in graduate school involved synthesizing halooxides for spectroscopic analysis. The senior graduate student working on the project was pregnant and wouldn't even go into the room where we ran the synthesis.

Permalink to Comment

51. BenP on February 25, 2010 2:05 AM writes...

I'm a bit confused. You quoted 433kcal per 4 ATOMS of FOOF reacted with HS?

That would be like 10^25 per mol. That exceeds the energy of splitting a uranium atom by like, a trillion.

Please tell me its 433kcal per mol.

Permalink to Comment

52. Nile on February 25, 2010 5:18 AM writes...

Makes you wonder what species exist in 'Fluorox' propellants - both in the exhaust stream, and in the storage tank. It isn't used often, for some or other reason, but it has the distinction of being the most powerful oxidiser available for bipropellants, so it's not quite 'left on the shelf'.

Yes, I'd buy a copy of 'Sand won't save you...' in book form. Would you care to do a limited-run signed special binding with scorch marks?

Having just read a samizdat copy of 'Ignition!', I can assure you that there's a market for the book. Ignore all asmonitions from the publisher that you should 'dumb it down'.

Remind me, sometime, to blog a distressing story about a large vat of Hydrofluoric acid in a British civil nuclear installation.

Permalink to Comment

53. UC on February 25, 2010 5:33 AM writes...

The 433kcal is for the reaction stoichiometry given in moles.

If I had a better table of enthalpies of formation, it would be trivial to back calculate the enthalpy of formation of FOOF, assuming it's not already in the paper (which I can't access). I'd also be guessing at the state of the H2S (probably solid).

Permalink to Comment

54. Nile on February 25, 2010 5:43 AM writes...

Also...

If I was an unscrupulous supplier (say, somewhere near Huanzhou), and I'd taken your money for an order I know damn' well I can't synthesise, I'd examine my conscience at length and take the 'What would Satan do?' approach.

The answer? Mail out a small vial of HF, lots of powdered Teflon, and a kilogram of plastique with an anti-tampering detonator. Who's to know?

Any chemist stupid enough to order the stuff can claim his Darwin award, and the world's a safer place.

A footnote, and a cover-my-ass disclaimer:

I would not normally advocate the use of letterbombs - it is very unfair on the delivery guy and illegal to boot, and you might not take the above suggestion entirely seriously - but you might want to sit down and try writing out a packaging & despatch procedure for something as hazardous as a cryogenic fluorine superoxidiser. Then ask yourself: what if some dishonest half-assed laboratory supply company tried to deliver something a tenth as dangerous? How many people died to make it?

They have *some* good suppliers in China, and some very, very bad ones.

Permalink to Comment

55. Joe on February 25, 2010 12:38 PM writes...

Sili is right, Derek. Turn this series into a book. It would sell, man. "Things I Won't Work With" is already a perfect title.

Better still, "Things that make you go BOOM!"

Permalink to Comment

56. Paul on February 25, 2010 2:45 PM writes...

Many of the compounds Streng added FOOF to are well known in the rocket propellant field. Tetrafluorohydrazine, for example, is a storable oxidizer. I imagine he was seeing if FOOF could be made to stably dissolve in another propellant component, to give it extra oomph.

Permalink to Comment

57. David Dyer-Bennet on February 25, 2010 3:08 PM writes...

+1 for the book! And I note that I'm also a fan of Ignition!, though I do not own a copy.

I come by now and then, mostly when something points me here again -- which has happened repeatedly.

I'm a software engineer and photographer, trained as a mathematician, and took a course in chemistry once in highschool; and I enjoy reading this sort of thing, and know just barely enough to follow along (I even guessed that the 433kcal must relate to reactions larger than the number of atoms you seemed to be describing, and what that larger quantity probably was).

Will now forward this to my friend the science fiction author who is the daughter of a chemist :-).

Permalink to Comment

58. milkshake on February 25, 2010 4:07 PM writes...

the problem with rocket fuels is that the oxidizer is always by far the heaviest component, and in terms of thrust/weight efficiency we get pretty much to a limit with elementary oxygen and fluorine as a oxidizer. Ignition! gives a good summary of various nasties that were tested, including ozone and ClF3 but even if they were less hazardous they would give you only a marginal gain. There is only so much that the re-configuring valence electrons can give you. (The same goes for conventional explosives.)

Permalink to Comment

59. Carl Bussjaeger on February 25, 2010 10:23 PM writes...

Make it a book and I will buy it. And I'm not even a chemist. I just know enough to read the experiments and go, "OH MY FREAKING G...!!!"

And that's just this post.

Permalink to Comment

60. Tom on February 25, 2010 11:10 PM writes...

John D. Clark. IGNITION! An informal history of liquid rocket propellants. Rutgers University, USA 1972.

Perchloryl Fluoride was used as an experimental liquid fuel oxidizer for rockets, and even has its own entry in the glossary as PF. If you haven't checked this out yet, it's full of cringeworthy chemistry.

Permalink to Comment

61. Mark Gibbs on February 28, 2010 2:29 PM writes...

Good heavens! Have you checked out the price of a copy of Ignition? On Amazon there are two used copies; $595 and $1,000! I can't remember the last time I posted a reply with so many exclamation marks.

Anyone know of an online facsimile?

[mg]

Permalink to Comment

62. David Moisan on February 28, 2010 3:02 PM writes...

I never got beyond HS chemistry; I'm just a CS grad. But whenever I read this series, I want to: 1) ROFLMAO, and 2) Review my evacuation plans. Preferably to the next country over.

Permalink to Comment

63. Hap on March 1, 2010 5:53 PM writes...

On the original "Sand Won't Save You This Time", a commenter pointed to a UMich website that would print copies of Ignition - I assume they were legal, and that they 1) still exist and 2) don't charge more than $600 a copy.

Permalink to Comment

64. Ben on March 2, 2010 1:49 AM writes...

By the way, if you google "bonus dormitat Strengus" (without the quotes works fine too) you get a number of sites that are blatantly ripping off your content.

Permalink to Comment

65. Duane on March 2, 2010 1:28 PM writes...

It isn't just the enthalpy. Butane combustion produces an enthalpy change of about 790 kcal (if I've done my sums correctly) yet we carry butane lighters in our pockets and light them without fear. It is the kinetics combined with the large enthalpy change that produces the uncontrolability of the FOOF chemistry. Thanks for high activation energies in hydrocarbon chemistry!

Duane

Permalink to Comment

66. Hap on March 2, 2010 6:51 PM writes...

The link referenced in #63 is dead - it doesn't point to anywhere to get a copy of Ignition but to a library database group called ProQuest.

Sorry.

Permalink to Comment

67. DTL on March 3, 2010 10:58 AM writes...

Yet another comment for the book. It would be completely fantastic and utterly awesome.

Permalink to Comment

68. Tom on March 4, 2010 6:22 PM writes...

Re ignition: There was a bittorrent copy on thepiratebay as of a couple of weeks ago. I assume someone still holds the copyright though - it's a great shame it's not been reprinted.

And yes, I was led here by "Sand won't save you this time" and would probably buy the collected "Things I won't work with"!

Permalink to Comment

69. Richard Gadsden on March 5, 2010 1:07 PM writes...

Re Ignition, the bittorrent copy on thepiratebay isn't very good quality - it's a PDF.

I got one of the UMich copies - nasty facsimile, but it's a great book!

I'm about midway through typing Ignition up in HTML ready to convert to ePub. Natch, it's still (c) the estate of John D Clark until 2058. It will have reverted to his estate from Rutgers since it's been out of print for so long, but I have no idea who his heirs and assigns are for the copyright to get a release. Been trying to track them down to get a copyright release for a nice eBook version of Ignition - they'd get a small income from it, which beats the nothing that copyright's been worth these last three decades.

Permalink to Comment

70. InfMP on March 5, 2010 3:44 PM writes...

I tried to order a pyridine from Hangzhou last week. I asked when, how much g and $, and they responded by asking me how much i want (broken english).
Then I said like 5 g, and they never replied again.

Permalink to Comment

71. Richard Gadsden on March 8, 2010 7:54 AM writes...

Re: Ignition There is an image-only PDF online at

uggc://zvxrn.ngu.pk/Vtavgvba/

Yes, you need to know something to get that link to work, no, I'm not telling you what that something is.

Permalink to Comment

72. Birgit on March 10, 2010 6:32 PM writes...

Your entries are ADORABLE. I studied chemistry myself, including a promotion in physical chemistry which involved mostly computers and some high vacuum equipment. Whenever one of us broke out an OMG WHITE COAT it meant REAL CHEMISTRY might happen, so everyone tried to keep away as far as possible :)

The worst compound ever used was methylamine (condensed as solvent) - the poor guy who worked with it smelled like a fish factory for days.

Your articles made my ex-chemist heart very happy and your writing style is adorable. Thank you!

Permalink to Comment

73. Mike on March 16, 2010 8:23 PM writes...

Just saw that link, thank you Richard!

Permalink to Comment

74. Nerf on March 19, 2010 5:19 AM writes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm2AdknTcMI Shows a FOOF apparatus. Remarkably intact, too.

Permalink to Comment

75. Fred on April 5, 2010 7:53 PM writes...

My chemistry teacher read some of your "Things I won't work with" blogs. We all thought they were awesome and written in a hilarious tone.
Thank you! Write more!

Permalink to Comment

76. Cassady on April 7, 2010 7:53 PM writes...

Yet another vote in favor of turning this into a book. I'd buy one for me and a pile of copies for gifts.

Permalink to Comment

77. Technicalfool on April 12, 2010 11:12 PM writes...

I am not a chemist. I have no education in chemistry whatsoever. All I know is that excessive amounts of "N" in a formula tend to spell disaster, and a teaspoon worth of low-grade black powder can reduce a can of paint to centimetre-wide shrapnel if encased (im)properly.

..And yet I find myself coming here time and time again. "Satan's Kimchi" indeed. You sir, are a genius of the comic variety. Also, I'm interested in a kilo of FOOF, as I have a few rooms that need a fresh coat of paint.

Permalink to Comment

79. caspian on May 21, 2010 9:42 PM writes...

there is a copy of the Ignition! e-book online at http://www.filedropper.com/ebookignitionaninformalhistoryofliquidrocketpropellantsjohndclark if anyone wishes it.

Permalink to Comment

80. random websurfer on May 31, 2010 7:32 PM writes...

Derek, you should write an entry about fluorine gas itself... especially about people who like it to come in transparent specimen tubes (yes, you heard that right: *transparent*, specimen tubes, that you put up on display, say in a, oh, children's museum or something?!):

http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/009.5/index.s12.html

From the description, it seems that these tubes would have a lifetime of about 50 years or so, ASSUMING that there is only one or two molecules of HF or H2O among the, oh, 10^23 or so molecules of pure fluorine gas? (That's 1 part per 10^23 purity, y'know.)

The lengths to which some people would go...

Permalink to Comment

81. Anonymous on August 9, 2010 12:12 PM writes...

I find it interesting that the safetygram referenced in the original post has this to say...

"Pressure relief devices are not permitted on chlorine trifluoride cylinders."

Cylinders sans pressure releif devices are a no-no according to OSHA. I bet telling them that you had ClF3 in your facility would be grounds for an instant audit/investigation.

Permalink to Comment

82. Anonymous on September 4, 2010 2:36 PM writes...

Correction...any EH&S officer will tell you that pressure releases are forbidden on canisters of chlorine or other toxic gases. That is in accordance with OSHA requirements.

Permalink to Comment

83. Anonymous on September 24, 2011 9:13 AM writes...

... I can't believe all this stuff actually happened.

(This stuff was compared to hellfire by a certain site. I won't mention the name of the site, but I THINK you can guess what site I mean.) It comes right below chlorine trifluoride in teh real lfie section of the article.)

tl;dr: AYAYAYAYA! AMAZING THIS HAPPENED!

Permalink to Comment

84. Brooks Moses on October 10, 2011 6:21 PM writes...

Derek, you might be entertained by one of the other things Streng worked with: Solid ozone: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01513a012

Permalink to Comment

85. James on November 25, 2011 12:12 AM writes...

In high school in the mid 1980s my "friends" on phreaker BBSs wanted to trade explosive synthesis instructions for hacked telephone long distance codes (which I needed to reach such BBSs) so I took a textbook nitroglycerin synthesis and embellished it with all kinds of hyperbolic safety warnings. A decade later I found it referenced in the Congressional Record by Diane Feinstein when she was trying to outlaw bomb making instructions on the internet. I always wondered whether the instructions I produced were a net safety benefit because they would discourage almost everyone from actually attempting them, or so I hoped, and the regular syntheses were so easy to find in any university library. Who knows?

Permalink to Comment

86. loupgarous on February 13, 2012 10:39 AM writes...

http://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf is the latest online .pdf copy of John C. Clark's Ignition! (which I was fortunate enough to find at a K-Mart for fifty cents during my college career, and is quite out of print aside from photocopy reprints that cost $200/copy from amazon.com).

I don't have a particular problem circulating this link, given that people have made a good faith effort to get publication rights from the Clark estate for Ignition! and the only people profiting from paid reprints at this point aren't the Clark heirs, but a reprint company. And Clark is one of the funnier raconteurs of science history in print; it's a delightful bonus that he and his friends made some incredibly energetic compounds, fired them in rocket test stands and (mostly) lived to tell about it.

And the book's foreword is by Isaac Asimov, an early colleague of Clark's when both men were active in doing chemistry for our side in World War II.

Permalink to Comment

87. jim on March 5, 2012 8:51 PM writes...

I'm a chemical engineer. We could scale this up. How about a million tons a year at 900 dollars a ton. The cost of crude oil. No greenhouse gases.

Permalink to Comment

88. theoryguy on March 9, 2012 9:24 PM writes...

Looking at Prof. Streng's acknowledgements, it appears that one of the fearless experimenters may have been his wife.

Permalink to Comment

89. Esko on May 11, 2012 3:16 AM writes...

FOOF to react with sodium azide? "Nice" reaction, I'd guess.

Permalink to Comment

90. fifiste on May 18, 2012 12:40 PM writes...

Hydrogen sulfide, for example, reacts with four molecules of FOOF to give sulfur hexafluoride, 2 molecules of HF and four oxygens. . .and 433 kcal

Am I off by something but should it really mean that a mole of HS+4molesFOOF will produce around 10e25 joules? Wiki says that 10e24 joules are enough to heat all water on earth by 1 C.

Permalink to Comment

91. John on June 4, 2012 5:00 PM writes...

Having read your hilarious blurb on chlorine trifluoride, I thought I had found the ne plus ultra of chmistry, but now I realize there are all kinds of "Things I won't Work With," combining F, Cl, O, etc. I plan to read them all. As a kid, I once bought a container of sodium (Na) in Atlanta and proceeded immediately to carve it up and throw the pieces in the creek next to our home. WOW! I also experimented with homemade rockets/bombs, etc., and once set our beautiful oak tree on fire---from the TOP! (Yes, it was fall. My ad looked helplessly on and no doubt wondered, "What am I RAISING?!" Lucky for me, it sooon went out. Years later, when I was taking organic chemistry at SMU (Dallas), I tried to make nitroglycerin at home. All I got was dilute nitric/sulfuric acid and water. Does God love me or WHAT? Keep up the good work, bro!

John

Permalink to Comment

92. heteromeles on July 21, 2012 3:50 PM writes...

Congratulations for inspiring Charlie Stross' story "Tall Tail." http://www.tor.com/stories/2012/07/a-tall-tail

Permalink to Comment

93. John Dallman on July 24, 2012 9:58 AM writes...

@fifiste, I think you'll find that 433kcal is per mole. Certainly your energy figure is considerably in excess of the total conversion of mass to energy for the reactants. FOOF is not as lively as that.

On the subject of moles: http://what-if.xkcd.com/4/.

Permalink to Comment

94. Oldnuke on December 29, 2012 8:14 PM writes...

> Looking at Prof. Streng's acknowledgements, it appears that one of the fearless experimenters may have been his wife.

Could you imagine what dinner conversation at the Streng household must have been like? Or if they had any neighbors downwind of their kitchen range hood?

Permalink to Comment

95. Daniel on March 23, 2013 5:18 PM writes...

Lucia Streng's obituary is here:

http://articles.philly.com/1995-04-30/news/25687426_1_krypton-painting-china-chemist

There's a little on A R (Alex) Streng as well.

Permalink to Comment

96. Anonymous on April 9, 2013 8:58 AM writes...

What if first! http://what-if.xkcd.com/40/
-Ozy

Permalink to Comment

97. David on April 9, 2013 10:02 AM writes...

Prepare for the XKCD army.

Permalink to Comment

98. 852derek852 on April 9, 2013 11:25 AM writes...

If you ordered 1 kg of F2O2 from Hangzhou, you'd probably end up with a 1kg ziplock bag of sodium floride if you were lucky, or nothing if you were unlucky. If you were REALLY unlucky, it turns out they weren't bluffing, and you die.

Permalink to Comment

99. XKCDer on April 9, 2013 11:48 AM writes...

So after the A-bomb and H-bomb, we're yet to see a FOOF-bomb?

Permalink to Comment

100. Michael on April 9, 2013 1:20 PM writes...

I am not a chemist, or even particularly good with science (I was a liberal arts major in undergrad and grad school). The last chemistry course I had was in the 11th grade.

And yet, I found this post pretty darn funny. You have a gift for writing. And even in its technicality, I was able to appreciate your humor and follow the post. That's a gift, sir.

Permalink to Comment

101. trowa on April 9, 2013 5:40 PM writes...

Can you imagine what happens when a police officer says "What's in your tanker, son?" to the truck driver waiting for the recovery van that will change his tyre for him and let him get on his way, and the driver replies "HF"?

The policeman closes quite a lot of lanes on the motorway, that's what!

Permalink to Comment

102. Sci_File on April 9, 2013 8:27 PM writes...

All I can think of is a couple of my Chem students who ask me everyday if we can blow something up. Ruff and Menzel were probably those kids.

Permalink to Comment

103. Alsadius on April 9, 2013 11:09 PM writes...

I must say, it's kind of weird seeing XKCD linking a site I already read. Best of luck with the new traffic, Derek.

Permalink to Comment

104. Dan on April 9, 2013 11:46 PM writes...

#101: Alarming as FOOF is, it's got nothing on nuclear reactions for sheer destructive power. One fission event produces about 200 MeV of energy, according to Wikipedia; at 433 kcal/mol, the reaction of H2S + 4 FOOF -> SF6 + 4 O2 + 2 HF is around 18.8 eV (not MeV, not even keV) per molecule of H2S reacting.

That's not to say that finding a few moles of those compounds suddenly mixed in close proximity to you isn't going to ruin your day. I'm pretty sure explosions on the scale of a kilo of TNT, with the added bonus of spectacularly toxic and corrosive byproducts, are frowned upon by most labs. But a similar amount of fissile material going off would obliterate a small city.

Permalink to Comment

105. Anonymous on April 10, 2013 6:00 AM writes...

Haven't laughed this hard in a while. Now I'm almost sad I've given up on being a chemist years ago ...

Permalink to Comment

106. Anonymous on April 10, 2013 1:06 PM writes...

How would you ship FOOF? I bet it costs like 500$ a gram but that doesn't mattter

| |
____/ \_____

Permalink to Comment

107. Kevin on April 10, 2013 1:09 PM writes...

North Korea would love this stuff!

Permalink to Comment

108. Andrew on April 10, 2013 1:18 PM writes...

#106 Dan, don't forget that plutonium is "spectacularly toxic" in its own right, too. It is quite effective at killing you with its electron,s as well as its nucleus. I think I recall reading somewhere that a sand-sized grain of Pu was a thoroughly lethal dose.

Permalink to Comment

109. Pete O'Brien on April 11, 2013 11:59 AM writes...

FOOF is indeed an unstable compound. It's cousin, Phosphorus Dioxygen Flouride is also extremely volatile and disappears instantly when exposed to the atmosphere.

Permalink to Comment

110. flymousechiu on April 11, 2013 10:13 PM writes...

xkcd people would like 1 kg sample of FOOF along with 1kg of HSSH for testing. combined shipping preferred.

Permalink to Comment

111. metaphysician on April 12, 2013 1:45 PM writes...

#110-

While plutonium is nothing fun, my understanding is that its toxicity is overblown. A sand sized grain of Pu will kill you, but because of its radiation, not its chemical properties.

Permalink to Comment

112. zathael on April 12, 2013 7:16 PM writes...

I'm looking at this Hydrogen Sulfide reaction and wondering if this is at all possible that 4 molicules of each would result in 433 kcals. I'll admit I'm not the best at math, but when you scale it up to a gram... well. 2.06*10^26 kcals is... ridiculous. I can't concieve of a chemical reaction releasing that much energy all at once.

I really hope that I'm making some sort of mistake here, or that the units are getting mixed up

Permalink to Comment

113. Alsadius on April 13, 2013 3:57 AM writes...

zathael, yes, you're getting the units mixed up. Measurements of that size are always per mole, because not even annihilation reactions produce 433 kcal per molecule. The given amount FOOF and H2S is about 314 grams. Interestingly, that means its actual energy density is significantly less than ordinary food(314 grams of fat is over 2500 kcal, for comparison), it's just much better at releasing it with a bang.

Permalink to Comment

114. Jbo on April 13, 2013 7:22 PM writes...

Alsadius- yeah, if it were molecules instead of moles one kilo of the stuff reacting with excess H2S would be equivalent to a 10e+14 megatonne bomb, which is far more than the energy that would be released by converting all the mass to energy (using E = mc2), which would yield about 20 megatonnes. It would also be about a hundred million times more powerful than the Chicxulub impact that wiped out the dinosaurs and would presumably annihilate a considerable chunk of the earth...

Permalink to Comment

115. Gridlock on April 15, 2013 12:54 AM writes...

If you want another scary thought, some nuclear engineering types out there want to run thorium reactor with a cooling system using liquid fluoride salts.

I cannot imagine a worse design unless you coated the thing with arsenic and had cooling rods made of pure sodium metal.

Permalink to Comment

116. anonymouser on April 15, 2013 8:08 AM writes...

Not that I want to alarm you or anything, but one incarnation of the LFTR uses blocks of carbon as moderator.

Permalink to Comment

117. will on April 15, 2013 12:24 PM writes...

Didn't "Dr" Gosnell use this to do abortions?

Permalink to Comment

118. Bryan on April 15, 2013 2:11 PM writes...

The description of A. G. Streng reminds me of Cave Johnson, just doing stuff for science!

Permalink to Comment

119. Anonymous on April 15, 2013 11:36 PM writes...

Then there's the ever popular HOOOCCH. Note the dateline...

http://www.retro.com/hooocch/acezone.html

Permalink to Comment

120. treeowl on April 18, 2013 12:23 AM writes...

I don't know much about chemistry, but I'm a bit puzzled how you can make a chemical at 700C if it tears itself apart immediately at anything but absurdly low temperatures. Can someone explain?

Permalink to Comment

121. sveingold on April 18, 2013 4:59 PM writes...

The comment on having FOOF mailed to you in an envelope by Hangzhou (way up in these comments) reminds me of my time as a chemist at a large elemental phosphorus producer. Not as immediately fierce as F2 or FOOF, but of course very oxygen sensitive; P4 can sit on a lab bench for hours after being lifted out of its protective water cover, but once it starts burning it tends to stick to you (literally - it sprays all over the place once it melts) causing deep almost incurable burns. A viper rather than a tiger. Apart from many legit applications it's used as a reduction agent in amphetamin synthesis. One day some dope lab bozo asked me the price of 2 kg of the stuff mailed to him in an envelope. To which I replied "six years to life arson charges for setting fire to the post office". I didn't see anybody in this thread actually ordering FOOF via mail order, any news since 2010?
BTW phosphorus and fluorine make for for an interesting reaction enthalpy. We tried it once, but unsurprisingly it didn't exactly lend itself to scaleup.

Permalink to Comment

122. William o' WiSp on April 24, 2013 11:27 AM writes...

Hang on,

433kcal is given off for a reaction involving 5 MOLECULES of O2F2 and 1 of H2S?
I may have studied biology, but if wikipedia is anything to go by 1g of TNT gives off 4.1->4.6kj of energy on exploding, so roughly 1kcal, for a GRAM.... Is there perhaps a typo at play here, how is this possible?

Permalink to Comment

123. Derek Lowe on April 24, 2013 12:22 PM writes...

There's been so much confusion on the thermodynamics that I've updated the post. That's 433 kcal/mol (per mole), not per molecule. Deuterium fusion won't even give you that much energy per molecule. But for a chemical reaction, this is still an alarming figure, believe me.

Permalink to Comment

124. G.R.L. Cowan on April 27, 2013 10:14 AM writes...

If you want another scary thought, some nuclear engineering types out there want to run thorium reactor with a cooling system using liquid fluoride salts.

Already done twice: the aircraft nuclear powerplant prototype and the molten salt reactor experiment.

The quoted comment is analogous to someone expressing fear of rocks because he heard about the rock that killed the dinosaurs.

Hall-Heroult.

Permalink to Comment

125. Anonymous on June 4, 2013 3:15 PM writes...

433 Kcal wouldn't be possible even with antimatter let alone nuclear reactions. I quick calculation finds the amount of energy represents about 0.02 micrograms of matter.

Permalink to Comment

126. anonymus on June 7, 2013 9:43 AM writes...

I need a link to all things he wont work with

Permalink to Comment

127. D.J. on June 21, 2013 12:54 PM writes...

@anonymus June 7, 9:43: Look at the archives category on the right side of the page, and you will find http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/ and http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/how_not_to_do_it/

Permalink to Comment

128. Not a Dr. Dot on August 2, 2013 3:19 PM writes...

OK, I'm about to demonstrate just how much of a doctor I'm not. But I'm going to ask anyway, because I'm sure I'm missing something.

The initial preparation of FOOF involves cramming a few hundred TORR of O2 and a few more hundred TORR of F2 at several hundred C.

However, later in the article, it's mentioned that FOOF will tear itself apart anywhere room temperature. How I'll admit that my idea of room temperature might differ from the norm (I call Atlanta home, and I didn't move here for the winters), I am having trouble seeing just how FOOF can be created at 700c, cooled to -70c or so without losing what little stability it may or may not have had.

I guess I'm asking: How could something that requires over 700c to create and -70 (or so) to save actually exist?

Love your stuff, Dr. Lowe

Definitely NOT a Dr. Dot

Permalink to Comment

129. Collin on August 6, 2013 12:18 PM writes...

The heat and pressure drive the reactants together, but they won't stay together, so they have to be rapidly cooled. Basically, the molecule isn't stable at rxn temps, but won't react at stable temps. Well, won't react to form itself, at least.

Permalink to Comment

130. Anonymous on October 21, 2013 10:44 AM writes...

Having read Ignition!, I think this looks like it might be propellant work.
The first few reactions are making sure it's hypergolic with all the usual fuels. Then after checking some other compounds people might be interested in, he moves on to the high-energy oxidizers, probably to see whether it might be miscible with any of them. If it is, you might be able to create a new mixture that's reasonably stable, yet more energetic than previous ones. (chlorine trifluoride for one, was 'frequently' mixed with perchloryl fluoride, as the oxygen helps hydrocarbons combust better)

Permalink to Comment

131. Anonymous on November 1, 2013 2:42 PM writes...

The solution is quite simple...

Just have tanks of oxygen and fluorine in your rocket. Run the lines down to the rocket bell, where they heat up, mix, and react, then up to the LOX line to cool down (heating the Lox on the way). Then inject into the rocket motor's chamber.

This is also a good way to set a new record for the number of rocket motor test stands destroyed.

Permalink to Comment

132. Anonymous on November 5, 2013 6:56 PM writes...

Thermodynamics say that won't be an improvement on simply using FLOX.

Permalink to Comment

133. Getheren on February 23, 2014 8:33 PM writes...

#113: As with most other "toxic metals", there isn't a great deal of toxicity worry with plutonium metal because in metallic form its bioavailability is low. (By analogy, a sliver of arsenic metal in the skin is relatively benign — it's *arsenic trioxide* that used to be known as "inheritance powder" — and lead bullet fragments that can't be removed don't cause lead poisoning.)

It's the soluble plutonium *salts* that really get down to some toxic rocking and rolling, because once they get inside an ugly bag of mostly water the plutonium ions will enter solution and be distributed throughout the organism.

Permalink to Comment

134. Helico on March 11, 2014 4:54 PM writes...

It is good to see the clarification on the per mole versus per molecule calculation, although it would have been nice to see when I first read the article! I was originally directed to this article from the xkcd.com "what if" blog a year or so ago... I went through my high school chemistry notes for hours trying to reconcile the figures after I calculated out the energy released from reacting a pound or so of FOOF and some similar quantity of Hydrogen Sulfide. Using 433 kcal per molecule instead of mole yields thermal energy on the order of several hundred times that of the asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs... Now that is a scary proposition!

Permalink to Comment

135. Phil Leadford on March 29, 2014 1:14 PM writes...

Well I was placed on administrative leave 3 weeks ago. I filed an appeal, turned down. I have now filed my second appeal. This time the director of nursing is conducting the investigation. I was surprised, she actually called me in person to request a meeting. She listened to what I had to say and seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say. We talked for over an hour. I left feeling validated as an employee and feel her decision will be based on a thorough investigation. She has also kept me posted as to how the investigation is going. No one has requested to meet with me before. I am remaining realistic though and am looking for another job. One of the requests I made in my appeal was to be reassigned to another department at another site. I could not bare to go back to the job I had. I feel that I am more than capable at performing my job. My annual review stated I had strong clinical skills and critical thinking and my patient care was excellent. I will agree I am slower than before the ECT, but feel this is due to my renewed passion for nursing now that the depression is gone. Healthcare is changing and short cuts are being made, thats fine, but not if it means that patients are receiving sub optimal care. I advocate for my patients and am not afraid to voice my opinion. Having worked with cardiologists for 7 years, who have for lack of a better description, a "God complex" I have learnt to be very tactful in approaching this subject, but this may be part of the problem. Plus I think the other nurses have some animosity against me for the knowledge I have. It is ironic, I was a vet tech for 7 years and most of my knowledge was obtained at this time. The veterinarian I worked with went out of her way to teach me. There are some differences, but most mammals are prone to the same diseases. It is sad, but I feel that we provided the animals with a higher level of compassion and care. Being a veterinarian was a lifetime dream. I have considered staying on disability and attempting to apply to vet school. I feel that my 7 years experience as a vet tech and 10 years experience as a nurse would help me get accepted. But then I feel I would be abusing the system. But it is just a thought. I wish this site was more active and supportive. For the record I still do not regret the decision to have ECT, but empathize with those who feel that it caused more harm than good. There is a quote " We must be willing to relinquish the life we've planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us."May seem trite to many on this site, but may benefit some. Hang in there, John.

Permalink to Comment

136. Gregg Eshelman on July 30, 2014 1:20 AM writes...

Anyone have a link to A. G. Streng's 1962 paper that's not paywalled?

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Messed-Up Clinical Studies: A First-Hand Report
Pharma and Ebola
Lilly Steps In for AstraZeneca's Secretase Inhibitor
Update on Alnylam (And the Direction of Things to Come)
There Must Have Been Multiple Chances to Catch This
Weirdly, Tramadol Is Not a Natural Product After All
Thiola, Retrophin, Martin Shkrell, Reddit, and More
The Most Unconscionable Drug Price Hike I Have Yet Seen