This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - Supercryptid
« on: 07/12/2005 21:28:04 »
Most people here are most likely familiar with how an atom absorbs a photon. A photon with energy X is absorbed by an electron in orbit around an atom. This electron, now with energy X added to it, jumps to a higher energy state. After another photon with energy X is emitted by that electron, it falls back into its lower energy state once more.
But, once that electron absorbs the photon, what prevents it from re-emitting that same energy as a graviton with energy X instead of a photon with energy X? Neither photons nor gravitons have properties such as lepton number or electric charge which must be conserved. Both of these particles are pretty bare as far as conserved properties are concerned. My guess is that it would have to do with the spin differences between the two particles.
On another note, can an electron in orbit around an atom theoretically absorb a graviton and re-emit it in a similar fashion that some electrons absorb and re-emit photons?
Is there any way to stimulate an excited atom with excess energy X to emit a graviton with energy X?
« on: 12/08/2005 20:52:37 »
Nature's power vs. man's power:
Say you have a tornado, ranked as F5 on the Fujita scale (318 mph winds), with a funnel diameter equal to 1 mile. This tornado travels towards a nuclear testing facility. At this facility, there is a nuclear device sitting in the middle of a nearby desert, whose energy is rated at 50 megatons (equal to the yield of Tsar Bomba, the largest bomb detonated by mankind). The F5 tornado passes directly over this device, and just as it is sitting right on top of it, the device detonates, creating a gigantic explosion. Does this nuclear explosion destroy the tornado?
I have read that a tornado with a windspeed of merely 200 mph produces 1 billion watts, so you might imagine a funnel with 318 mph winds producing much more power. One might be able to calculate the total kinetic energy of the funnel if they were to consider it to be a cylinder 1 mile wide and 10 miles high (if you consider that the majority of the tornado is hidden within the cloud) composed of air that is moving at the rotating edge with a speed of 318 mph. I don't have the exact figures with me.
Tsar Bomba was detonated at only a 50% yield, producing 50 megatons. Even at half-power, the blast produced 209 quadrillion joules of energy, and generated a mushroom cloud that ascended to 210,000 feet. This hypothetical bomb is equal to Tsar Bomba's half-power.
Is the tornado too powerful to be destroyed by the bomb, or is it easily annihilated? The thunderstorm that produced the tornado could generate as much as 40 trillion watts, which might help stabilize the tornado or produce new ones if the original is destroyed. My personal belief is that the tornado would be destroyed, but it's possible that I'm not considering all the variables, as the atmosphere is a large and complex entity.
I've read that a nuclear bomb stands no chance of destroying a hurricane, by comparison.
« on: 25/07/2005 05:28:19 »
Here are four molecules that I would like to know the systematic names of. They are labeled 1-4.
This isn't for homework, just in case you're wondering. It's only because I think these molecules are interesting and want to know what they would be called if they existed (or do exist).
« on: 18/07/2005 05:01:42 »
 Are supersymmetric particles (a.k.a. sparticles) predicted to have antiparticle counterparts? Would they be called antisparticles? Could we expect sparticles and antisparticles to annihilate upon interacting with each other?
 Have supersymmetric atoms (maybe called "satoms") predicted? I've heard that some sparticles are predicted to be stable, which might mean they could form stable snuclei, satoms or even smolecules. These satoms wouldn't necessarily be composed of selectrons, sneutrons, and sprotons, would they? How about gluinos, photinos, winos, or zinos?
 I've heard that the Planck Length (1.6 x 10^-35 m) is supposedly the smallest length that makes physical sense. Would this mean that nothing can be smaller than the Planck Length? Relativity seems to contradict that notion. In length contraction, you can theoretically contract an object to a length that is smaller than the Planck Length if you move it fast enough. Would this then refute the Planck Length as being the smallest unit of length, or could it indicate a flaw in Einstein's equations? Perhaps instead of getting asympotically closer to zero size, a moving object will get asympotically closer to the Planck Length, finally equalling the Planck Length when it travels at light speed?
« on: 11/07/2005 05:37:12 »
I'm wondering if my analogy here is an appropriate one. You know how the electromagnetic force operates, right? It's probably the best understood of the four forces. If my understanding of it is correct, then:
-A stationary charge produces an electric field.
-A moving charge produces a magnetic field.
-An accelerating charge produces electromagnetic waves.
There have been parallels drawn between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. Hence, we might make a similar analogy with gravity:
-A stationary mass produces a gravitational field.
-A moving mass produces a gravitomagnetic field (aka frame-dragging).
-An accelerating mass produces gravitational waves (uncomfirmed).
Although both gravitational and gravitomagnetic fields have been confirmed, gravitational waves have not yet been detected. They are predicted, however. (PS: I don't particularly like calling it the 'gravitomagnetic' field because it sounds like some kind of unification between gravity and magnetism, which it isn't).
What about the other two forces, the strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces? Can't similar mechanisms exist for them? For the strong nuclear force:
-A stationary hypercharge produces a strong nuclear field.
-A moving hypercharge produces a strong "nucleomagnetic" field.
-An accelerating hypercharge produces strong nuclear waves.
Weak nuclear force:
-A stationary weak hypercharge produces a weak nuclear field.
-A moving weak hypercharge produces a weak "nucleomagnetic" field.
-An accelerating weak hypercharge produces weak nuclear waves.
I do believe that "hypercharge" and "weak hypercharge" are the appropriate terms here. So, taking from this, shouldn't a moving proton generate a kind of strong "nucleomagnetic" field, and an accelerating proton generate strong nuclear waves? Shouldn't the same be true for a moving/accelerating electron and its weak nuclear force?
I realize that both the strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces act on very tiny scales, and that their field analogues of magnetism would probably have a similarly short range. So how might we detect such fields? Could we infer them from anomalous particle behavior? For strong nuclear and weak nuclear waves, might we be able to detect them now?
Another question: Is the weak nuclear force attractive, repulsive or both? The other 3 forces possess a kind of attraction and/or repulsion, so shouldn't the weak nuclear force be the same?
Any opinions are welcome.
« on: 03/06/2005 21:29:39 »
Photons are generally accepted as having a rest mass of zero. However, since they are never actually "at rest", does that mean they do have a true mass? Similarly, do photons ever exhibit gravitational fields? Are mass and energy the exact same thing, or two seperate things that are merely interchangable?
A further photon question regarding gravity: Imagine that you have a sphere that is mirrored on the inside, and the sphere contains light. The mirrored interior is a "perfect" mirror, that reflects all light without absorption, so the light inside bounces around. Since light is composed of bosons, this sphere can be filled with as much light as you want, since bosons can occupy the same space as other bosons. The light inside this sphere obviously contains a certain level of energy. If there is enough energy in this light, will the sphere collapse into a blackhole? Let's say that the sphere has a radius that is smaller than the Schwarzchild Radius of the mass equivalent of the energy of the light inside of it. Does it collapse into a blackhole? Is this light-filled sphere any more massive than the same sphere would be if it was empty?
« on: 31/05/2005 20:33:00 »
It is currently believed that neutrinos undergo "oscillations" of a sort, which allows them to transform from one flavor of neutrino into another (i.e. from an electron neutrino to a muon neutrino or tauon neutrino).
My question: doesn't this violate conservation of lepton number?
For example, take the decay of a muon into an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino. The lepton numbers before the decay are: muon number 1, electron number 0 and tauon number 0. After the decay, the lepton numbers are still the same: muon number 1, electron number 0, tauon number 0. This is conservation of lepton number. However, if that muon neutrino were to transform into a tau neutrino, then the scheme of lepton numbers would change into the following: muon number 0, electron number 0, tauon number 1.
In essence the transformation of one neutrino into another kind of neutrino would change the total universal content of a certain lepton number. Does this mean that lepton number is only approximately conserved, perhaps only in certain interactions or pathways?
« on: 23/05/2005 00:13:50 »
Do electrically-charged objects have an "electromagnetic escape velocity"? Here's an example for clarification of my question:
Imagine a gigantic, negatively charged sphere, about the size of Earth. There is a positively charged rocket resting on the surface of this sphere. The strength of electromagnetic attraction between the giant sphere and the rocket is equal to 1 G (assume here that gravity is irrelevant). That 1 G of force results from the electrical attraction between the rocket and the sphere, not gravity. For all intents and purposes, this has the same effect as an uncharged rocket sitting on Earth, where gravity produces 1 G instead of electromagnetism, correct?
Now, let's assume that this rocket wants to take-off of the sphere and get into space. Since the strength of electrical attraction is 1 G, just like on Earth, does the rocket have to attain a certain "escape velocity" to get into space and escape the electromagnetic field? Would it be the same as the Earth's gravitational escape velocity of about 25,000 mph?
From this idea, I was wondering if there might be an electromagnetic analog of a blackhole. Just as a blackhole has so much gravity that any object with mass cannot escape from it, even by going light-speed, might there also be an object that has so much electrical charge that no electrically-charged object can escape from its pull, even by going light-speed? The situation would be reversed for objects that have the same charge as this "Massively-Charged Object" (MCO), in which the resultant repulsion is so great that they could not approach it even at light-speed.
I'm not exactly sure how to make an MCO, since squishing large numbers of electrically-charged particles together into a blackhole-like density would be strongly opposed by repulsion.
Could an MCO exist, theoretically speaking?
« on: 22/01/2005 04:06:49 »
When it comes to chemistry, I'm big on hypotheticals.
In the substance known as tropylium bromide, there is a 7-membered, conjugated ring of carbon atoms with a positive charge (it's like a benzene molecule with 7 carbons instead of 6), and a bromide ion. Normally, one would expect this substance to be nonionic, with the bromine atom attached covalently to an sp3 carbon on the ring. However, the tropylium ring can become aromatic if that bromine atom is disconnected from the ring, which gives the ring 3 electron pairs in its pi orbitals. Since this ionic, aromatic form is much more stable than the covalent, nonaromatic form, this substance exists as an ionic compound.
I found that to be quite interesting. There is also another ion, called the cyclopentadienyl anion, which is a 5-carbon ring with a negative charge, which is also aromatic.
I was thinking, perhaps, this cyclopentadienyl anion could be reacted with the tropylium cation to form an ionic hydrocarbon called tropylium cyclopentadienide. The form of the compound which would link the rings together via a covalent bond would interrupt the aromatic character of both rings, thus resulting in an unfavorable molecule. Therefore, I believe that the molecule would exist in the ionic form, since the aromaticity of both rings would make it much more stable.
Does this compound or any other ionic hydrocarbons exist?
I figure that it might be synthesized by reacting tropylium bromide with lithium cyclopentadienide, perhaps in solution:
C7H7Br + LiC5H5 --> C12H12 + LiBr
The idea of an ionic hydrocarbon seems interesting to me, but I'm not too sure of what kind of useful applications it would have. It would be soluble in water, unlike most other nonpolar hydrocarbons. Any ideas on its potential uses?
Other potential ionic hydrocarbons would be:
-cyclopropenyl cyclopentadienide (C8H8)
-cyclopropenyl cyclononatetraenide (C12H12)
-cropylium cyclononatetraenide (C16H16)
« on: 07/04/2005 18:52:36 »
Since there isn't a forum dedicated to biology in general, I suppose this forum will do.
My question concerns the mechanics of jaw structure in animals. If you'll notice, all vertebrates that have jaws possess vertically-clamping jaws (that is, they open and close by moving the mandible up and down against the maxilla), or so far as I know. However, when you look at many arthropods, you find the opposite, in which horizontally-clamping jaws seem to be favored (two mandibles that move side-to-side). Is there any particular reason for these differences?
For instance, is there any particular advantage that vertically-clamping (VC) jaws have for vertebrates that horizontally-clamping (HC)jaws just don't have? If there were a bear with HC jaws instead of VC jaws, would it become a less effective predator? Likewise, are VC jaws inappropiate for a hypothetical arthropods?
« on: 04/03/2005 21:39:18 »
I've thought of a possible new type of propulsion system that could be used by spacecraft. I'll explain how this works, according to my knowledge. Of course, I may have a fallacious understanding of some physics concepts, so I'm relying on you to correct me where I'm wrong.
First off, my proposed design eliminates the need for an onboard reaction mass because it 'creates' this from its own energy source. The energy source can be whatever you want it to be (chemical, nuclear, antimatter, whatever you see fit). Now, most of you realize that the vacuum is full of quantum vacuum fluctuations, which are composed of virtual particles:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
According to this article (and others that I have seen), virtual particles can be made into real particles if energy is transferred to them. Using a powerful electromagnetic field, these virtual photons in the vacuum can be made into real particles. Let's say that this EM field surrounds the ship (or engine alone), and is so powerful that it forces large quantities of particle pairs to be created, so that there is somewhat of a fluid "cloud" of charged particles around the ship.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive
The next step requires an analogy. There is a submarine propulsion design, called magnetohydrodynamic propulsion (or the caterpillar drive) that uses electromagnetic fields to propel the submarine through the water. This is because sea water contains positive and negative ions with which the EM fields can interact and push against. This gives these submarines the ability to move up to 15 km/h.
Back to the ship. Let's say that the ship has a 'caterpillar drive' similar to the submarine. The cloud of particles around the space craft is analogous to sea water, in that it is fluid and contains charged particles. Because of this, I would assume that the EM fields produced by the caterpillar drive could push against this particulate fluid, and thus pushing the ship forward. Because the primary EM field is constantly producing real particle-antiparticle pairs from the vacuum, there is always a source of particles for the caterpillar drive to push against. This requires only an onboard power source and no carried reaction mass.
I realize that these antiparticle pairs might spontaneously annihilate into neutral particles (like photons), so that might potentially hinder this propulsion concept. Any ideas on how to prevent that? The antimatter might also damage the ship, but let's say there's some protection against that.
So, does my concept work in theory? What kind of acceleration would I expect it to have? What amount of energy might I need to power it?
« on: 08/02/2005 04:00:15 »
Though only theoretical, wormholes do have equations associated with them. The equations I'm interested in is the theoretical energy requirements for the creation and maintaining of a wormhole. I have a few questions regarding wormholes. I'd be greatful for any replies:
1) What is the relationship between the diameter of a spherical wormhole and the energy required to create it? According to one source, creating a wormhole 3-feet in diameter would require an amount of negative energy similar to the mass of Jupiter. That's not specific enough for me. I'm looking for a more hard-edged figure than 'around Jupiter's mass'. This also doesn't tell me the exact relationship between size and mass (would a 1-foot diameter wormhole require 1/3 Jupiter's mass for instance?).
2) Is wormhole shape related to its energy requirements? Would a circular wormhole (like a portal) with a diameter of 1-foot require a different amount of energy than a spherical wormhole with a diameter of 1-foot?
3) What is the relationship between the distances of the wormhole mouths and the energy required to make a wormhole? Does it take more energy to create a wormhole whose mouths are 1,000 lightyears apart than it does to create a wormhole whose mouths are only 10 feet apart? Does energy factor into distance at all?
4) Do wormholes require constant energy imput? For instance, lightbulbs must have a constant source of energy to shine. If the source is gone, they go out. Do wormholes work like this, or do they only require a set amount of 'activation energy' to be created? Is this activation energy negative (requiring 'exotic matter')?
5) What are the differences in conditions needed to establish an interuniversal (between two universes) and an intrauniversal (between two parts of the same universe) wormhole? How would someone go about creating one type as opposed to the other?
« on: 19/01/2005 03:50:53 »
Every material absorbs light in a particular fashion. This is what gives materials their specific colors. The wavelength of light that is absorbed is determined by the electron shells/energy levels of the molecules that make up that substance. Therefore, shouldn't the color of a smooth surface of a substance be directly determined by its molecular structure?
I know some materials get their colors from minor facets or indentations along their surface (butterfly wings, for instance), and that some substances even have a different color when they are divided up as a powder (gold is shiny yellow as a solid mass, but when it is ground into a powder, it looks purple).
Taking this aside, let's assume that the substance in question has a smooth surface. Shouldn't it be theoretically predictable what color the substance will be, since the molecular structure would directly determine its color? There should be a way to predict a substances color based on the orbitals and energy levels in its molecules, right?
I've never heard of any equations that predict this. Do any exist? Some trends have been discovered (conjugated alkenes tend to have certain absorption patterns based on their pi bonds), but I've not heard of such things for molecules without pi bonds (like nitrogen triiodide).
Is there any computer software that can predict a substances color in this way? If so, I'd really like to have it. For instance, if I were to draw the azulene molecule (C10H8) in the program, it should be able to tell me what wavelengths of light it absorbs, and from there tell me that it is blue.
Any ideas on this?
« on: 13/10/2004 20:17:55 »
It looks like a silicon-based version of an alkyne has been produced. I find it quite strange that the bond angles are bent at 137 degrees rather than being the expected linear value of 180 degrees.
« on: 15/09/2004 15:59:40 »
Eukaryotic organisms (whose cells have membrane-bound organelles) such as protists, fungi, animals and plants can be multicellular. However, eukaryotes are the only cell type that has developed into multicellular organisms (so far as I know). That being said, why haven't prokaryotic organisms (whose cells don't have membrane-bound organelles) developed into multicellular forms? They always exist as unicellular eubacteria or archaea. Is there any particular biological reason that prokaryotes never developed into multicellular lifeforms? Is their cellular design too inefficient to do it, or is it just a coincidence that they never evolved that way?
Also, if a multicellular prokaryotic organism did exist, why properties or behavior would you expect it to have?
« on: 25/08/2004 18:51:31 »
I find this to be of high interest. First, the only known form of nitrogen was N2, and then came the azide (N3-) ion, and recently the pentazolate (N5-) ion, but this new form of nitrogen is unlike anything ever seen before. Because of its structure, some scientists call it "nitrogen diamond". Unfortunately, this allotrope is only stable at high pressures. This substance would make quite a dandy explosive if it could be produced in a more stable form!
Here is more information about polymerized nitrogen.http://www.llnl.gov/etr/pdfs/08_94.6.pdf
« on: 19/08/2004 03:34:57 »
I didn't see any meteorology-oriented forums on the board, so I figured that this should go in the General Science Forum.
My first question deals with dust devils developing into tornadoes. In the "Natonial Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Weather", on page 521, I came upon this statement:
Cumulus congestus clouds are sometimes seen above dust devils; on rare occasions the dust devil's rotating updraft merges with that of a growing cumulus congestus cloud to create a hybrid non-supercell tornado.
I find the prospect of dust devils developing into tornadoes to be very interesting, but I have been unable to find any other sources of information regarding this phenomenon. Could anyone here provide links to webpages that might discuss this?
My second question is about waterspouts: are waterspouts ever rated on the Fujita-Pearson scale of tornado intensity? When I refer to waterspouts in this sense, I am talking only about waterspouts that form over water and stay over water. I'm not talking about tornadoes that may happen to pass over water, or to waterspouts that pass onto land. I realize that tornadoes are almost always measured on the Fujita-Pearson scale based on the amount of damage that they cause to their surroundings, so such a similar approach to measuring waterspout intensity would not work.
Waterspouts could potentially be rated on the scale by measuring their windspeeds, which brings me to my third question: what is the fastest windspeed ever recorded in a waterspout?
Any replies would be appreciated.
« on: 08/08/2004 01:10:06 »
I included a link just in case the image doesn't work.
I learned in Chemistry Lecture that an atom that is expected to be in the sp3 hybridization can sometimes be in the sp2 hybridization instead. This is due to the influence of secondary Lewis structures. For example, if you were to look at the primary Lewis structure of Pyrolle, you would see that there are no double bonds to the nitrogen atom. Therefore, you might conclude that the nitrogen is sp3 hybridized. However, the secondary Lewis structures do
include a double bond to nitrogen, which causes it to be in the sp2 hybridization state instead.
This is where my question of Boric Acid comes into play: are the oxygen atoms in the Boric Acid molecule sp3 or sp2 hybridized? The primary Lewis structure would have you believe that they are sp3 hybridized, but since double bonds to oxygen exist in the secondary Lewis structures, this suggests that they are sp2 hybridized. B-O-H bond angle data would be important in determining this. If the angle is near 109.5 degrees, then it is likely sp3 hybridized, but if it is near 120 degrees, then it is probably sp2 hybridized.
So, does anyone know the answer? Does anyone have an idea on what the answer likely is? Does anyone have the bond angle information?
I invite you to join the new discussion board at http://s8.invisionfree.com/DBZ_Universal/index.php?act=idx
! There, you can talk about anime, DBZ, and for you lovers of the unexplained, the paranormal as well. The board contains 24 forums, but you can't see then all until you join up. We need more members, so come on down!
« on: 05/06/2004 02:43:04 »
I recently read on a website that a typical rubber, hellium-filled balloon can rise to about 28,000 ft. before it explodes. Here is my question: Assuming that a hypothetical helium balloon does not leak any of its gas, and does not explode, how high will it rise? Would it ever make its way into outer space?
« on: 13/04/2004 20:49:35 »
I have looked up the amount of energy released in volcanic eruptions. In one of my school books, the energy released by the eruption at Mt. St. Helens is listed as being 425 megatons. However, I have read on MULTIPLE websites that the energy released was actually 24 megatons, which is nearly 20 times less.
Likewise, several websites have listed the Krakatau eruption at 100 megatons, whereas other websites list values as high as 5,000 megatons.
I realize that it must be difficult to measure a volcano's power, but I would at least expect the measured values to be close to one another. Why are there such a huge differences in these values?
« on: 24/03/2004 18:13:16 »
Anyone who has taken High School chemistry can tell you that the electrons in an atom exist in "atomic orbitals" that have a specific shape. These atomic orbitals come in different types, called s, p, d, f, and so on. The nature of these orbitals greatly affects the chemistry of that atom or molecule.
Now for my question: does the nucleus of an atom have "nuclear orbitals" that are occupied by protons and neutrons? If so, then what are the names and shapes of these orbitals? Since there is a "nuclear shell theory" for the atomic nucleus, it seemed to me that protons and neutrons should occupy certain energy states in the nucleus, rather than being stuck together randomly like textbooks often depict. It would be helpful if you could also supply me with a link to a webpage about nuclear orbitals.
« on: 27/02/2004 02:04:32 »
The chemical explosives that are used today (such as TNT, nitroglycerin, RDX, etc.) utilize oxygen atoms in their molecular structures to oxidize carbon and hydrogen atoms which are also present in their structure. The optimum result of this reaction is the following:
Explosive --> CO2 + N2 + H2O
Some explosives just produce CO2 and N2, while others don't completely oxidize themselves and produce CO instead of CO2. This is just an example though.
The molecules which are produced are highly stable, which causes a highly exothermic release of energy during the course of the reaction. The molecules are also in the form a gas. The heat causes the gas to expand rapidly, which produces an explosion.
The question is: can fluorine atoms be used to oxidized explosives instead of oxygen atoms?
Fluorine is commonly called 'the strongest known oxidizer', so it will oxidize materials even more exothermically than oxygen does. The nitro group (-NO2) is present in explosives and can fully oxidize a carbon atom. What if we replaced these nitro groups with difluoroamino groups (-NF2)? The resulting optimum explosive would detonate like this:
Explosive --> CF4 + N2 + HF
These molecules are also highly stable and gaseous, which would cause any such explosive to be very powerful. Although twice as many NF2 groups would be needed to fully oxidize a carbon atom in the explosive, the resulting CF4 is more stable than CO2, which should give more energy than a CO2 generating explosive.
A possible fluorine-based explosive would be didifluoroaminofluoromethane (CHN2F5). Another might be tridifluoroaminomethylamine (CH2N4F6). Although I doubt explosives like this have been synthesized, might they be possible? Would they be stable enough to be practical?
The HF produced in the explosion might be harmful to the environment though, producing acid rain.
« on: 13/02/2004 21:31:16 »
In my chemistry lecture class, I recently learned that aromatic molecules must have an odd number of electron pairs in their pi-systems. If the molecule has an even number of electron pairs, then it is anti-aromatic if it is planar, or non-aromatic if it is not planar. This brings me to my question: Why is coronene aromatic?
Coronene is a hydrocarbon that is made of six benzene rings fused together in a shape similar to a snowflake. It's formula is C24H12. The molecule has a pi-system containing 12 electron pairs, which is NOT an odd number. Judging from this, coronene should be either anti-aromatic or non-aromatic. However, it is actually aromatic.
Can someone explain why coronene is aromatic?
« on: 01/02/2004 05:36:06 »
I've been wondering about the possibility of halogen allotropes. Usually, halogens only form 1 bond to another atom. This gives us F2, Cl2, Br2 and I2.
However, chlorine, bromine and iodine have d-orbitals that can accomadate extra electron pairs, giving them the ability to form 3 or 5 bonds to other atoms. This allows molecules like ClF3 and ClF5 to exist. But what if these extra bonds could be used to form new allotropes of halogens?
For example, what if 1 chlorine atom was in the dsp3 hybridization state and used its 3 half-filled sp-orbitals to bond with 3 other chlorine atoms? This would yield Cl4, a T-shaped molecule analogous in structure to ClF3.
Chlorine atoms can also achieve the d2sp3 hybridization state. This allows them to form ClF5, but what if those fluorine atoms were replaced with chlorine atoms, yiedling Cl6?
Well, chlorine atoms are larger than fluorine atoms, so there might be a lot of crowding in a Cl4 or Cl6 molecule, rendering it unstable. Would this crowding be enough to destabilize the molecule?
If these molecules are stable, then the following allotropes might be synthesizable: Cl4, Cl6, Br4, Br6, I4 and I6. What do you think? Might we be able to create these allotropes?
« on: 03/01/2004 22:17:56 »
I am really interested in the possibilty of nitrogen allotropes.
So far known, nitrogen only forms 1 stable allotrope; the diatomic type that makes up most of the atmosphere. Sure, the N3- azide anion has been synthesized, but you can't get mass quantities of it unless it is in combination with other elements like sodium or hydrogen.
Allotropes of nitrogen have potential as energetic explosives. For instance, hexazine is a hypothetical ring molecule composed of 6 nitrogen atoms and is very similar to benzene in shape. Hexazine could be a powerful explosive due to this decomposition reaction:
N6 -> 3N2 + heat
I think that radioactive decay might be used to form nitrogen allotropes. Hexazine might be formed if we could start with a compound called tetrazine. Tetrazine is like the benzene molecule, but 4 of the CH groups are replaced with nitogen atoms. If we could replace the 2 remaining carbon-12 atoms in the molecule with carbon-14, then radioactive decay could yield hexazine:
C2H2N4 -> CH2N5(+) + e(-) -> H2N6(2+) + 2e(-) -> N6 + H2
The end result is hexazine and hydrogen gas. I'm not much of a synthesis chemist, but it seems that the two protons remaining on the H2N6(2+) cation would gladly accept the 2 released electrons to form H2. Correct me if I am wrong.
If such synthesis could work, then other allotropes might be possible, such as octaazacubane and eicosaazadodecahedrane:
C8H8 -> N8 + 4H2
C20H20 -> N20 + 10H2
What kinds of complications might these synthesis methods entail? I'd like some help with this.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.
The contents of this site are © The Naked Scientists®
2000-2013. The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science™ are registered