The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can lavender Potassium Permanganate be used as a radiation antidote?  (Read 2715 times)

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Crystallization is a very good way to purify substances (as a chemist, I take advantage of this quite frequently!) With the exception of compounds that co-crystallize (in which case the crystal will have a very well-defined ratio of the components), almost all crystals are nearly pure substances. The crystal structure has little room for deviation from perfect repetition of its unit cell.

Essentially, you can think of it like so: as the crystal is growing, dissolved (or molten) molecules or ions bump into the side of the crystal. If they happen to fit just right, they will stick and be incorporated into the crystal, and if not, they will just bounce off and go back into solution (or melt). Even water molecules will most bounce off of the growing ice crystal--they have to hit at just the right angle and just the right position with just the right speed to stick, but non-water molecules or ions have no chance of being incorporated in the crystal. If the crystal forms too quickly, it can have defects, and potentially contain impurities, but if it is still crystalline, then it must be quite close to pure and perfect.

A corollary to this is that mixtures of substances are much harder to crystallize. This is essentially the reason behind why salt melts ice (salt+water is harder to freeze than pure water, and therefore salt+ice is easier to melt than pure ice). Ice will also melt very quickly if exposed to absolute alcohol (and will get very cold!) and vodka won't freeze until it gets below 25C.

Hope this helps!

In most cases like potassium permanganate and copper sulfate the crystal formed from a solution of water and either substance creates the hydrous form or hydrous crystal. So you have to be careful when experimenting, because the crystal is not pure. The anhydrous form is more pure. Often we use the anhydrous form to create the solution. And end up with the hydrous crystal.

Years ago the hydrous potassium permanganate was sold as an oral treatment for radiation poisoning in local drug stores. The crystals are a pale lavender color, while the pure potassium permanganate is a deep dark almost black substance. You have to be careful with potassium permanganate it reacts with glycerin to create heat and flame, or violent explosion if contained in a high pressure container. Either the hydrate or the anhydrous. The anhydrous is much more powerful.

We used to buy it and use it in combination with glycerin to create time delay ignition devices, by separating the potassium permanganate from the glycerin with a few paper napkins that took time to pass the glycerin. I would not fool around with that method though for bomb making, using high pressure vessels. It is not reliable enough.

Sincerely,

William McCormick


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


Years ago the hydrous potassium permanganate was sold as an oral treatment for radiation poisoning in local drug stores. The crystals are a pale lavender color, while the pure potassium permanganate is a deep dark almost black substance.
Potassium permanganate does not form a a stable hydrate.
No plausible  hydrate would be a "pale lavender" since even a 1 % solution of the stuff is nearly black.
Potassium iodide is (occasionally) used in reducing the damage caused by exposure to radioisotopes of iodine (such as happened at TMI, Chernobyl or Fukushima).
In that case it's the iodide bit that's doing the work.

Lord knows what you were being sold.
One vague possibility is potassium perchlorate  which will (IIRC) co-crystallise with permanganate. You might be able to get a lavender crystal that way.
It's far from clear why anyone would bother, though the fact that it wouldn't work wouldn't top people selling it.
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile


Years ago the hydrous potassium permanganate was sold as an oral treatment for radiation poisoning in local drug stores. The crystals are a pale lavender color, while the pure potassium permanganate is a deep dark almost black substance.
Potassium permanganate does not form a a stable hydrate.
No plausible  hydrate would be a "pale lavender" since even a 1 % solution of the stuff is nearly black.
Potassium iodide is (occasionally) used in reducing the damage caused by exposure to radioisotopes of iodine (such as happened at TMI, Chernobyl or Fukushima).
In that case it's the iodide bit that's doing the work.

Lord knows what you were being sold.
One vague possibility is potassium perchlorate  which will (IIRC) co-crystallise with permanganate. You might be able to get a lavender crystal that way.
It's far from clear why anyone would bother, though the fact that it wouldn't work wouldn't top people selling it.

It was pharmaceutical quality. It was lavender, some might say violet, and it was potassium permanganate hydrate. I used it to start fires with it. The very small container had "oral dose" written on the container. Everyone in my area used to know what it was and what it was for. I believe you were supposed to dissolve it before taking it. It was for severe radiation poisoning. I was also told that you cannot just dissolve potassium permanganate anhydrous in water and take it internally no matter the dose. I was told you have to use the hydrate crystals.

I also used to purchase the super pure anhydrous granular form of potassium permanganate from Mallincrodt , which was such a deep dark purple that it appeared almost black. It was a powerful oxidizer. Although the violet or lavender crystals would react with glycerin, it was nothing like the way glycerin reacted with the anhydrous potassium permanganate.

Just sharing what I know, you do not have to concur.


Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


It was pharmaceutical quality. It was lavender, some might say violet, and it was potassium permanganate hydrate. I used it to start fires with it. The very small container had "oral dose" written on the container. Everyone in my area used to know what it was and what it was for. I believe you were supposed to dissolve it before taking it. It was for severe radiation poisoning. I was also told that you cannot just dissolve potassium permanganate anhydrous in water and take it internally no matter the dose. I was told you have to use the hydrate crystals.

I also used to purchase the super pure anhydrous granular form of potassium permanganate from Mallincrodt , which was such a deep dark purple that it appeared almost black. It was a powerful oxidizer. Although the violet or lavender crystals would react with glycerin, it was nothing like the way glycerin reacted with the anhydrous potassium permanganate.

Just sharing what I know, you do not have to concur.


Sincerely,

William McCormick
Well, thanks for that.
This bit "I was also told that you cannot just dissolve potassium permanganate anhydrous in water and take it internally no matter the dose. I was told you have to use the hydrate crystals. "
shows that it can't have been potassium permanganate.
Because you get the same solution if you dissolve the anhydrous form of a salt as you get if you dissolve the hydrate.

As I said, even 1% KMnO4 in water is nearly black.
How could you have a crystal that is solid yet that pale?
It's impossible.

Which is more plausible?
That the stuff you talk of exists, but doesn't get a mention anywhere on the web, doesn't make sense given the colour and breaks the laws of chemistry by not forming the same solution as the anhydrous form and there's no way it would help against radiation poisoning or you were misled / don't remember properly?

It's not me who doesn't concur with your assertion. It's reality that's doing that.
 

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5339
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Are you sure that you are not getting confused and were using iodine? There would be no benefit whatsoever of taking potassium to alleviate radiation exposure. In fact, that is likely to exacerbate the symptoms of radiation exposure, because your body is full of potassium (in your cells), and part of the sickness of acute radiation toxicity is the rupture of millions of cells and the spillover into the blood of a large burden of formerly intracellular potassium.

Iodine is the only sensible remedy against certain forms of radiation exposure, specifically radiation that involves radioactive iodine species. The rationale is that exogenous iodine will compete with the radioactive form to prevent or minimise uptake by the thyroid gland, where incorporation of radioactive iodine would injure the gland and possibly lead to cancer.

The only explosive I have think of that would involve iodine is nitrogen triiodide, which you make with ammonia and sodium hydroxide. It detonates on mild contact.
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Are you sure that you are not getting confused and were using iodine? There would be no benefit whatsoever of taking potassium to alleviate radiation exposure. In fact, that is likely to exacerbate the symptoms of radiation exposure, because your body is full of potassium (in your cells), and part of the sickness of acute radiation toxicity is the rupture of millions of cells and the spillover into the blood of a large burden of formerly intracellular potassium.

Iodine is the only sensible remedy against certain forms of radiation exposure, specifically radiation that involves radioactive iodine species. The rationale is that exogenous iodine will compete with the radioactive form to prevent or minimise uptake by the thyroid gland, where incorporation of radioactive iodine would injure the gland and possibly lead to cancer.

The only explosive I have think of that would involve iodine is nitrogen triiodide, which you make with ammonia and sodium hydroxide. It detonates on mild contact.

I thought the reaction on a strong solution of iodine, by ammonia, with subsequent crystallization created the substance ammonium tri-iodide. My brownish crystals had a greenish tint.

As far as potassium permanganate goes it is one of the most effective, anti fungal and anti bacterial materials available. If you get gastrointestinal radiation poisoning, potassium permanganate can keep the bacteria and fungus, in your stomach and intestines from killing you, because you might not have white blood cells to defend you.

Sincerely,

William McCormick


 
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile


It was pharmaceutical quality. It was lavender, some might say violet, and it was potassium permanganate hydrate. I used it to start fires with it. The very small container had "oral dose" written on the container. Everyone in my area used to know what it was and what it was for. I believe you were supposed to dissolve it before taking it. It was for severe radiation poisoning. I was also told that you cannot just dissolve potassium permanganate anhydrous in water and take it internally no matter the dose. I was told you have to use the hydrate crystals.

I also used to purchase the super pure anhydrous granular form of potassium permanganate from Mallincrodt , which was such a deep dark purple that it appeared almost black. It was a powerful oxidizer. Although the violet or lavender crystals would react with glycerin, it was nothing like the way glycerin reacted with the anhydrous potassium permanganate.

Just sharing what I know, you do not have to concur.


Sincerely,

William McCormick
Well, thanks for that.
This bit "I was also told that you cannot just dissolve potassium permanganate anhydrous in water and take it internally no matter the dose. I was told you have to use the hydrate crystals. "
shows that it can't have been potassium permanganate.
Because you get the same solution if you dissolve the anhydrous form of a salt as you get if you dissolve the hydrate.

As I said, even 1% KMnO4 in water is nearly black.
How could you have a crystal that is solid yet that pale?
It's impossible.

Which is more plausible?
That the stuff you talk of exists, but doesn't get a mention anywhere on the web, doesn't make sense given the colour and breaks the laws of chemistry by not forming the same solution as the anhydrous form and there's no way it would help against radiation poisoning or you were misled / don't remember properly?

It's not me who doesn't concur with your assertion. It's reality that's doing that.

Most or all chemicals when in solution are no longer the substance they were. It can be very difficult to get them back to their original formula. Sodium hydroxide the alkaline is actually Na2O, sodium hydroxide the hydrate is the formula you see commonly, NaOH. Now when you buy NaOH you have such a mixed bag of NA2O and NaOH that you have to test it to see how much of the actual alkaline is present. It all looks the same it even acts the same, but it can be different. 

My point is that when they created the potassium permanganate hydrate crystal it changes the formula. Although it is still potassium permanganate in solution, it is in another form. I do not know if they used a vacuum pump to crystalize the potassium permanganate hydrate or not, or if they just did a hot and cold crystallization. But the crystals of pharmaceutical grade potassium permanganate were a lavender color, very beautiful to look at and were sold for radiation poisoning. I believe this method is done so that there is not actual potassium permanganate in solution, rather only potassium permanganate that has mixed completely with water, so that each potassium permanganate molecule is bonded to a water molecule, in perhaps an abundance of water, to insure no pure potassium permanganate is present. Then they may use a vacuum pump to crystalize the potassium permanganate.

I was told not to take the anhydrous pure form of potassium permanganate even in solution, and I with a limited understanding of chemistry will abide by that warning. I believe it can burn the esophagus and stomach in its pure form.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


Most or all chemicals when in solution are no longer the substance they were. It can be very difficult to get them back to their original formula. Sodium hydroxide the alkaline is actually Na2O,


Since that's plainly wrong I stopped reading at that point.
Sodium hydroxide- the alkali-  is NaOH. (Also please note the difference between the adjective alkaline and the noun alkali)

Na2O does exist- it's sodium oxide. And so it isn't a hydroxide.
It will react with water to give the hydroxide which is a totally different chemical.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4721
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
To answer the question in a word: no.
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile


Most or all chemicals when in solution are no longer the substance they were. It can be very difficult to get them back to their original formula. Sodium hydroxide the alkaline is actually Na2O,


Since that's plainly wrong I stopped reading at that point.
Sodium hydroxide- the alkali-  is NaOH. (Also please note the difference between the adjective alkaline and the noun alkali)

Na2O does exist- it's sodium oxide. And so it isn't a hydroxide.
It will react with water to give the hydroxide which is a totally different chemical.

Sodium hydroxide (sodium hydrate) is NaOH. Sodium hydroxide the alkaline, contains the pure "alkali" Na2O. Na2O liberates OH when dissolved in water. Much like sodium. NaOH does not liberate OH unless you have contaminated water. Water that is contaminated by oil will cause sodium hydroxide to liberate OH. It can be very explosive in small quantities.

I have attached a reference that seems to agree somewhat.


Sincerely,

William McCormick
« Last Edit: 09/09/2016 00:57:46 by William McC »
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile


Most or all chemicals when in solution are no longer the substance they were. It can be very difficult to get them back to their original formula. Sodium hydroxide the alkaline is actually Na2O,


Since that's plainly wrong I stopped reading at that point.
Sodium hydroxide- the alkali-  is NaOH. (Also please note the difference between the adjective alkaline and the noun alkali)

Na2O does exist- it's sodium oxide. And so it isn't a hydroxide.
It will react with water to give the hydroxide which is a totally different chemical.

As I originally stated all chemicals in solution are something else. Lookup mixture and solution, they are two different terms with two different meanings. The term solution means two chemically changed substances, a solution is always a chemical reaction even if very weak and easily reversed.

People have been calling sodium oxide, which is just wetted sodium, sodium hydroxide as long as I can remember. I have called the white substance on my sodium metal, sodium oxide, however it really is sodium hydroxide at that point. If you get corroded sodium metal on your skin you will know it is sodium hydroxide.

Sodium hydroxide is the alkaline and sodium oxide is the alkali.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile


Most or all chemicals when in solution are no longer the substance they were. It can be very difficult to get them back to their original formula. Sodium hydroxide the alkaline is actually Na2O,


Since that's plainly wrong I stopped reading at that point.
Sodium hydroxide- the alkali-  is NaOH. (Also please note the difference between the adjective alkaline and the noun alkali)

Na2O does exist- it's sodium oxide. And so it isn't a hydroxide.
It will react with water to give the hydroxide which is a totally different chemical.

Sodium oxide does exist and is the anhydrous form of sodium hydroxide which for what ever reason chemistry always calls either one of them sodium hydroxide. We should technically be calling sodium hydroxide, sodium hydrate or sodium oxide hydrate.

What I stated is true and most correct. Including the part about potassium permanganate hydrate, lavender crystals in solution, taken orally being a fix for gastrointestinal radiation poisoning. By reducing the need for white blood cells to defend your stomach and intestines after severe radiation exposure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_oxide

I am curious why you move my stuff to other topics? It seems an odd policy when most of my data confirms what I am saying.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Sodium hydroxide (hydrate) is an "alkali salt" of sodium oxide. That destroys flesh especially when heated, like nothing else.

Sincerely,


William McCormick
« Last Edit: 09/09/2016 03:09:51 by William McC »
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
The problem is the definitions. Anhydrous although it is supposed to mean without water, is not necessarily without water. Anhydrous ammonia is not the same thing as pure ammoniacal gas for sure. In fact if you want pour some anhydrous ammonia on a large quantity of kiln dust and check out the gas created. It seems a bit more potent than anhydrous ammonia to me. Anhydrous can apparently mean not enough water to be a hydrate.

So the terms that we use to describe the alkali base metal sodium, the alkali sodium oxide, and the alkali salt Sodium Hydroxide which is an alkaline, all cross lines in my opinion. Then add mislabeling and company specific proportions and formulas and you get chaos.

And as I have stated sodium oxide is often referred to as sodium hydroxide. I have done it myself.

Sincerely,

William McCormick


 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
William,

I think you might be confusing anhydrous and anhydride. "Dehydration," or removal of water, can lead to either. The difference is that no covalent bonds need to be broken to form an anhydrous form (it is a mixture of whole water molecules, and another species that is unchanged by the dehydration), while an anhydride is produced by the cleavage of covalent bonds, releasing water (which hadn't existed in tact before the dehydration), and an entirely new molecule (or substance) that is the anhydride.

Copper sulfate can form beautiful blue crystals of the pentahydrate: CuSO45H2O (made up of an ionic lattice containing a Cu2+ ion, an SO42 ion, and 5 molecules of H2O). On strong heating, the water molecules evaporate out, leaving anhydrous copper sulfate: CuSO4

CuSO45H2O --> CuSO4 + 5H2O

In contrast, acetic acid (H3CCOOH) can be dehydrated under very forcing conditions to make water (H2O) and acetic anhydride (H3CCOOOCCH3):

2 H3CCOOH --> H2O + H3CCOOOCCH3

In the same sense, sodium oxide is the anhydride of sodium hydroxide:

2 NaOH --> H2O + Na2O

see the attached diagram.

 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
William,

I think you might be confusing anhydrous and anhydride. "Dehydration," or removal of water, can lead to either. The difference is that no covalent bonds need to be broken to form an anhydrous form (it is a mixture of whole water molecules, and another species that is unchanged by the dehydration), while an anhydride is produced by the cleavage of covalent bonds, releasing water (which hadn't existed in tact before the dehydration), and an entirely new molecule (or substance) that is the anhydride.

Copper sulfate can form beautiful blue crystals of the pentahydrate: CuSO45H2O (made up of an ionic lattice containing a Cu2+ ion, an SO42 ion, and 5 molecules of H2O). On strong heating, the water molecules evaporate out, leaving anhydrous copper sulfate: CuSO4

CuSO45H2O --> CuSO4 + 5H2O

In contrast, acetic acid (H3CCOOH) can be dehydrated under very forcing conditions to make water (H2O) and acetic anhydride (H3CCOOOCCH3):

2 H3CCOOH --> H2O + H3CCOOOCCH3

In the same sense, sodium oxide is the anhydride of sodium hydroxide:

2 NaOH --> H2O + Na2O

see the attached diagram.

As you add water to most of the chemicals above, you get different compounds at different ratios of water to original chemical. That should highlight that the perfect formula is just an indicator of one or some of the reactions taking place. By stating a certain reaction you are claiming some exact ratio, which you do not state. You state some perfect mathematical solution. Solid sodium hydroxide has free water present in it. The reason is it is partially crystalizing in that state. Even though it is very hungry for water, and the addition of a lot more water creates the products we use in industry clear lye.

All of these chemicals and reactions create different chemicals different compounds at different levels of hydration. In industry and in life so many times people think the pure product is more potent while in pure form. However it is the action and reactions created with the addition of water that cause the effect it was designed to cause. So by using enough water, a weakened watered down solution, the product actually works faster and more powerfully.

Lye is like that.

When you put a very watered down solution of lye on oxidized aluminum, the reaction and heat liberated is really amazing. It totally cleans and brightens the aluminum. However you need the excess water to create the reaction. These reactions are always misstated by chemistry. And because the reactions are too complex to actually and totally understand, by placing a formula or reaction upon them, they rule out the factory accidents that occur by the actual complex reactions that are actually taking place. 

I do not agree with your explanation. I believe you are stating a memorized understanding.

Having worked with the EPA I saw that their college trained chemists did not understand chemistry. Because many plating companies had 8th grade chemists that could literally take what the EPA thought was dangerous hazardous waste, and turn it back into water that they would drink, and pure chemicals that they reused again. These plating companies had to pay for carting empty drums of waste that the EPA chemists thought was a byproduct of a certain reaction, even though the plating chemists could reclaim that material as they used it. These 8th grade chemists could plate up or down. By using a substance with a siamese bond and usually an oxide or chloride atom, they could plate that material up to or down to the element just above or just below. It was more of an art rather than a simple mathematical formula. However they did it everyday. If you look at plating tanks in the dark you will see they create light from the reaction taking place. It was explained to me that there was an atomic level reaction taking place. This was so true that some poor plating shops were creating radio active substances in their plating tanks from ordinary chemicals that are not radio active. So in some cases the EPA was right, and in all cases the 8th grade chemists that knew all of the above were correct

Sincerely,

William McCormick.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
William,
Everything you have posted shows that only one of us is a chemist; and it's not you.
So, for example you cite a proximate analysis result as evidence that Na2O is present in sodium hydroxide solution; it's not.
It's just that you don't understand what it does mean.
You talk about pouring anhydrous ammonia- well it needs to be a cold day before you can do that since ammonia is a gas which liquefies at about -33C

This
"Sodium oxide does exist and is the anhydrous form of sodium hydroxide which for what ever reason chemistry always calls either one of them sodium hydroxide. We should technically be calling sodium hydroxide, sodium hydrate or sodium oxide hydrate. "
I so muddled an wrong it's hard to know where to start.

Sodium hydroxide is made by a chemical reaction between water and sodium oxide.
That's not the same as hydration in the sense of a hydrated salt.
This bit
" chemistry always calls either one of them sodium hydroxide. "
simply is not true.

And this"We should technically be calling sodium hydroxide, sodium hydrate or sodium oxide hydrate. "" is nonsense since
sodium does technically form a hydrate- it lasts a very short time before decomposing to hydrogen and sodium hydroxide.
Nobody uses sodium hydrate except in very odd ESR experiments and such. You can't buy it.
Sodium oxide doe snot form a hydrarte because it reacts with water to form the hydroxide which is (lets be absolutely clear about this) not a hydrate of an oxide- because it does not contain any oxide ion.


you say "And as I have stated sodium oxide is often referred to as sodium hydroxide. I have done it myself. "
Well, it is not but you have and you were wrong.

Can you show me any case of sodium oxide being referred to as sodium hydroxide?


Meanwhile, back at the original question.
Since manganese compounds are acutely neurotoxic, if you used enough manganese to kill even a small fraction of the bacteria in a gut, you would kill the patient.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
William,

I think you might be confusing anhydrous and anhydride. "Dehydration," or removal of water, can lead to either. The difference is that no covalent bonds need to be broken to form an anhydrous form (it is a mixture of whole water molecules, and another species that is unchanged by the dehydration), while an anhydride is produced by the cleavage of covalent bonds, releasing water (which hadn't existed in tact before the dehydration), and an entirely new molecule (or substance) that is the anhydride.

Copper sulfate can form beautiful blue crystals of the pentahydrate: CuSO45H2O (made up of an ionic lattice containing a Cu2+ ion, an SO42 ion, and 5 molecules of H2O). On strong heating, the water molecules evaporate out, leaving anhydrous copper sulfate: CuSO4

CuSO45H2O --> CuSO4 + 5H2O

In contrast, acetic acid (H3CCOOH) can be dehydrated under very forcing conditions to make water (H2O) and acetic anhydride (H3CCOOOCCH3):

2 H3CCOOH --> H2O + H3CCOOOCCH3

In the same sense, sodium oxide is the anhydride of sodium hydroxide:

2 NaOH --> H2O + Na2O

see the attached diagram.

As you add water to most of the chemicals above, you get different compounds at different ratios of water to original chemical. That should highlight that the perfect formula is just an indicator of one or some of the reactions taking place. By stating a certain reaction you are claiming some exact ratio, which you do not state. You state some perfect mathematical solution. Solid sodium hydroxide has free water present in it. The reason is it is partially crystalizing in that state. Even though it is very hungry for water, and the addition of a lot more water creates the products we use in industry clear lye.


It is certain that actual chemical reactions are much more complicated than the simplified formulas and equations that are written out. But that doesn't mean that these formulas and equations are useless, and it is certainly not an excuse to be sloppy about definitions.

Please note that I did, in fact, include the ratios, which are meaningful.

All of these chemicals and reactions create different chemicals different compounds at different levels of hydration. In industry and in life so many times people think the pure product is more potent while in pure form. However it is the action and reactions created with the addition of water that cause the effect it was designed to cause. So by using enough water, a weakened watered down solution, the product actually works faster and more powerfully.

Lye is like that.

When you put a very watered down solution of lye on oxidized aluminum, the reaction and heat liberated is really amazing. It totally cleans and brightens the aluminum. However you need the excess water to create the reaction. These reactions are always misstated by chemistry. And because the reactions are too complex to actually and totally understand, by placing a formula or reaction upon them, they rule out the factory accidents that occur by the actual complex reactions that are actually taking place. 

Congratulations, you understand that solvents play an important role in chemical reactions.

I do not agree with your explanation. I believe you are stating a memorized understanding.

Having worked with the EPA I saw that their college trained chemists did not understand chemistry. Because many plating companies had 8th grade chemists that could literally take what the EPA thought was dangerous hazardous waste, and turn it back into water that they would drink, and pure chemicals that they reused again. These plating companies had to pay for carting empty drums of waste that the EPA chemists thought was a byproduct of a certain reaction, even though the plating chemists could reclaim that material as they used it. These 8th grade chemists could plate up or down. By using a substance with a siamese bond and usually an oxide or chloride atom, they could plate that material up to or down to the element just above or just below. It was more of an art rather than a simple mathematical formula. However they did it everyday. If you look at plating tanks in the dark you will see they create light from the reaction taking place. It was explained to me that there was an atomic level reaction taking place. This was so true that some poor plating shops were creating radio active substances in their plating tanks from ordinary chemicals that are not radio active. So in some cases the EPA was right, and in all cases the 8th grade chemists that knew all of the above were correct

I guarantee that I have a full, working understanding of chemistry, and my education was not just memorizing introductory texts (and I believe that Bored chemist is well educated on the subject as well). In addition to having a college degree in chemistry, I spent 6 years earning a PhD, which involved over 16,000 hours spent working in the laboratory (using chemicals like Na2O and NaOH, so I have an intimate knowledge of the difference between the two), followed by two years of postdoctoral research (another 5000 hours of labwork), and now am a principle investigator (still doing chemistry).

You obviously have had some exposure to chemistry, but still maintain a very limited understanding of it. So please stop pretending to be a source of knowledge on the subject. In addition to being confused on the difference between molecules, substances, mixtures, and solutions, you also were apparently easily convinced that light emission was proof of the formation of radioactive substances from non-radioactive ones, when this is highly unlikely, and there are several other much more reasonable explanations.

I sincerely hope that you are not responsible for drafting or enforcing EPA regulations.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2016 17:51:09 by chiralSPO »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
.  This was so true that some poor plating shops were creating radio active substances in their plating tanks from ordinary chemicals that are not radio active.
No , they were not

Which answeres this question you asked earlier.
"I am curious why you move my stuff to other topics? It seems an odd policy when most of my data confirms what I am saying. "
It's because nobody else's data confirms what you are saying.
So, for example, nobody else thinks you can make radioactive material in a plating tank- there are dull science reasons for this and you could try learning some science- rather than spouting tosh and then wondering why it's put in the dustbin section.
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
William,

I think you might be confusing anhydrous and anhydride. "Dehydration," or removal of water, can lead to either. The difference is that no covalent bonds need to be broken to form an anhydrous form (it is a mixture of whole water molecules, and another species that is unchanged by the dehydration), while an anhydride is produced by the cleavage of covalent bonds, releasing water (which hadn't existed in tact before the dehydration), and an entirely new molecule (or substance) that is the anhydride.

Copper sulfate can form beautiful blue crystals of the pentahydrate: CuSO45H2O (made up of an ionic lattice containing a Cu2+ ion, an SO42 ion, and 5 molecules of H2O). On strong heating, the water molecules evaporate out, leaving anhydrous copper sulfate: CuSO4

CuSO45H2O --> CuSO4 + 5H2O

In contrast, acetic acid (H3CCOOH) can be dehydrated under very forcing conditions to make water (H2O) and acetic anhydride (H3CCOOOCCH3):

2 H3CCOOH --> H2O + H3CCOOOCCH3

In the same sense, sodium oxide is the anhydride of sodium hydroxide:

2 NaOH --> H2O + Na2O

see the attached diagram.

As you add water to most of the chemicals above, you get different compounds at different ratios of water to original chemical. That should highlight that the perfect formula is just an indicator of one or some of the reactions taking place. By stating a certain reaction you are claiming some exact ratio, which you do not state. You state some perfect mathematical solution. Solid sodium hydroxide has free water present in it. The reason is it is partially crystalizing in that state. Even though it is very hungry for water, and the addition of a lot more water creates the products we use in industry clear lye.


It is certain that actual chemical reactions are much more complicated than the simplified formulas and equations that are written out. But that doesn't mean that these formulas and equations are useless, and it is certainly not an excuse to be sloppy about definitions.

Please note that I did, in fact, include the ratios, which are meaningful.

All of these chemicals and reactions create different chemicals different compounds at different levels of hydration. In industry and in life so many times people think the pure product is more potent while in pure form. However it is the action and reactions created with the addition of water that cause the effect it was designed to cause. So by using enough water, a weakened watered down solution, the product actually works faster and more powerfully.

Lye is like that.

When you put a very watered down solution of lye on oxidized aluminum, the reaction and heat liberated is really amazing. It totally cleans and brightens the aluminum. However you need the excess water to create the reaction. These reactions are always misstated by chemistry. And because the reactions are too complex to actually and totally understand, by placing a formula or reaction upon them, they rule out the factory accidents that occur by the actual complex reactions that are actually taking place. 

Congratulations, you understand that solvents play an important role in chemical reactions.

I do not agree with your explanation. I believe you are stating a memorized understanding.

Having worked with the EPA I saw that their college trained chemists did not understand chemistry. Because many plating companies had 8th grade chemists that could literally take what the EPA thought was dangerous hazardous waste, and turn it back into water that they would drink, and pure chemicals that they reused again. These plating companies had to pay for carting empty drums of waste that the EPA chemists thought was a byproduct of a certain reaction, even though the plating chemists could reclaim that material as they used it. These 8th grade chemists could plate up or down. By using a substance with a siamese bond and usually an oxide or chloride atom, they could plate that material up to or down to the element just above or just below. It was more of an art rather than a simple mathematical formula. However they did it everyday. If you look at plating tanks in the dark you will see they create light from the reaction taking place. It was explained to me that there was an atomic level reaction taking place. This was so true that some poor plating shops were creating radio active substances in their plating tanks from ordinary chemicals that are not radio active. So in some cases the EPA was right, and in all cases the 8th grade chemists that knew all of the above were correct

I guarantee that I have a full, working understanding of chemistry, and my education was not just memorizing introductory texts (and I believe that Bored chemist is well educated on the subject as well). In addition to having a college degree in chemistry, I spent 6 years earning a PhD, which involved over 16,000 hours spent working in the laboratory (using chemicals like Na2O and NaOH, so I have an intimate knowledge of the difference between the two), followed by two years of postdoctoral research (another 5000 hours of labwork), and now am a principle investigator (still doing chemistry).

You obviously have had some exposure to chemistry, but still maintain a very limited understanding of it. So please stop pretending to be a source of knowledge on the subject. In addition to being confused on the difference between molecules, substances, mixtures, and solutions, you also were apparently easily convinced that light emission was proof of the formation of radioactive substances from non-radioactive ones, when this is highly unlikely, and there are several other much more reasonable explanations.

I sincerely hope that you are not responsible for drafting or enforcing EPA regulations.

When you face the history of chemistry then I will consider your point of view as being valid. As it is you just cannot discuss the possibility of an alternate explanation without getting defensive. Do not get me wrong, when you live in a glass house and we all do, everyone is afraid of touching anything. We all know our stuff is in disarray.

I have stated thoroughly that I have a limited understanding of chemistry. Especially since they changed the formulas on substances that were in my chemistry lab. Everything from ammonia, sodium azide, ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, nitric oxide and a lot more, were taught to me differently than they are labeled now. The company that manufactured them was a pioneer in chemistry Mallinckrodt, try to find a sixties, seventies or early eighties bottle of Mallinckrodt ammonia. In my area every chemistry class had one. The formula was NO2 and it was called anhydrous because exposing it to air created a potent brown gas, and heat. It was very hungry for water. However it was stable enough that it only created a small amount of pressure that we had to relieve with the bottle upright before opening it. I would not consider it strong ammonium hydroxide this stuff was potent and in search of water unlike what we call ammonium hydroxide . However it was not pure ammonia. Pure ammonia under heat and pressure can slice an arm or leg off in under a second. So we used the reagent grade ammonia from Mallinckrodt to experiment with in the lab. It was understood it was not pure ammonia even though it was called anhydrous ammonia. In reactions it could yield pure ammonia.

To give you an idea of how crazy this subject is, I have had a doctor and an FBI agent that went to school in my area, pass out, as they recalled chemistry class and what we were taught the formula for ammonia was. I warned the FBI agent after the doctor went down, but he dared me to explain it to him, and down he went. His partner said to shut up. I realized later that many people in my area remembered the formula for ammonia as NO2 and when I told them that it is now NH3 some went down and out. Some passed out when they realized they remembered it both ways which is just a form of crazy.

You have to understand on my Island we were at the cutting edge of everything, there was no doubt that human life was secondary to the promotion of counterintelligence in all fields of science. We were basically told to pack up knowledge put it away, or throw it away, because this civilization will be ending.

All the rules of chemistry have a place. However they do not work all the time. Especially when our chemicals are mislabeled.

As far as potassium permanganate being a neurotic, where do you get this stuff from?

It has been used in drinking water, it is used as a radioactive decontamination of the skin, it is an absorbent in military gas masks or was. It was as I stated sold by pharmacists, in oral dose form for radiation poisoning.

Potassium with a radio active catalyst will yield argon when subjected to an ARC.   

When we were kids we had calcium carbide canons for fun. We knew that you can use acetylene or naphtha to create massive detonations nearing the strength of atomic weapons or toping them depending on volume. The volume of the usually hemispherical core of the explosion is too great to dissipate through the limited surface area of the hemispherical core or spherical core. Causing near atomic detonation when accidents occur, and atomic detonation when experts detonate them. Yet chemists often claim that calcium carbide is only mildly dangerous. And acetylene only a flammable gas. It has been the cause of lab accidents many times over the years. Yet it is always a surprise to the chemist. The recent explosion in China which I have been warning people about for years and years, was not only foreseen it was just a matter of time before it happened. Why? Because chemists deny reality from my own personal interaction with them. The army used to train a ten man team to go into a country and use industrial and farm supplies to create weapons of mass destruction right in the country. In case our country had been the target of a first strike nuclear war. At least we could even the playing field. Acetylene can be used to create explosions much more powerful than Hiroshima. Yet many people will often mindlessly use it because the chemist does not face it.

Sincerely,

William McCormick


« Last Edit: 11/09/2016 03:57:16 by William McC »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
When you face the history of chemistry then I will consider your point of view as being valid. As it is you just cannot discuss the possibility of an alternate explanation without getting defensive. Do not get me wrong, when you live in a glass house and we all do, everyone is afraid of touching anything. We all know our stuff is in disarray.

There is no point discussing alternatives when the current reality is firmly established. You know, back in *my* day, gravity used to pull up. It's only in recent convention that it pulls down. That's why we all used to have hooks on our shoes... The whole point of science is to challenge the status quo, and broaden our understanding of reality, but we will get no where if we cannot trust what has been established before us (then every generation would always be asking the same question)

I have stated thoroughly that I have a limited understanding of chemistry. Especially since they changed the formulas on substances that were in my chemistry lab. Everything from ammonia, sodium azide, ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, nitric oxide and a lot more, were taught to me differently than they are labeled now. The company that manufactured them was a pioneer in chemistry Mallinckrodt, try to find a sixties, seventies or early eighties bottle of Mallinckrodt ammonia. In my area every chemistry class had one. The formula was NO2 and it was called anhydrous because exposing it to air created a potent brown gas, and heat. It was very hungry for water. However it was stable enough that it only created a small amount of pressure that we had to relieve with the bottle upright before opening it. I would not consider it strong ammonium hydroxide this stuff was potent and in search of water unlike what we call ammonium hydroxide . However it was not pure ammonia. Pure ammonia under heat and pressure can slice an arm or leg off in under a second. So we used the reagent grade ammonia from Mallinckrodt to experiment with in the lab. It was understood it was not pure ammonia even though it was called anhydrous ammonia. In reactions it could yield pure ammonia.

To give you an idea of how crazy this subject is, I have had a doctor and an FBI agent that went to school in my area, pass out, as they recalled chemistry class and what we were taught the formula for ammonia was. I warned the FBI agent after the doctor went down, but he dared me to explain it to him, and down he went. His partner said to shut up. I realized later that many people in my area remembered the formula for ammonia as NO2 and when I told them that it is now NH3 some went down and out. Some passed out when they realized they remembered it both ways which is just a form of crazy.

I am quite familiar with Mallinckrodt. And I have studied the history of chemistry. Ammonia used to be called ammonaic, but it has always been used to refer to the same compound, which was proven to be NH3. The older professors in my department have been doing chemistry since the 50s, and have no recollection of this change in nomenclature between ammonia and nitric oxide. You are obviously confused or trolling.

When we were kids we had calcium carbide canons for fun. We knew that you can use acetylene or naphtha to create massive detonations nearing the strength of atomic weapons or toping them depending on volume. The volume of the usually hemispherical core of the explosion is too great to dissipate through the limited surface area of the hemispherical core or spherical core. Causing near atomic detonation when accidents occur, and atomic detonation when experts detonate them. Yet chemists often claim that calcium carbide is only mildly dangerous. And acetylene only a flammable gas. It has been the cause of lab accidents many times over the years. Yet it is always a surprise to the chemist. The recent explosion in China which I have been warning people about for years and years, was not only foreseen it was just a matter of time before it happened. Why? Because chemists deny reality from my own personal interaction with them. The army used to train a ten man team to go into a country and use industrial and farm supplies to create weapons of mass destruction right in the country. In case our country had been the target of a first strike nuclear war. At least we could even the playing field. Acetylene can be used to create explosions much more powerful than Hiroshima. Yet many people will often mindlessly use it because the chemist does not face it.

Hate to break it to you, but kids these days still make carbide cannons, and they are just as powerful as they used to be. And, no it's no where close to an "atomic detonation." Detonation? yes. Atomic? no. You're off by several orders of magnitude in terms of energy density.

Perhaps you are suffering from Alzheimer's, which has clouded you memory and reasoning. Maybe you have always been confused. I don't know. However, your insistence to cling to such fiction leads me to believe that further discussion will not be fruitful.

You are welcome to contribute to this forum, but be warned that if you post such nonsensical chemical explanations in any section other than "New Theories" or "That CAN'T be True", your posts will quickly be moved there.

Good day.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"When you face the history of chemistry then I will consider your point of view as being valid."
Not a problem then.
I initially learned chemistry from my dad's old textbooks- and those were printed on tatty paper because there was a war on. So, my understanding of chemistry goes back a decade or two before your magic bottles from Mallinckrodt with the wrong formulae on them.
The formula of ammonia was well established (and had to be so) before Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch invented the process for making it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

So there's absolutely no way that the bottle could have been labelled as NO2 except by a gross mistake.
This
"Everything from ammonia, sodium azide, ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, nitric oxide and a lot more, were taught to me differently than they are labeled now." just does not make sense.

You say " The company that manufactured them was a pioneer in chemistry Mallinckrodt, try to find a sixties, seventies or early eighties bottle of Mallinckrodt ammonia. In my area every chemistry class had one. The formula was NO2 and it was called anhydrous because exposing it to air created a potent brown gas, and heat.."
Well, ammonia just does not do that.
On the other hand nitric oxide does- but nitric oxide is a gas so there's no way you would keep it in a bottle.

But a bottle of conc nitric acid will generate small amounts of nitric oxide- enough to make brown fumes in air.

So it looks to me as if you are muddling stuff up.

" Pure ammonia under heat and pressure can slice an arm or leg off in under a second. "
True- so can water or air.
So what?

"To give you an idea of how crazy this subject is, I have had a doctor and an FBI agent that went to school in my area, pass out, as they recalled chemistry class and what we were taught the formula for ammonia was. I warned the FBI agent after the doctor went down, but he dared me to explain it to him, and down he went. His partner said to shut up. I realized later that many people in my area remembered the formula for ammonia as NO2 and when I told them that it is now NH3 some went down and out. Some passed out when they realized they remembered it both ways which is just a form of crazy. "

That's either poor memory or poor teaching.

"You have to understand on my Island we were at the cutting edge of everything"
no you were not.

"As far as potassium permanganate being a neurotic, where do you get this stuff from?
"
I said it was neurotoxic- please learn the difference.
Anyway, it's a well documented property of the stuff, and it has been for near 200 years.- so much for the idea that you were at the cutting edge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganism


"It has been used in drinking water"
Yes- it has. You add permanganate to impure water. The impurities get oxidised - which tends to kill bugs- and the manganese in the permanganate is reduced to MnO2 which you filter off before you send the water on to the pipes.

You don't have significant quantities of manganese left in the water. (On an emergency basis you can just about get away without filtering it. But it's risky. Boiling the water would be a better bet.)

" it is an absorbent in military gas masks or was."
Yes, it is- but they don't expect you to eat the gas mask. The air gets passed over the KMnO4 and the impurities in it get "burned". But the Mn never leaves the gas mask's filter.
Why did you think that was relevant?




" It was as I stated sold by pharmacists, in oral dose form for radiation poisoning. "
Possibly- but  if it was then that was fraud.

"Potassium with a radio active catalyst will yield argon when subjected to an ARC.  "

No it will not (and I have a feeling that you lost that argument before somewhere on this site)

"We knew that you can use acetylene or naphtha to create massive detonations nearing the strength of atomic weapons or toping them depending on volume. "
No it will not

"Yet chemists often claim that calcium carbide is only mildly dangerous. And acetylene only a flammable gas."
It's well documented that acetylene is explosive. No competent chemist would say otherwise.


"Acetylene can be used to create explosions much more powerful than Hiroshima."
Hypothetically- if you got enough of it.
The same is true of petrol

Are you aware that all this stuff you are posting makes you sound like Grandpa Simpson?
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
"When you face the history of chemistry then I will consider your point of view as being valid."
Not a problem then.
I initially learned chemistry from my dad's old textbooks- and those were printed on tatty paper because there was a war on. So, my understanding of chemistry goes back a decade or two before your magic bottles from Mallinckrodt with the wrong formulae on them.
The formula of ammonia was well established (and had to be so) before Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch invented the process for making it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

So there's absolutely no way that the bottle could have been labelled as NO2 except by a gross mistake.
This
"Everything from ammonia, sodium azide, ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, nitric oxide and a lot more, were taught to me differently than they are labeled now." just does not make sense.

You say " The company that manufactured them was a pioneer in chemistry Mallinckrodt, try to find a sixties, seventies or early eighties bottle of Mallinckrodt ammonia. In my area every chemistry class had one. The formula was NO2 and it was called anhydrous because exposing it to air created a potent brown gas, and heat.."
Well, ammonia just does not do that.
On the other hand nitric oxide does- but nitric oxide is a gas so there's no way you would keep it in a bottle.

But a bottle of conc nitric acid will generate small amounts of nitric oxide- enough to make brown fumes in air.

So it looks to me as if you are muddling stuff up.

" Pure ammonia under heat and pressure can slice an arm or leg off in under a second. "
True- so can water or air.
So what?

"To give you an idea of how crazy this subject is, I have had a doctor and an FBI agent that went to school in my area, pass out, as they recalled chemistry class and what we were taught the formula for ammonia was. I warned the FBI agent after the doctor went down, but he dared me to explain it to him, and down he went. His partner said to shut up. I realized later that many people in my area remembered the formula for ammonia as NO2 and when I told them that it is now NH3 some went down and out. Some passed out when they realized they remembered it both ways which is just a form of crazy. "

That's either poor memory or poor teaching.

"You have to understand on my Island we were at the cutting edge of everything"
no you were not.

"As far as potassium permanganate being a neurotic, where do you get this stuff from?
"
I said it was neurotoxic- please learn the difference.
Anyway, it's a well documented property of the stuff, and it has been for near 200 years.- so much for the idea that you were at the cutting edge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganism


"It has been used in drinking water"
Yes- it has. You add permanganate to impure water. The impurities get oxidised - which tends to kill bugs- and the manganese in the permanganate is reduced to MnO2 which you filter off before you send the water on to the pipes.

You don't have significant quantities of manganese left in the water. (On an emergency basis you can just about get away without filtering it. But it's risky. Boiling the water would be a better bet.)

" it is an absorbent in military gas masks or was."
Yes, it is- but they don't expect you to eat the gas mask. The air gets passed over the KMnO4 and the impurities in it get "burned". But the Mn never leaves the gas mask's filter.
Why did you think that was relevant?




" It was as I stated sold by pharmacists, in oral dose form for radiation poisoning. "
Possibly- but  if it was then that was fraud.

"Potassium with a radio active catalyst will yield argon when subjected to an ARC.  "

No it will not (and I have a feeling that you lost that argument before somewhere on this site)

"We knew that you can use acetylene or naphtha to create massive detonations nearing the strength of atomic weapons or toping them depending on volume. "
No it will not

"Yet chemists often claim that calcium carbide is only mildly dangerous. And acetylene only a flammable gas."
It's well documented that acetylene is explosive. No competent chemist would say otherwise.


"Acetylene can be used to create explosions much more powerful than Hiroshima."
Hypothetically- if you got enough of it.
The same is true of petrol

Are you aware that all this stuff you are posting makes you sound like Grandpa Simpson?

I do not know Grandpa Simpson, so I cannot say. However you did not comment on potassium permanganate being used as a method of decontamination for radioactive contamination of the skin. I am fighting a knowledge blackout, you on the other hand are just quoting common sources. That always omit the history of the chemistry or chemical compound.

The fact that solid sodium hydroxide contains free water as well as sodium oxide tells me that it is not a stable compound we are looking at. It is a transitioning mix and partial crystallization. According to your definitions.

I ordered some potassium permanganate and I will see if I can produce some lavender crystals of potassium permanganate using controlled temperature and a vacuum pump. I imagine the oral does must have been very small to create a lavender crystal.

As far as our area being on the cutting edge, we looked at the Apollo missions much like a person jumping the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle. When things like planes and helicopters exist. Our government told us flat out, that technology and science has been cancelled for the duration. During the Apollo missions we had a small craft that could streak to the moon in four hours. It was built by the same people that built the Lunar module. The thought of a payload getting to our capital to wipe out known disingenuous sorts in seconds was a bit too much for them. 

You are bouncing around a bit, we know that air burns if hot enough, usually because it is separated to its individual atoms, that then recombine and or re-burned which releases heat. During the building of some early submarine launched rockets that used a ram jet to burn air, a motor being tested went out of control, when fuel was cut to shut it down. The motor continued to run and actually positively accelerated until its destruction. Killing a man. Although it was cool that you could just create a Venturi basically and compress and burn air, it was too dangerous a system to rely upon. Sudden over pressure from the detonation of ordinance on the ground could shut down or blow up the motor. This was in the fifties, and it was not the best we had then. So yea we knew things that others to this day by way of the "laws" of conservation claim could not have existed.

My point is the Habor process is a fusion reaction. That works much like a ramjet.

http://www.rockwelder.com/military/Rigel.htm

If you have looked at taxation you know that it cannot help a country or produce wealth for a country. Scientifically, mathematically taxes do nothing for a country except circulate money so it can be kept clean by burning and reprinting it. A one penny on the dollar tax would circulate the entire amount of money in circulation. Taxation and lack of printing, or releasing money is how a government regulates a country. Taxes do nothing good and limit the power of the individual. If you take a few minutes to demonstrate money changing hands in your country, as my founding fathers did. When my founding fathers tried to tie money to gold, they realized they were being duped by idiots. Poverty is an abomination created by idiots, and taxation is their weapon of mass destruction. Unfortunately all the sciences are now under the control of this group. People who claim otherwise just do not want to rock the boat.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
I believe the ramjet that detonated air, started to create high voltage from the pressure differential created by the Venturi, that in turn created a plasma that expanded the air violently. Whether you would technically call a plasma a burn, I cannot say. However it sure looks like it.

I have electrically created plasma in pure nitrogen, and oxygen. Both react rather violently. They expand and form a white plasma.


Sincerely,


William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
" However you did not comment on potassium permanganate being used as a method of decontamination for radioactive contamination of the skin."
Would you like me to?
OK
 potassium is radioactive.
It would border on madness to use it to seek to remove radioactivity.
Also, permanganate is rather corrosive to skin (Not to mention staining it brown/ black).

It's possible that they might once have used it.
So what?
That does not mean that it works.
It certainly does not mean that it forms a pale  hydrate.

"I am fighting a knowledge blackout, you on the other hand are just quoting common sources. "
It is unfortunate that your knowledge has blacked out.
However the reason I'm citing common sources is that they are easy to cite.
What I am actually relying on is a vast experience of chemistry. I have been playing this game professionally for 28 years: I studied it at Oxford for  4 years before that and at school for many years before that- as I said- starting at home with my dad's old text books.

So, what I cite here isn't really the point.
When I point out that you must be wrong about a pale permanganate- because permanganates are not pale, it is simple logic.

"That always omit the history of the chemistry or chemical compound. "
Chemicals do not remember history.
What you are purporting to claim is that "way back" we somehow knew more chemistry than we do now.
How is that possible?
If the old books don't agree with the new observations, guess which one is wrong?

You have this
"The fact that solid sodium hydroxide contains free water as well as sodium oxide tells me that it is not a stable compound we are looking at." completely the wrong way round
It is a stable compound and it does not contain the oxide.
You are misunderstanding a proximate analysis in that old book you cited.
So when you say "It is a transitioning mix and partial crystallization. According to your definitions. ", again, you are completely wrong.
Sodium hydroxide is a single chemical compound; it is not a hydrate of the oxide.

"I ordered some potassium permanganate and I will see if I can produce some lavender crystals of potassium permanganate using controlled temperature and a vacuum pump. I imagine the oral does must have been very small to create a lavender crystal. "
Have fun.
You will of course fail.

that's because it's impossible.
If it was something that pharmacists did  in order to make some preparation then it would be written down.
I'd be able to find it on line- so would you.
I'd be able to find it in my old pharmacopoeias. I have paper copies because I collect that sort of data.
It's not there.

If this stuff was some sort of patent medicine then (the hint is in the name) there would be a patent.


The best reason for it to only be in your head is that you dreamed it.


And, once you start introducing stuff about
"we know that air burns if hot enough"
(It does not)
"usually because it is separated to its individual atoms"
(No it isn't.)
"early submarine launched rockets"
"So yea we knew things that others to this day by way of the "laws" of conservation claim could not have existed. " (Those conservation laws are mathematically proven to be true)
"This was in the fifties,"
"My point is the Habor process is a fusion reaction"
"That works much like a ramjet"
"if you have looked at taxation ..."
"I believe the ramjet that detonated air, started to create high voltage from the pressure differential created by the Venturi, that in turn created a plasma that expanded the air violently. "
"I have electrically created plasma in pure nitrogen, and oxygen. Both react rather violently. "

and other such ramblings, you look like Grandpa Simpson.



because it's got nothing to do with permanganates.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums