This thread for TennTradition

#1

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
11
#1
and any other chemical engineers lurking about.

http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...-creates-new-explosive-molecule-science-class

Screen%20shot%202012-02-03%20at%2012.19.22%20PM.png


Clara Lazen is the discoverer of tetranitratoxycarbon, a molecule constructed of, obviously, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon. It's got some interesting possible properties, ranging from use as an explosive to energy storage. Lazen is listed as the co-author of a recent paper on the molecule. But that's not what's so interesting and inspiring about this story. What's so unusual here is that Clara Lazen is a ten-year-old fifth-grader in Kansas City, MO.

Thought you might find that interesting.
 
#3
#3
WOW ! 10 Yrs old on not wasting his life away playing video games! Must have great parents.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
Nice story. I find it nice that the teacher actually pursued it with the university.

That was nice, also the fact that he gave her credit for co-authoring the paper.

What would be the correct term for oxygen, hydrogen and carbon? (aka gasoline, is there anything else in gasoline other than oxygen, hydrogen and carbon?)

The Germans were using synthetic fuels by the end of WWII, mainly because we were shutting off their supply of petroleum and we were well down the road of research into synthetic fuels ourselves but it seems all that research was abandoned at the end of the war.

Recently I heard or read something about a 14 year old phenom who had mathematically disproven the big bang theory, did you hear of that?

Mens et Manus! :salute:
 
#5
#5
That was nice, also the fact that he gave her credit for co-authoring the paper.

What would be the correct term for oxygen, hydrogen and carbon? (aka gasoline, is there anything else in gasoline other than oxygen, hydrogen and carbon?)

The Germans were using synthetic fuels by the end of WWII, mainly because we were shutting off their supply of petroleum and we were well down the road of research into synthetic fuels ourselves but it seems all that research was abandoned at the end of the war.

Recently I heard or read something about a 14 year old phenom who had mathematically disproven the big bang theory, did you hear of that?

Mens et Manus! :salute:

That's not a bad journal to have a paper in by age 10...haha.

As for the components of gasoline, there aren't a lot of oxygen-containing molecules in gasoline. The energy content really comes from the hydrocarbons (carbon and hydrogen), though there are some oxygenated hydrocarbons such as ethers. The less oxygen, the better from an energy-potential standpoint (because it is already partially oxidized, which means less energy from combustion, in general). Though, there can still be a lot of energy despite the partial oxidation, such as in the case of alcohols.

I did not see anything about the 14 year-old...but I'm pretty sure I would have if he actually did disprove a theory of the weight of the big bang theory...perhaps it is more like his/her work could support the disproving the theory?

Mens et manus :good!:
 
#6
#6
Haha...I just looked at the board and got very worried for a moment. It looked like the instructor had left the Hamiltonian operator off of the Schrodinger equation on the blackboard. However, now that I look more closely, you can barely see it peaking through the molecule. That would have been embarrassing....
 
#7
#7
That's not a bad journal to have a paper in by age 10...haha.

As for the components of gasoline, there aren't a lot of oxygen-containing molecules in gasoline. The energy content really comes from the hydrocarbons (carbon and hydrogen), though there are some oxygenated hydrocarbons such as ethers. The less oxygen, the better from an energy-potential standpoint (because it is already partially oxidized, which means less energy from combustion, in general). Though, there can still be a lot of energy despite the partial oxidation, such as in the case of alcohols.

I did not see anything about the 14 year-old...but I'm pretty sure I would have if he actually did disprove a theory of the weight of the big bang theory...perhaps it is more like his/her work could support the disproving the theory?

Mens et manus :good!:


What other elements are there in gasoline other than oxygen, hydrorgen and carbon?

Have you ever heard of the small bang theory?

In the late sixties we were all challenged to come up with a theory. (Gore's theory = super fail, although very politically succesful,)

The 'Abominal Snowman' theory may have been one of the more famous, at least the most philosocal, at least from any PHD in philosophy, I've not yeti heard it refuted in any way.

My best friend's 'trees rule' is one of the more humerous, in support I developed the slogan; 'save the rainforest, make mental notes,' which most people don't get.

He was allways pullling your leg some way or another.

Mine was the 'big rock' theory, want to hear that?

What is the exact weight of the big bang theory?

Can you give me a difinitive answer in kilograms?

I mean, would that be an overwhelming weight to Atlas provided he had a long enough lever and a solid fulcrum?

Jeez, give me a freaking break some day.
 
#8
#8
Gasoline is a blend of hydrocarbons that also has other impurities. Sulfur-containing molecules would be one of those. There may be a few nitrogen-containing molecules like pyridines, but I don't think there would be ver much of those at all. If there are other major elements, I am blanking on them.

Sure, I'll listen to your rock theory.

By weight, I just meant its presence in the scientific literature and popular press. It clearly isn't something that is disproven without pervasive coverage. If there is an interesting work in the area, I usually at least see it on the science blogs I read.
 
#9
#9
Gasoline is a blend of hydrocarbons that also has other impurities. Sulfur-containing molecules would be one of those. There may be a few nitrogen-containing molecules like pyridines, but I don't think there would be ver much of those at all. If there are other major elements, I am blanking on them.

Well if all the impurities could be distilled out of gasoline would it not be purely oxygen, hydrogen and carbon?

FWIW can you give me the exact chemical makeup of ethanol?




By weight, I just meant its presence in the scientific literature and popular press. It clearly isn't something that is disproven without pervasive coverage. If there is an interesting work in the area, I usually at least see it on the science blogs I read.

I have run the numbers through a super computer and found the atomic weight to the big bang theory to exactly = zero, incidentally which exactly equals the atomic weight of the AGW theory.

(I would say the AGW theory = sub zero but don't want to get into another endless gay rights discussion.)



Haha...I just looked at the board and got very worried for a moment. It looked like the instructor had left the Hamiltonian operator off of the Schrodinger equation on the blackboard. However, now that I look more closely, you can barely see it peaking through the molecule. That would have been embarrassing....

Not to mention the Jeffersonian operator is always ignored in the modern day scientific community!


Genius at work: 12-year-old is studying at IUPUI | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

When Jacob Barnett first learned about the Schrödinger equation for quantum mechanics, he could hardly contain himself.

For three straight days, his little brain buzzed with mathematical functions.

From within his 12-year-old, mildly autistic mind, there gradually flowed long strings of pluses, minuses, funky letters and upside-down triangles -- a tapestry of complicated symbols that few can understand.
-------------------

At this point, Jake's math IQ -- which has been measured at 170 (top of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) -- could not get any higher.
---------------------

The numbers that keep him from snoozing are the same that led him to develop his own theory of physics -- an original work that proposed a "new expanded theory of relativity" and takes what Einstein developed even further.
----------------------------

"There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it's just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova," Jake said. "What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it's more dense."

OK . . . trying to follow you.

"So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

"So, um, in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it's really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don't care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon?"

He could go on and on.

And he did.

"Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn't gonna happen."

"Because of that," he continued, "that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We'd have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up."

So, we had to ask.

If not the big bang, then how did the universe come about?

"I'm still working on that," he said. "I have an idea, but . . . I'm still working out the details."




Sure, I'll listen to your rock theory.

The 'big rock' isn't really theoretical, it is actual reality.

Back in the fifties astronomers noticed an asteroid sized rock (the big rock) in deep space and further observed it was headed toward Earth and eventually would actually impact Earth.

Remember the one recently that passed between the Earth and the Moon that was said to be the size of a bus? Well to put the big rock in perspective, if the bus sized one was a pebble in your driveway, the big rock would be the size of your house.

Of course it was immediately realized that something of that size hitting Earth would end life as we know it and so the government immediately classified any and all information about the big rock to be top secret code word, after all who is going to pay their taxes when you think the big rock is going to get you before the tax man does?

So as the decades passed by and more studies were done and solutions discussed, there have been several things discovered. There was discussed the idea of using a nuke to blow up the big rock but that would be like asking a deer if would rather be shot with a 12 guage slug or a load of buckshot, either one is fatal.

The advent of improved computers and better otics helped make two discoveries, one was that the orbit of the object conicides with the Mayan calendar in that it passes by Earth (every 3552? years) and that original calculations were slightly off, it wasn't going to hit Earth after all but only pass closely by.

Meanwhile more information came in from a space probe we had sent to examine the big rock and it was found that it was leaving a trail of iridium in it's wake.

The thing that makes that an important discovery is that after the big rock passes by Earth, we will be orbiting for several months in the iridium dust and tests show that this much iridium will convert through a chemical reaction, the nitrogen (70% of our atmosphere) into nitrous oxide.

And you know how people behave when the inhale a lot of nitrous oxide.

So actually people will be running through the streets, throwing off their clothes and partying like crazy. This was the main reason for the Obama NASA muslim outreach program, he was just explaining to the mullah types that this is an inevitable event and so try not to overreact when their women start shedding their burkhas and running around in public naked.

Anyway the final conclusion of the big rock theory is that no matter how bad things may get, hang in there, just keep on rocking and rolling and you are going to experience the party of your lifetime, and whenever you think of the big rock, it's party time! :dance2:
 
#10
#10
Gasoline is really defined as a cut from the distillation (a portion of material that comes off during the refining process), so it is by definition a range of chemicals. Those chemicals are carbon and hydrogen containing by and large. None of the major fuel-value components (that I am aware of) have oxygen in them.

As for ethanol, it is CH3CH2OH.
 
#11
#11
Gasoline is really defined as a cut from the distillation (a portion of material that comes off during the refining process), so it is by definition a range of chemicals. Those chemicals are carbon and hydrogen containing by and large. None of the major fuel-value components (that I am aware of) have oxygen in them.

As for ethanol, it is CH3CH2OH.

What do you think of Jacob Barnett's ideas on the big bang?

I don't know why I was thinking gasoline had oxygen in it, so I did a little (emphasize little) research and found that sometimes oxygen is added to improve combustion.

The source said isoctane = C8H18 and is typical of molecules found in gasoline.

Ethanol is said by that source to be C2H5OH. (from '98)

Do you think tetranitratoxycarbon would have any possible value as a fuel source?
 
#12
#12
What do you think of Jacob Barnett's ideas on the big bang?

I don't know why I was thinking gasoline had oxygen in it, so I did a little (emphasize little) research and found that sometimes oxygen is added to improve combustion.

The source said isoctane = C8H18 and is typical of molecules found in gasoline.

Ethanol is said by that source to be C2H5OH. (from '98)

Do you think tetranitratoxycarbon would have any possible value as a fuel source?

Yes, isooctane is a good measure of typical gasoline content and is the source of the octane rating of fuel. However, gasoline is a spectrum of molecules around this molecular weight.

Oxygen-containing molecules can be added in small quantities to boost combustion. An example is MTBE. The carbon-oxygen-carbon bond in MTBE is broken under high heat, inducing free radical chain reaction chemistry that aids combustion (which, after all, is just other free radical chemistry).

As for ethanol, that is the correct formula. They have just combined the oxygens and hydrogens together in that notation (which is less descriptive than the notation I used, but is the more appropriate way to write it).

This molecule doesn't immediately jump out to me as a good fuel source. The main goal of combustion is to pair carbon with two oxygens. This is where the energy comes from. The large amount of nitrogen in this molecule would likely interfere with that - though I haven't looked at it closely.
 
#13
#13
Yes, isooctane is a good measure of typical gasoline content and is the source of the octane rating of fuel. However, gasoline is a spectrum of molecules around this molecular weight.

Oxygen-containing molecules can be added in small quantities to boost combustion. An example is MTBE. The carbon-oxygen-carbon bond in MTBE is broken under high heat, inducing free radical chain reaction chemistry that aids combustion (which, after all, is just other free radical chemistry).

As for ethanol, that is the correct formula. They have just combined the oxygens and hydrogens together in that notation (which is less descriptive than the notation I used, but is the more appropriate way to write it).

This molecule doesn't immediately jump out to me as a good fuel source. The main goal of combustion is to pair carbon with two oxygens. This is where the energy comes from. The large amount of nitrogen in this molecule would likely interfere with that - though I haven't looked at it closely.

I don't pretend to know all that much about it but racing teams (and some street legal machines) have been using nitrous packages for a long time to boost power.

Any comment on the big rock theory? :)
 
#14
#14
That's a good question about nitrous oxide. The difference there is that the nitrogen beings in oxygen with it. At high temperatures, nitrous oxide will decompose into nitrogen gas and oxygen free radicals. This oxygen is then free to initiate further combustion. However, for a nitrogen/carbon molecule, the nitrogen would compete for oxygen, inhibiting the energy production. Nitrous also serves another, less obvious function. It is stored as a liquid and then is vaporized into the engine. As it vaporizes, it cools the air that carries it into the engine. You can fit more cold air than warm air into a cylinder. So, there is more oxygen around for combustion due to this effect. At lest, that's what my engine combustion colleagues used to talk about. I haven't directly studied it...makes sense, at least.

As for the big rock theory...I would be surprised if the laughing gas could diffuse all the way down to surface levels...but sounds pretty exciting to me.
 
#15
#15
That's a good question about nitrous oxide. The difference there is that the nitrogen beings in oxygen with it. At high temperatures, nitrous oxide will decompose into nitrogen gas and oxygen free radicals. This oxygen is then free to initiate further combustion. However, for a nitrogen/carbon molecule, the nitrogen would compete for oxygen, inhibiting the energy production. Nitrous also serves another, less obvious function. It is stored as a liquid and then is vaporized into the engine. As it vaporizes, it cools the air that carries it into the engine. You can fit more cold air than warm air into a cylinder. So, there is more oxygen around for combustion due to this effect. At lest, that's what my engine combustion colleagues used to talk about. I haven't directly studied it...makes sense, at least.

As for the big rock theory...I would be surprised if the laughing gas could diffuse all the way down to surface levels...but sounds pretty exciting to me.

Ha ha. Should I seek a domicile at a higher altitude, it would be a shame for all the beach bums to miss out on the big rock party.

What would some liquid oxygen do if injected into a 13 to 1 compression ratio racing engine?

FWIW, P-47s and P-51s during WWII used water injection to achieve unprecedented speeds for propeller driven aircraft.
 
#16
#16
Ha ha. Should I seek a domicile at a higher altitude, it would be a shame for all the beach bums to miss out on the big rock party.

What would some liquid oxygen do if injected into a 13 to 1 compression ratio racing engine?

FWIW, P-47s and P-51s during WWII used water injection to achieve unprecedented speeds for propeller driven aircraft.

I'm not sure about the exact effects, but I would think the result could be positive. I only say could be because the fuel to oxygen ratio is important. You need a free radical chain reaction, which you could inhibit by being fuel being too lean if you inject too much oxygen. However, you are avoiding the diluting effects of nitrogen by going purer with O2 through injection. If you get too lean, you will burn too slow and lose top speed. However, if you inject at the right ratio so you aren't lean, then you could gain power and have an engine that runs hotter (less NOx).

I would think, however, the primary reason you wouldn't do this would be because it sounds extremely dangerous.
 
#17
#17
I'm not sure about the exact effects, but I would think the result could be positive. I only say could be because the fuel to oxygen ratio is important. You need a free radical chain reaction, which you could inhibit by being fuel being too lean if you inject too much oxygen. However, you are avoiding the diluting effects of nitrogen by going purer with O2 through injection. If you get too lean, you will burn too slow and lose top speed. However, if you inject at the right ratio so you aren't lean, then you could gain power and have an engine that runs hotter (less NOx).

I would think, however, the primary reason you wouldn't do this would be because it sounds extremely dangerous.

It does sound dangerous, of course if you were using a fuel injection system then you should be able to set it so you wouldn't be running too lean but I guess you would probably need a charger (super or turbo) to get all that in the combustion chamber quickly enough.

In the original article on the theoretical molecule tetranitratoxycarbon, they say;

It's got some interesting possible properties, ranging from use as an explosive to energy storage.

The 'energy storage' part of the statement sort of has me baffled, what do you make of that?
 

VN Store



Back
Top