budullewraagh

so i was reading about energetic mixtures of acids and bases, enthalpy change, flash boiling and the like when i decided to think about the anhydrides of such acids and bases. so if we want to consider the most energetic acid/base mixture, our acid will be conc H2SO4. perchloric acid cannot get up to as high concentrations and the fact that it is an oxidizing acid and can also decompose at elevated temperatures is irrelevant, because we are considering just the acid/base reaction. now as for a base, cesium hydroxide would be beastly, and is soluble in 0.25 parts water. thus, 4g CsOH/1g H2O. 4(132.9+16+1)/(4(132.9+16+1)+(18))=0.97 so we can get CsOH to 97% conc. NH3 cannot get near that concentration. anhydrous NH3, on the other hand, is at 100%, but it wouldn't result in the same extreme enthalpy change as 97% CsOH would. this brings up another thought; what about anhydrides? SO3+NH3 will not react, will they? perhaps they would work H2O+N2+S. anyone know? if not, a water molecule would be useful. i could imagine this fuming liquidy goodness to be a formidable mixture. imagine the enthalpy change from addition of water. first there is the energy release when the components are dissolved, then immediately the strong acid/base reaction. unfortunately, i believe CsOH and SO3 would react to form the bisulfate of cesium. thoughts, anyone?

an electrical shock? yeah. HI doesnt smell good, but it isnt particularly bad when compared to others

forgot to mention pyridine, etc. also, i read once that an ever so slight exposure to hydrocinnamic acid results in an awful smell that lasts for weeks, but i dont know how true that is

yeah, i knew that much. i meant for production of nitric acid, which results in significantly stronger explosives. alkali nitrates are much better for making the acid.

jdurg, you've smelled osmium tetraoxide?

ammonium nitrate makes for poor bombs

Bad: mercaptans, organoselenols/tellurols hydrogen chalcogenides, (with exception of oxide) hydrogen pnictides hydrogen chloride sulfur dioxide oleum most alcohols butanoic acid ammonia ozone Good: most esters ethanoic acid at low concentration vanillin

white phosphorus. not red so much, and definitely not black, but white. also as yt said, aluminum

HCl/H2O2 is similar to fenton's reagent, although it lacks the iron catalyst.

in glow sticks, phenyl oxalate is oxidized by hydrogen peroxide. along the way to carbon dioxide and phenol, the intermediate 1,2-dioxetane-3,4-dione is formed. upon decomposition of the intermediate, enough energy is released to cause electron excitation and finally carbon dioxide and phenol are formed.

Fe2O3 is "rust" (red ferric oxide)

H2O2 is a very strong oxidizing agent. i wont mention some of the things it can make. it is reasonably unstable and at 70% concentration, so little as a piece of dust can cause a sample to explosively decompose.

not necessarily. "lab grade" refers to purity, which isnt really referred to in "35%." 35% is the concentration, which is technically purity, but not in the way we're considering

"why does it have to be . 8h20?" shaking Ba(OH)2*8H2O with ammonium salts results in the breaking of bonds between Ba+2 and the oxygen from H2O, which absorbs energy as the electrons move back to their normal configuration. water is released. dissolving ammonium salts in water is generally endothermic as well, so heat is absorbed by this process as well.

post more than the title of the thread, and please write in complete, coherent sentences. tell us about this sample of "rust."

"Doesn't look like it was banning lynchings, looks like an apology to me." as i said, it's both. and see, it makes sense. you apologize, then you show your sincerity by actually DOING something to prevent a future repeat of the problem. it's the senate, buddy. legislation is what they do. and i agree with demosthenes.

just a note on the barium hydroxide; it must be the octahydrate. otherwise it wont work. shake it with an ammonium salt; it doesnt have to be the thiocyanate

just a note; alkoxides are easily hydrolyzed, so unless the alcohol is dry, you won't see much alkoxide

"But we must understand that just becuase they didn't sign it doesn't mean they are racist or condone passed linchings." i just find it weird. " Two possible acceptable reasons: 1.] They were out of town, and knew their signatures were unnecessary or no-one got around to asking them to co-sponsor the resolution. [Call me cynical, but if I were a Democrat party-politician, I wouldn't be chasing down Repulican Senators asking them to sign on.] And most of the Deep South states had at least one Senator co-sponsor the resolution. 2.] The non-signing senators think that apologizing for something that you didn't do is meaningless and self-serving; I believe that no current senator ever blocked an Anti-Lynching Bill. I think the second reason has some validity. What is this apology, what force does it have? 4,743 are still dead. The Federal Government still did nothing to stop the murders. And African American social structures still reflect the deliberate destruction of African American family structure well into the 20th century. "Sorry" doesn't cut it." 1 isnt valid. as for 2, it's better late than never. if i were to do something to offend you and i were to regret it, i would apologize. i wouldn't say "whoops, it already happened so i can't be sorry about it and apologize." thats not how it works. it can't be that. perhaps they think they would lose support among the voters? plus, it was more than just an apology; it was legislation banning lynchings.

i dont agree. Na2SO4 and NaBr? where do all the cupric cations go? they certainly are not reduced. i definitely can see the Na2SO4 being formed, along with CuBr2. do you agree?

pangloss, i, to a degree, believe that it wouldnt be good for several million lawsuits to be brought against the US. nonetheless, i don't see anything wrong in the son of one who was lynched by a mob suing the (living) man who lynched his father. "For the record, I will not discuss this "hit-and-run, then swoop in for the kill when they take the bait" deal of yours any more. Future claims of words-in-mouth from you will be ignored. You're not fooling anybody, and I'm not going to play your little game anymore." i just dont see any reason in your stating that not signing such a bill does not imply racism. nobody had made that assertion, and it seemed like you implied that i, specifically, had. to claim that you put words in my mouth is not as overt as the implications you made in that statement. im not playing a game. i care about the issues. i thought i'd discuss this issue, as nobody had brought it up a day after the decision. "What people need to understand is that the majority of these lynchings were of convicted murderers and rapists. Also, White people were lynched as well. Get over it." complete bs by definition. you may want to look up "lynching." see what you find. it was already addressed above. john, thanks for the names.

in the present day, you and i, and most others will agree that lynching isn't a good idea. whats so frightening is that senate republicans filibustered this for 6 weeks. whats more frightening is the fact that 20 people didn't want to put their respective names on a piece of legislation condemning the practice of lynching. one can infer that this is because they had fear that they would lose support from their respective voting bases, which seems to lead to the conclusion that many people still support lynching as a practice. anyway, the house approved 200+ pieces of anti-lynching legislation previously, but all got filibustered in the senate. laws are written so that they will be upheld. the whole anti-lynching thing needed to be passed, because lynching is a crime, according to the people of the united states and the basic rules to which it is managed by.

"I'm not sure how you got to that, since we weren't even talking about lawsuits. I was referring to (hypothetical) people who would ask the government for compensation, and specifically those who ask for compensation for sins against their ancestors. I'm not opposed to compensation for actual lynching survivors, if any still exist." but now what about hypothetical family A. the patriarch was lynched. the matriarch had to raise several children, all of whom could have gone to college, except whoops, they had no money. they would have had enough, had the patriarch been alive to provide. what about these children? do they deserve compensation? "I didn't say that you did." but you implied it. otherwise you would have had no reason to say it. or you could call your statement irrelevant.

NOTE TO ALL: THIS POST CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT TO VIEW "that they didn't earn" do people "earn" money by being damaged and suing? "is not a declaration of racism, dammit, and it's about freaking time we learned that in this society. Still, some morons will draw that comparison." not a declaration of racism, and i never made that assertion. but do tell me if you happen to know why these people decided not to sign. "I really don't see why it was legal to do it" terrible, but lynchings were common. see the above statistics. they were also considered social gatherings. priests went. families went. little children looked on and had the tendency to not flinch. if people did anything, the courts would laugh at them, the kkk would threaten them, and mobs of white people would burn their respective houses down. see below for images: note that these people aren't hooded note the child very social gathering. a family outing if you will.

"The vote was passed without opposition" there was a vote on the legislation. there were apologies involved. "Lynching is variously defined as a violent act, usually racial in nature, that denies a person due process of law and is carried out with the complicity of the local society." and yeah, lynching can involve murder, but hey, they were blacks. property, right? if state governments dont care, nothing wrong with it, right?