Gilded Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 "I believe that mixing chemicals is a good way for amateurs to gain valuable knowledge and experience" It's also a good way to gain money from your health insurance as you lose a limb (if your health insurance even covers that). I got to agree with bud, the part where they dropped sugar in it sounds kinda dangerous. If this was pure ClO2, no matter what safety precautions I'm quite sure something less-nice would've happened to these two earlier on.
Redrang604 Posted December 24, 2004 Author Posted December 24, 2004 First off i don't want this to turn into a flame war on whether ametuers should be using dangerous chemicals. The thing about what we have is that is DOES NOT EXPLODE as easily as you say, it only explodes when exposed to organic compounds, not when light is shined on it, nor the heat from the light.
Nave Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 "they snuck into their school lab" Ok i dont no where you got that from but first off we didnt sneek into our labs or anything like that. We went to our chem teacher with this whole thing planed out. He GAVE us the chemicals and let us do the reaction. HE was supervising us the whole time. We did all of this in a Fume hood with gloves aprens and goggles. When we put the sugar in we were BEHIND the fume hood so nothing could kill us.. And who said we didnt know anything about what we were mixing? Its not like we just randomly choose chemicals. We came up with an equation and had trouble solving it so we decided to do the experiment....so DONT try and say that it wasnt safe or smart chem cuz if u do then ur def wrong... Also if we were SUCH amatures then why would our chem teacher whos been teaching for 25+ years let us do this huh?
Gilded Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 OK, you just didn't just give too many details which lead to wrong conclusions. Not a biggie. "He GAVE us the chemicals and let us do the reaction." Wow, I'm moving to New Jersey.
Silencer Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 ^You can do lots of things in the school chemistry lab if your teacher isn't a bitch like mine. In fact, I would be so much smarter if I had a good chemistry teacher who realized I actually care about the class and am way ahead of everyone else.
Gilded Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 "In fact, I would be so much smarter if I had a good chemistry teacher who realized I actually care about the class and am way ahead of everyone else." Yeah, I was also the only one in my class (back in 8th-9th grade) that was actually interested. ) I never asked if I could use the school lab though, but on the other hand, I had no experiments in mind.
Redrang604 Posted December 24, 2004 Author Posted December 24, 2004 I've been doing experiments in his room with his approval for 4 years. Beginning with yellow phosporus and moving to explosives. Also, Nave, take a look at your sig why would our chem teacher whos been teaching for 25+ years let us do this huh? __________________ My Chem teacher told me Ill be lucky to leave H.S. without losing a limb....
Nave Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 Yea so he was joking around...if he really didnt trust me that much then why would he be letting me do experiments ben huh?
jdurg Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 I was very fortunate to have a very good high school chemistry teacher. She always showed great demos, and if she wasn't performing them, she'd have a video/Laserdisc of the more dangerous ones. She really trusted me and let me do almost anything I wanted. (She wouldn't let me do NI3, nor much else with halogens since she was a bit timid about halogens). But she always let me back into the main chemical closet and let me help her dispose of some of the really old junk. (I only wish I could have gone and help dispose of some of the old chemicals when I was making my element collection. When I was in high school, I remember seeing a quarter pound log of white phosphorus back there). In my senior year, she let me come in during my study hall, even we she had another class in there, and just do random experiments. It was really fun.
budullewraagh Posted December 25, 2004 Posted December 25, 2004 The thing about what we have is that is DOES NOT EXPLODE as easily as you say, it only explodes when exposed to organic compounds, not when light is shined on it, nor the heat from the light. you really have no idea what youre talking about. i know chlorine dioxide and its properties. i know that you made chlorine dioxide. yes, as long as it is wet, you are in less danger than otherwise. the water will readily evaporate and it will detonate in sunlight. surely you would never say that you know more than the people at merck
Redrang604 Posted December 25, 2004 Author Posted December 25, 2004 I was just wondering others thoughts on this not saying the merck index is wrong, all im trying to figure out is the products of the reaction. Also EVAN id rather you not just tell everyone my name, i use a psudonym(sp?) for a reason
Silencer Posted December 25, 2004 Posted December 25, 2004 Ha... nave is evan backwords... just call me rotciv then.
Gilded Posted December 25, 2004 Posted December 25, 2004 "you really have no idea what youre talking about. i know chlorine dioxide and its properties. i know that you made chlorine dioxide." As I said, let us not jump into conclusions that the solution would be even near 100%.
budullewraagh Posted December 25, 2004 Posted December 25, 2004 they said it pompously as if to say that their chlorine dioxide data was acceptable for all chlorine dioxide
Gilded Posted December 25, 2004 Posted December 25, 2004 "they said it pompously as if to say that their chlorine dioxide data was acceptable for all chlorine dioxide" Oh I see. I must agree that Merck index is one damn good source for this kind of information, sadly I don't have access to it myself (though I'll probably buy it when and if I get the sufficient money out of somewhere ).
ed84c Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 When You say ClO2 is Dioxide either or Peroxide, what does the Peroxide actually mean if its different from Dioxide, or do they both mean the same?
budullewraagh Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 the prefix "per" means more than. ex, potassium permanganate means potassium more than manganate, which makes sense as the manganese is +6 in manganate and +7 in permanganate. same thing with chlorate/perchlorate which are +5 and +7 respectively. etc etc etc. take for example sodium oxide. the peroxide is "more than" the oxide. in this case, we have [math]ClO_2[/math]. chlorine likes to take -1,+1,+3,+5 and +7 formal charges. in chlorine dioxide it would be +4 except the bonds switch around in a resonance structure. it is "more than" the oxide. it is also the dioxide.
jdurg Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 'Peroxide' also denotes that there is a bond in the molecule between the two oxygen atoms. So each oxygen has a bond to another oxygen atom and the chlorine atom.
budullewraagh Posted January 18, 2005 Posted January 18, 2005 altho it does resonate. it can be Cl=O=Cl (bent structure)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now