In article , John
Michael Williams wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote in message ...
In , Bill Sloman wrote
in part:

I had to work through the equations many years ago for an experiment
intended to monitor the process in which one of the "Dewar benzenes"
converted itself to normal - Kekule's - benzene, which is an
enormously energetic process, involving about an order of magnitude
more energy per molecule than you get out of TNT and PETN. I really
didn't want to blast my experimental apparatus to smithereens.

When I went through the calculations with my supervisor, he pulled a
very long face - the motivation for the experiment had been some
unexpected flashes of light seen when a dumb organic chemist had
released small drops of liquid "Dewar benzene" into a hot cell, and my
calculations made it clear that the flashes of light were just thermal
radiation from a hot plasma, rather than fluorsecence from from an
electronically excited state of Kekule benezene, which is what my
supervisor had been hoping for ...

For the difference between Dewar benzene and Kekule benzene see

http://www.chemsoc.org/exemplarchem/...enzenering.htm

If this produces anything near 10x the energy per weight of TNT or PETN,
then a version with controlled reaction rate would make one heck of a
rocket propellant.

I thought the ultimate energy per mass was magnesium and oxygen (or was
it beryllium and oxygen?), just a few times as much energy per mass as TNT
and not good like usual rocket propellants for producing gas to use as
rocket exhaust.

It depends on the electrochemical gradient, I think.
Hydrogen burning in fluorine probably produces more combustion
energy than anything else, per unit mass.

That one is up there, but let's check heat of formation...

HF gas: 63.991 KCal/mole, 3.19955 KCal/gram

MgO: 145.76 KCal/mole, 3.644 KCal/gram, but with no gaseous output.

I am surely skeptical of changing one isomer of a molecule to another
producing even comparable energy to, let alone more energy than
decomposition of a similar or somewhat greater mass molecule of high
explosive.

I share this skepticism. Burning TNT probably would produce 10x more
free energy than detonating it.

The usual high explosives contain nitrate or nitro-group molecule
portions, or other oxidizers.

TNT does not have enough oxygen in its nitro groups for complete
combustion, so you get some more energy burning it than detonating it.
On the other hand, nitroglycerin and RDX have enough oxygen in their
nitrate groups for complete combustion.

- Don Klipstein )

I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Klipstein
wrote (in ) about 'CB Radios,
Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Tue, 23 Mar 2004:
That one is up there, but let's check heat of formation...

HF gas: 63.991 KCal/mole, 3.19955 KCal/gram

MgO: 145.76 KCal/mole, 3.644 KCal/gram, but with no gaseous output.

Do you have the figures for CsF?

DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME.(;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

In article , John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Klipstein
wrote (in ) about 'CB Radios,
Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Tue, 23 Mar 2004:
That one is up there, but let's check heat of formation...

HF gas: 63.991 KCal/mole, 3.19955 KCal/gram

MgO: 145.76 KCal/mole, 3.644 KCal/gram, but with no gaseous output.

Do you have the figures for CsF?

No I don't. I expect it to be more per mole and less per gram than HF.

I do have a figure for RbF, 133.31 KCal/mole, 1.276 KCal/gram.

But another one that ranks high per gram is Al2O3.
That one gets 389..49 KCal per mole, 3.818 KCal per gram, and 2.45% more
if you get it to be corundum crystal rather than amorphous powder.

B2O3 gets 279.81 KCal per mole, 3.886 KCal per gram.

I think BeO is also up there, probably even more per gram, but I do not
have that figure. I suspect it is the champ in energy per gram of
reactants, and misremembered by one element in the same column since
MgO is not the champ after all.

DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME.(;-)

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Klipstein
wrote (in ) about 'CB Radios,
Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Tue, 23 Mar 2004:
That one is up there, but let's check heat of formation...

HF gas: 63.991 KCal/mole, 3.19955 KCal/gram

MgO: 145.76 KCal/mole, 3.644 KCal/gram, but with no gaseous output.

Do you have the figures for CsF?

No I don't. I expect it to be more per mole and less per gram than HF.

I do have a figure for RbF, 133.31 KCal/mole, 1.276 KCal/gram.

But another one that ranks high per gram is Al2O3.
That one gets 389..49 KCal per mole, 3.818 KCal per gram, and 2.45% more
if you get it to be corundum crystal rather than amorphous powder.

B2O3 gets 279.81 KCal per mole, 3.886 KCal per gram.

I think BeO is also up there, probably even more per gram, but I do not
have that figure. I suspect it is the champ in energy per gram of
reactants, and misremembered by one element in the same column since
MgO is not the champ after all.

I suspect the champ is something like a mix of liquid ozone with liquid
acetylene.
Try it and report back.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in message ...
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Klipstein
wrote (in ) about 'CB Radios,
Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Tue, 23 Mar 2004:
That one is up there, but let's check heat of formation...

HF gas: 63.991 KCal/mole, 3.19955 KCal/gram

MgO: 145.76 KCal/mole, 3.644 KCal/gram, but with no gaseous output.

Do you have the figures for CsF?

No I don't. I expect it to be more per mole and less per gram than HF.

I do have a figure for RbF, 133.31 KCal/mole, 1.276 KCal/gram.

But another one that ranks high per gram is Al2O3.
That one gets 389..49 KCal per mole, 3.818 KCal per gram, and 2.45% more
if you get it to be corundum crystal rather than amorphous powder.

B2O3 gets 279.81 KCal per mole, 3.886 KCal per gram.

I think BeO is also up there, probably even more per gram, but I do not
have that figure. I suspect it is the champ in energy per gram of
reactants, and misremembered by one element in the same column since
MgO is not the champ after all.

I suspect the champ is something like a mix of liquid ozone with liquid
acetylene.
Try it and report back.

Not an experiment I'd recommend. Acetylene is thermally unstable, and
cylinders of compressed acetylene contain kieselguhr

http://www.nobel.se/nobel/alfred-nob...ieselguhr.html

for exactly the same reason that nitroglycerine is only commercially
available adsorbed onto kieselguhr.

Ozone is is also thermally unstable, and I don't think that it is
commercially available at all (with or without kieselguhr).

Mixing liquid acetylene and liquid ozone could produce a very loud
report - a mixture of charcoal and liquid oxygen used to be used as a
commercial explosive.

Pure hydrogen peroxide is another nasty liquid - the British, and more
recently, the Russians have had cause to regret using it as a torpedo
fuel.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman
wrote (in ) about 'CB
Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Wed, 24 Mar 2004:

Not an experiment I'd recommend. Acetylene is thermally unstable, and
cylinders of compressed acetylene contain kieselguhr

http://www.nobel.se/nobel/alfred-nob...kieselguhr.htm
l

for exactly the same reason that nitroglycerine is only commercially
available adsorbed onto kieselguhr.

Ozone is is also thermally unstable, and I don't think that it is
commercially available at all (with or without kieselguhr).

There have always been macho physicists and chemists who wanted to push
the envelope of risky experiments; Moissan, for example, who made
diamonds (not very good ones) by quenching white-hot hollow iron ingots
with carbon inside. Who was it who first produced titanium metal from
the oxide with the aid of potassium vapour?

Ozone has certainly been liquefied: it is a very deep blue, almost
black. Acetylene can't be liquefied at atmospheric pressu the solid
sublimes (turns to gas) at -84 C.

Mixing liquid acetylene and liquid ozone could produce a very loud
report -

Particularly as it would have to be done in a pressure vessel!

a mixture of charcoal and liquid oxygen used to be used as a
commercial explosive.

Pure hydrogen peroxide is another nasty liquid - the British, and more
recently, the Russians have had cause to regret using it as a torpedo
fuel.

Was the British torpedo fuel *pure* H2O2? It would seem at first sight
unnecessary.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
m...

Mixing liquid acetylene and liquid ozone could produce a very loud
report - a mixture of charcoal and liquid oxygen used to be used as a
commercial explosive.

I remember the lox-barbecue page (which unfortunately seems to have been
taken down) warned against soaking the charcoal briquets in the liquid
oxygen.

"The people in charge have requested this web site be removed"

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:Fnh8c.1267$Q45.417@fed1read02...

I remember the lox-barbecue page (which unfortunately seems to have
been
taken down) warned against soaking the charcoal briquets in the
liquid
oxygen.

"The people in charge have requested this web site be removed"

That's a shame - I thought it was a good example of there still being
a sense of adventure out there.

regards
Ian

;-)

(Don Klipstein) wrote in message ...
In article , John
Michael Williams wrote:
...

I thought the ultimate energy per mass was magnesium and oxygen (or was
it beryllium and oxygen?), just a few times as much energy per mass as TNT
and not good like usual rocket propellants for producing gas to use as
rocket exhaust.

It depends on the electrochemical gradient, I think.
Hydrogen burning in fluorine probably produces more combustion
energy than anything else, per unit mass.

That one is up there, but let's check heat of formation...

HF gas: 63.991 KCal/mole, 3.19955 KCal/gram

MgO: 145.76 KCal/mole, 3.644 KCal/gram, but with no gaseous output.

Right. Agreed, although in water, HF produces 78.6 kCal/mole,
putting it ahead of MgO by mass.

The gaseous output would subtract heat energy, so if the goal was
radiant heat and not momentum, MgO would be 'way ahead.

...

John

John Michael Williams