Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Making fire (youtube collaborative video)

 Pages:  1  2    4    6

#maverick# - 27-8-2011 at 08:33

sign up for a free webhost like 000webhost and use the ftp given on that u want me to do the ftp?

hkparker - 27-8-2011 at 08:34

No, I can do it, thanks. I'll probably be buying into a hosting slot anyway so for now just use youtube.

#maverick# - 27-8-2011 at 08:36

yea thing is i can login on ftp but cant store stuff so i think you need to alter the permissions

hkparker - 27-8-2011 at 08:37

your logeen in as admin, shouldn't be a permissions thing. I was working fine until I did something yesterday on accident... I'll fix it...

#maverick# - 27-8-2011 at 08:41

Aight cool.

mewrox99 - 28-8-2011 at 03:41

I'll also like to rejoin the project.
I'll upload some stuff via megaupload soon

hkparker - 28-8-2011 at 15:15

Quote: Originally posted by mewrox99  
I'll also like to rejoin the project.
I'll upload some stuff via megaupload soon

Thank you!

hkparker - 6-9-2011 at 07:57

Thanks for the submission Mewrox99, just go it.

MrHomeScientist - 6-9-2011 at 17:31

I just uploaded one of my previous submissions to megaupload, I'll PM you the link.

edit: Make that two videos.

[Edited on 9-7-2011 by MrHomeScientist]

hkparker - 6-9-2011 at 17:52

Got it, thanks!

Chemistry Alchemist - 8-9-2011 at 05:39

Make a chlorine Generator and fill a beaker full of the gas, put a watch glass ontop to keep it all it, now place a rag in Turpentine and then place it into the chlorine gas, it should start to produce black smoke (carbon) and burst into fire.

correct me if im wrong :)

hkparker - 12-9-2011 at 13:04

I have quite a few usable videos, but only 3 (4 including me) people have resubmitted, which I don't think is enough to post yet.

I'm going to U2U every member of this thread who expressed interest in contributing in case they weren't aware its active again. I hope I'll get a response from a few people and should be enough to keep it going.

Other then that, is it ok with everyone to use my channel to host the video?

FTP is up again as well
username: admin
password: sciencemadness

hkparker - 13-9-2011 at 22:14

I have edited everything I have received so far into one video just to see how it would look. Its not bad but I feel it could use more submissions.

I want feedback on a few things from those involved however:

How many submissions does everyone feel are necessary? If desired I will render the video and post it on here as a preview so you can get a feel of a "rough draft", then decide if more people are required.

When should the submission deadline be? I was thinking I would consider it closed in at most two weeks, seeing as this project was started at the end of January.

There will be some scenes where I need to transition. Can I shoot myself talking or is my face not wanted in this? Should I instead talk over a Sciencemadness logo or something?

Is my YouTube channel the best place to post the final product?

Sorry to shoot so many questions, but I want to make sure I'm getting everyone's input. I'm really only asking mewrox99, MrHomeScientist, and #maverick# as you three are the only contributes at this point. But if anyone else contributes please let me know your opinions on these.


watson.fawkes - 14-9-2011 at 10:18

Quote: Originally posted by hkparker  
How many submissions does everyone feel are necessary?
Just call it "Fire, Part 1". The number of submissions you have for it matters much less, if you leave room for a sequel.

#maverick# - 14-9-2011 at 12:32

And yea could have the SM logo and like present the next vid. I would say atleast 4 videos. Then u can upload and leave room for a sequel

hkparker - 14-9-2011 at 20:31


I'm finishing the rough draft and will have it on youtube tonight. It includes everyone who has submitted or given me permission so far. Please let me know if there any any major changes that are very important to you.


the rough draft is here:

[Edited on 15-9-2011 by hkparker]

woelen - 14-9-2011 at 23:12

This compilation already looks very nice. There are a few typos in the texts and in the last experiment an error is made. The nitromethane is not added to sodium peroxide, but to sodium oxide. When I have more time, then I'll point to the typos. A few transitions still are not clear (e.g. the reaction of glycerol and KMnO4 is without intro), I'll rewatch the video and try to find more of this kind of glitches.

But this already is an awesome start and it looks really good.

hkparker - 14-9-2011 at 23:21

Thank you very much. I'm still trying to find all the typos so help is very appreciated.

Did not put introductions on several videos because I felt they were explained in the video and wanted to minimize talking time. If you feel this decreases fluidity and quality of the video I will change it however.

watson.fawkes - 15-9-2011 at 05:55

Quote: Originally posted by hkparker  
Did not put introductions on several videos because I felt they were explained in the video and wanted to minimize talking time. If you feel this decreases fluidity and quality of the video I will change it however.
Your narration is just fine; there's no need to eliminate parts of it. The most important aspect of the narration is that it provides the viewer the context for what they're watching. With inadequate context, it's just a bunch of flames. Orienting the viewer is paramount to make this material meaningful.

Each experimental run needs a bit of narration, if only to orient the viewer that they're seeing the same reaction as before. Likewise, every time the chemical reaction changes, there should be an explicit transition and some narration.

You're reading the titles as they're visible on the screen. This is considered an elementary mistake in film making circles; you never both show and tell. It doesn't work well even here. Rather than putting the script on the screen, you can put the chemical formulas for the reaction, the names of the reactants, etc. It's OK if there's some overlap, but don't make them identical.

I'd like to see the contributors credited at the introduction to each section. It would make the collaborative nature of the project more visible. It will also encourage future contributions. Listing a contact email for contributions allows people to act on the suggestion.

Finally, I have a nit. The sciencemadness logo is way too large in the intertitles.

MrHomeScientist - 15-9-2011 at 05:56

I really like what you've done with this! Really excellent work with tieing everything together. I like how we have a couple of videos to showcase each reaction, and I also like how you grouped them together (i.e. manganese heptoxide rxns).

I also noticed the typos woelen mentioned. There's one at 9:20, 10:32, and 13:03.

Also, it might worthwhile to put a watermark with the channel name of the person that filmed each clip somewhere on it. That way people know exactly who did what, and you wouldn't have to write as much in the description. Just a thought.

I think the number of videos and total length is perfect for Part 1. I look forward to more collaborations!

Fantastic work on this, hk!

hkparker - 15-9-2011 at 07:49

Thanks you guys! I'm glad this project is going somewhere!

The reason contributors weren't mentioned is because I was going to put all that in the description, this will be changed. I understand the don't read it while it's written on the screen concept but in my honest opinion it works fine here. If those in the video feel it is bad I will change it.

I am also planning on doing a large write up for this that will go in the description, I don't think I made this clear. It will include chemical reactions, a few sentence summaries of things not mentioned in the video, links to sites including more information (especially to woelen's pages on the videos he contributed).

Things that will change for the next revision:
<li>Typos will be fixed as I find them. Please point any out that haven't been mentioned already.
<li>An introduction will be made for every new reaction. This introduction will include the usernames of the contributors involved.
<li>I will fix the last reaction to Na2O, not Na2O2.
I know the sm logo is pretty big but it was easiest to format this way and I don't think it takes anything away from the video, as the text still fits fine.

MrHomeScientist - 15-9-2011 at 10:24

Quote: Originally posted by hkparker  

The reason contributors weren't mentioned is because I was going to put all that in the description, this will be changed. I understand the don't read it while it's written on the screen concept but in my honest opinion it works fine here. If those in the video feel it is bad I will change it.

I'm no film buff, but that and the size of the SM logo looked fine to me. I actually like how prominent it is. All your proposed revisions sound good to me!

hkparker - 15-9-2011 at 21:55

A (more) final draft:
What was changed:
<li>3 typos pointed out by MrHomeScientist were fixed.</li>
<li>peroxide/oxide mistake was corrected</li>
<li>Introduction was added between every new reaction</li>
<li>contributor usernames were added in each introduction</li>
<li>new video was added (turpentine and chlorine). Thanks MrHomeScientist!</li>

So I think this could be considered for the final product (assuming it spell checks ok). Unless there are any objections? If no then I will start writing the description.

MrHomeScientist - 16-9-2011 at 07:41

Looks great! It's cool that we got so many different contributors to this, and good to see woelen's involved with quite a few of them. Really interesting and exotic stuff.

Also, thanks to Chemistry Alchemist above for mentioning the turpentine/chlorine reaction. I hadn't heard of that before, and turns out it works pretty good!

hkparker - 16-9-2011 at 15:43

Ok description write up is done.

It was too long to put everything under the video so here's what I did. Contributors and credits are under the video, with a link to a summary of the experiments. I made the summary of the experiments a text file and stuck it on the public ftp, following the link just shows the plain text in the browser.

So, please go through everything and if there are no spelling errors, this is the final product then?

bob800 - 16-9-2011 at 16:33

Very nice! ;)

I didn't notice any spelling/grammars errors in the video. This is an excellent compilation of unusual demonstrations!

I did catch a few simple errors in the video description (not that they really matter, but I thought you may want to know):

mewrox99 is high school student

should be "a" high school student.

has had a home lab for a few year

should be "for a few years"

Thanks for the awesome video!

hkparker - 16-9-2011 at 16:34

Thanks for catching that! I really appreciate it, and I'm glad you like the video!

MrHomeScientist - 16-9-2011 at 17:01

Couple things I noticed:

- A few of the channel links in the description (mine and yours) aren't clickable links for some reason.
- The format of the txt file is hard to read. I'd recommend putting new lines in so that each line of text doesn't run so far off the page. That, or copy it into a word document and convert that to a .pdf for easy viewing.
- The chlorine + turpentine reaction isn't in there. The equation for that reaction is C<sub>10</sub>H<sub>16</sub> (l) + 8Cl<sub>2</sub> (g) == 16HCl (g) + 10C(s)
- It would be nice to include an equation for sugar + potassium chlorate, if there is a single equation that is. I usually like to see equations whenever possible.
- The first sentence in the white P section sounds awkward, something like "When white phosphorus..." would read better.

Some of this is pretty nitpicky, I know. Feel free to change or not change whatever you like. Thanks for putting so much time and effort into this. Great work overall!

hkparker - 16-9-2011 at 17:08

Links will be looked at.

I will clean up the experiments descriptions both syntactically and aesthetically, making it an html file.

Chlorine + turpentine will be added.

mr.crow - 16-9-2011 at 17:10

Wow!! Some excellent videos there, over 13 minutes

hkparker - 16-9-2011 at 18:08

Everything was corrected in the descriptions.

Any other error anyone has noticed?

Also, thanks mr.crow :D!

[Edited on 17-9-2011 by hkparker]

cool ways to make fire

annaandherdad - 17-9-2011 at 05:51

My father's chem book from the 1930's described an experiment that I did several times when I was in high school in the 1960's. It requires white phosphorus, which was available in my high school chem lab. I know it's harder to get now.

You make phosphine by heating white phosphorus under an aqueous solution of NaOH. Do this in a flask out of which all air has been replaced by natural gas. The reaction flask has an input tube for natural gas to come in, and an output tube that just goes to a tray of water where the gas bubbles out. After the air is flushed out, heat the NaOH+phosporus+H20 and phospine gas comes out. When it reaches sufficient concentration, as it bubbles up it ignites spontaneously on contact with the air in little puffs of smoke and flame. If the air in the room is still it makes perfect smoke rings that float for considerable distance before breaking up.

hkparker - 17-9-2011 at 10:51

If no errors are found I propose I set the video to public tomorrow at noon. That gives 24 hours for all of us to go through it one last time and make sure its ok with us all.

MrHomeScientist - 17-9-2011 at 15:28

Works for me. I just spent the day hauling flagstones around so no updated turpentine video today! Go ahead and stick with the one you've got, and I think it'll look great.

hkparker - 17-9-2011 at 16:43

Thanks! I'm so exciting this is close to publishing...

White Yeti - 17-9-2011 at 17:54

It's great just the way it is. Adding any more reactions onto this video might overwhelm utoobers. 13min is already pretty long but as long as it has good content, people will watch it, and it definitely has good content.

Just out of curiosity, in a collab, who gets the ad-money, if any?
Are you going to put ads and share the profits? Or are you not going to put ads, so no one is jealous?

hkparker - 17-9-2011 at 17:58

I was planning on putting ads, just because be default it puts ads on it. If any on the contributors do not want ads on it then I will take them off immediately.

If contributors would rather keep ads on and have me divide up the profits I'm fine with that too, but I dont make a while lot off of these... might end up with $2 by the end of a month.

I do want to know though, what do those who contributed want me to do?

White Yeti - 17-9-2011 at 18:21

I personally think no one will hold a grudge against you for not sharing two dollars :)

hkparker - 17-9-2011 at 18:31

thanks, I agree. It up to the video contributors though, so I'll keep them on until I'm told not to.

#maverick# - 17-9-2011 at 20:10

ad money is a joke unless your videos get 1,500 views or more per day, i say if u make anything over 15 bucks just donate science madness, hosting and maintaining a big site like this gets expensive

hkparker - 17-9-2011 at 21:28

Quote: Originally posted by #maverick#  
donate science madness

I like this idea very very much. Ill proceeds from the video will be donated to sciencemadness monthly, when I get them. Unless there are objections from contributors.


Formatik U2U'ed me and said I can use his videos as well. Seeing as this video is already 13 minutes long and ready to be released tomorrow, I say we should do a part 2 like earlier suggested. This will include anyone who wants in, so long as all the reactions are new.

[Edited on 18-9-2011 by hkparker]

Formatik - 17-9-2011 at 22:33

Pretty good work guys. Trying it in much smaller amounts, I wasn't able to get a reaction between turpentine and chlorine. All of the old interesting chemistry books talked about it, but I had never seen the turpentine reaction demonstrated.

Endimion17 - 18-9-2011 at 07:50

I'll watch the whole video soon, but something at the very begining striked me as quite irresponsible.
Flammable organics are never dripped into manganese heptoxide. That can lead to an explosion. A proper way when doing a demonstration is wetting a piece of cotton with the organic liquid and touching the heptoxide (which is BTW fuming with ozone). The wet cotton ignites. And that's enough.
Organic solids are never dropped into the heptoxide. This is not how it's done. Instead, the heptoxide is dropped on the solid. A flame appears, and the solid is corroded. While doing that, the demonstrator explains to the viewers why is the opposite so dangerous.
Guys, these are established rules of demonstration experiments. Just like "sulfuric acid in water" rule.

Trust me, dropping flammables into this furiously oxidizing medium can lead to a disaster. It can produce a bang and spray this mixture of heptoxide and acid.
Of course, you could drop a bucket of gasoline in a tank of heptoxide if you have a wasteland and a special suit, but this is not the case.
Please don't do these fringe demonstrations, or at least explain to the viewers why they're not recommended.

Imagine what happens on Youtube. The title contains "fire", "matches", and tags "flame" "chemicals" "burn".
Are you aware of the kind of people that is mostly attracted to it, and surf the Web searching these very terms? It's those stupid pyro-kids that later show up at ER with skin burns. Sooner or later, they dunk a cup of gasoline in a fire and then wonder what happened.
They don't know anything about safety or what happens in these reactions. They don't respect the laboratory rules, the dosages. "The more, the merrier", that's their rule. They don't use face shields, gloves and aprons. They do this while wearing "I'm with stupid" T-shirts, flinging their bieber-hair while hovering over the experiment. If something bangs, they laugh like morons and move the camera like they're experiencing a seizure. After they post the video, more of their clones comment the work in a: "OMG dat so kewl ima try dat fire rulz yeah LOL" manner.

Manganese heptoxide eats skin like burning phosphorus or hot piranha. It makes terrible wounds that heal for months and leave lifetime scars.

You should remember that although you all probably know the reactions and dangers, you're presenting this to the public, and majority of the public is incredibly stupid.
Never underestimate people's stupidity.

I really noticed that people on this forum are very polarized. Some are nervous Nellies that nag about someone uses a bad cork to plug a tube filled with sand, and some are the extreme opposite.
I mean, if you don't know the rules, download a college lab manual, or buy a book. Rules are there not just to protect you, but also to establish a sense of standard. They're useful, too.

White Yeti - 18-9-2011 at 08:26

Good point Endimion. But you should keep in mind that filmed demonstrations are supposed to be dramatic, otherwise utoobers will not watch the video. I liked how the manganese heptoxide reaction came in first to grab the viewer's attention instead of turning it away. The stupid "pyro kids" who look for these videos know that these reactions are dangerous, they know they are taking a risk and they know that they are not going to get any sympathy from their parents if they screw up. It's better just to put a "I'm not liable for prosecution" in the vid description to avoid any legal trouble.

Endimion17 - 18-9-2011 at 09:01

Is the video supposed to be scientific or just "bomb the shit out of a"?
There's creds, too. A status, an image. Why tainting it with such things?

OK, let it be dramatic (I'm always for a show), but with a sense of control and instructions, warnings. It adds a flavor, a value.

Regarding the pyro kids, they are rarely stopped by their parents, and a minority of casualties reaches the media. The fact we don't hear about them often doesn't mean they're rare. Ask anyone working in the ER, and they'll share some lovely stories.

Putting just legal notice is cold, unsymphathetic. I'd rather care about the actual well-being of others. It's similar to putting a bomb with a code unlocker in the middle of a park, and sticking a sign "the code is 63425, but if you type it, the bomb will explode. The author is not responsible, it's your own fault if you die".

hkparker - 18-9-2011 at 10:25

People being unsafe with dangerous and flammable chemicals is a tragedy but not our responsibility. Lets say the video isn't posted. A quick google search will still teach you how to do any of these reactions, and if most often presented in a less scientific way. So not posted these things is not preventing stupid people from doing stupid things, there's really nothing we can do to stop that.

Endimion17 - 18-9-2011 at 10:47

I don't understand how can someone think like that. If you can't alleviate something, why aggravate it?

In every god damn book about inorganics I've ever read it clearly states that manganese heptoxide is a very unstable compound capable of detonating upon introduction of flammable organics. A friend of mine dropped some acetone into it when he was a kid and learly lost his sight.

If you're making a chemical experiment demonstration, then you should go by the rules.

But ok, you don't have to. For example, video of throwing a chunk of sodium into the sea is not a chemical experiment demonstration. OK, it's fine with me. If you're simply making "how to make fire", then do it in an improper fashion. Be dramatic, make a fireball, destroy a trailer, I don't care. But warn others about it and don't try to sell your product labeled with science, because it's not.
Upon opening the link, you see word like "collaboration", "experiment", "chemistry". Even NurdRage and woelen are mentioned, and they have creds. Few seconds later, happy time. WTF?

What will be next, nitrogen trichloride fireworks?

hkparker - 18-9-2011 at 10:59

No, not at all. I think you have good points but I still don't see this as a contribution tward the problem of kewls making explosives, its not aggravating the problem at all. If you do a search on YouTube you will find plenty of channels of people with "recipes" for explosives. If some kewl just wants to make a big boom, thats where they are going to go, not to our project. Tags however will be edited.

I know woelen has seen this video already and has not expressed concern, I think were fine to proceed. If a moderator feels it is too dangerous I will take it down instantly but until then I dont see the problem with posting it.

Endimion17 - 18-9-2011 at 11:08

Just to add something, I might someday make a video on NCl<sub>3</sub>, but I sure won't suggest anything that might lead to an injury. I don't have any issues with compounds, just the way they're treated.

White Yeti - 18-9-2011 at 11:17

He's right Endimion. What are you gonna do about it? This video shows classic reactions that take two seconds to find on the interwebs. This video is safer than other videos that show the exact same reactions performed by inexperienced pyro kids.
Too often you have stupid kids who show other stupid kids how to do dangerous things (CO2 bombs for example). I don't oppose this video, simply because it was filmed by experienced people, not average kids.

Putting warnings before every reaction clutters up the video and bores experienced chemists to death. The video is perfect just the way it is. One thing that should be changed, is the video description. Put "***I AM NOT LIABLE FOR PROSECUTION, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE YOU MIGHT CAUSE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY, OTHERS OR YOURSELF IN ATTEMPT TO DUPLICATE THE DEMONSTRATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS VIDEO***" or something along those lines. That way everyone is happy, the video stays short, experienced chemists enjoy the video, you can't get sued, and children might think twice before duplicating the demonstrations.

Endimion17 - 18-9-2011 at 11:31

So let me get this straight. You would be ok with someone making a video in which 50 ml of nitrogen trichloride are accumulated in a flask full of water and no explanations, warnings or cleanup procedures are provided (not even in the description, where it should go; neither do I think videos should be stretched)... if the person puts a disclaimer which frees him from any responsibility, legal or whatsoever.

Is it just me, or that sounds like what a typical rich, yuppie lawyer from Manhattan we all know and hate would do? Well I think it violates the basic ethics. And it probably violates the law in most countries. It would violate the law in my country, that's for sure.

[Edited on 18-9-2011 by Endimion17]

hkparker - 18-9-2011 at 11:38

No, I dont think putting a "you cant sue me sign" on videos doesn't make you not responsible, thats Yeti's opinion. Putting a "for entertainment purposes only" is a good idea, though I have had viewers insulted, as they thought I was trying to say I didn't think anyone else was capable of repeating my demonstrations safely (opposite of the truth!). I generally say please exercise appropriate caution if you repeat anything seen here.

I see what you are saying Endimion17, about how we are coming off as being more educated then the rest and should present things as such. And though I know we dont follow the literature _perfectly_, I do not think we are hurting anyone.

White Yeti - 18-9-2011 at 14:43

I'm saying it's better to put a sign that is very straight forward "for entertainment purposes only" (in my mind) is not straight forward enough. You can't misinterpret a sign that says, "I am not responsible for the damage anyone might cause to himself/herself while attempting to duplicate reactions contained in the video".

I think it's also pretty easy to spot "pyro kids". They usually ask the author where they got chemicals and what are the proportions (because they don't know what stoichiometry is).

So how about this, you modify the comments section so that people need your approval to post comments. That way, if someone asks a question that looks suspicious, you delete the comment so that no one can give any info on how to duplicate the reactions. It seems harsh, but it's the most you can do, aside from throwing months of work into the trash. You can't eliminate stupidity, or prevent stupid things from happening, but you can do your best in mitigating the damage.

[Edited on 9-18-2011 by White Yeti]

TheNaKLaB - 18-9-2011 at 15:08

Can be apart of this guys?

hkparker - 18-9-2011 at 15:11

What? If you would like to participate in part 2 that is great. Watch part 1, if you have a reaction that was not covered in part 1 film it and send me a download link, or upload it to my ftp space at Username: admin password: sciencemadness. Thanks for the interest!

TheNaKLaB - 18-9-2011 at 15:16

I watched part one, it was brilliant!
Would I be able to use my Pyrophoric Iron video? Since the sparks could cause a fire?

hkparker - 18-9-2011 at 15:20

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it!

Pyrophoric iron sounds like a good contribution, your video had quite a bit of sparks in it. I think it could be interesting to see the sparks light another flamable substance on fire as well. If its convenient, make more iron oxalate and this time dump the decomposition product on perhaps 1 ml of ethanol on a watch glass. You shouldn't need much iron, try less then a gram at first.

Also, welcome to sciencemadness :)

TheNaKLaB - 18-9-2011 at 15:25

Ok so I'll make some more and dump in on some ethanol :) I should have it filmed and ready by late today, should that be fine? Would I be able to email you the video?

Thank you :)

hkparker - 18-9-2011 at 15:27

Be careful with it! Take as much time as you need, part one was released today so part two wont be out for I would imagine 1-2 months.

It will (it should) be too large for email. megaupload has been the conventional way to do things, or my ftp. If you need help using ftp I can U2U you instructions, or just stick it on megaupload.

TheNaKLaB - 18-9-2011 at 15:34

I'll make sure the precautions are present :) Oh okay, I wont talk that long to make it anyway.
Yeah would you be able to U2U me the instructions? That would be great! If it doesn't work, I'll try megaupload :)

Endimion17 - 18-9-2011 at 16:02

If pyrophoric materials are needed, you might consider lead. Pyrophoric form can be obtained by vacuum pyrolysis of its citrate, or dry distillation of tartrate at normal pressure, which is a more convenient method.
However, I'm not sure is it possible to set anything on fire other than the lead itself...

Boranes come to mind... carbonyl metal compounds...
Cobalt sulphide previously heated to 300°C and cooled could ignite itself...

[Edited on 19-9-2011 by Endimion17]

hkparker - 18-9-2011 at 16:07

Good ideas, thanks! Other pyrophiric metals are good.

I remember seeing this video of boranes:
A bit too quick imho but might still be worth including if someon can repeat it.

This also looks very interesting:

Phosphine is burned when the pyrophoric impurity diphosphane is made.

While all the phosphine should be consumed in flame, its still pretty stupid to make without a very controlled environment.

TheNaKLaB - 18-9-2011 at 16:17

What about this one?
Someone could repeat this experiment but Platiniumis needed as a catalyst :\

hkparker - 18-9-2011 at 16:19

This was preformed earlier in this thread by member Morgan, I want to say page 9... somewhere between 8 and 12. He sprayed methanol on Pt powder and it burst into flames. I did not hear a response when asking for permission to use it in the first video.

Endimion17 - 18-9-2011 at 16:28

I made phosphine from WP in an alkalic environment. Of course impure and pyrophoric. But it is possible to make it in a controlled fashion and fill vessels with it if every part of the reaction apparatus is purged from air. Ether is an excellent choice if one doesn't have access to inert gasses or Schlenk lines.
A controlled production of phosphine and non-pyrophoric phosphine (Thénard) is actually something I was planning to put on Youtube soon.
Other videos on YT show messy reactions akin to the ones with silane. But it would be cool to fill a syringe and push it out. Impure phosphine would make a very bright ball of fire and copious amounts of pentoxide smoke.

And it would be cool to separate diphosphine by Thénard's method and see how it ignites.

TheNaKLaB - 18-9-2011 at 16:29

Ohk fair enough, It would be an extremely expensive experiment as well!

hkparker - 18-9-2011 at 16:30

woelen used a syringe to inject this pyrophoric mix into chlorine in the last video, and it worked really well. I think doing a more dirty reaction like the one I linked would be cool but on a not fire related topic I would like to see your synthesis Endimion17. Do you want to film these?

Endimion17 - 18-9-2011 at 16:56

I'd like to, but I'm unable to do so at the moment as I don't have access to my stuff.
Anyway, impure phosphine is a lousy way of getting actual fire. I somehow doubt it could ignite a sheet ot paper. It's just fun to look at.

Bot0nist - 18-9-2011 at 18:38

:D Bravo hk and SciMad contributors. A great video. Can't wait for part 2.

hkparker - 18-9-2011 at 20:30

Thanks Bot0nist!!

I'm really glad so much interest has been generated in part 2 already! TheNaKLab has submitted a vid of iron oxalate, and will be shooting different ones. Formatik has submitted 4 really great reactions.

@Endimion17 Ok, well this will likely be open for a while so if its ever convenient that would be good.

Even if its not the most practical that's still ok, there were some in part 1 that definitely wouldn't light a sheet of paper.

woelen - 20-9-2011 at 08:25

Endimium, I do not think there is a real safety issue with the video. There is a great difference between this video and the average k3wl fucking b00m video. I have no objections against the manganese heptoxide, as presented here. It is a small and impure sample. There is another thing as well, most kewls never heard of manganese heptoxide and never will make it. Most chemicalsin the video are too exotic for the kewl. They watch the video, think that it is funny and cool and go on with their things. Kewl want nitrates and chlorates, no exotic like manganese heptoxide.

hkparker - 21-9-2011 at 16:21

Exciting news everyone: our video made the MAKE Magazine blog!! This means a ton more exposure and more ad money (to be donated to sciencemadness).

Post is here:

#maverick# - 21-9-2011 at 17:09

haha thats awesome this just motivated me to think of more ideas

TheNaKLaB - 21-9-2011 at 17:21

Well done guys! I'm so glad that I can be part of the second video!

plante1999 - 21-9-2011 at 17:25

I can also be a part of the second video.

#maverick# - 21-9-2011 at 17:30

what would really be cool is 50%+ h2o2 igniting hay bales, i wish i could do it but im honestly scared shitless of h2o2 of the concentration

MrHomeScientist - 21-9-2011 at 17:30

I saw the link from the video page to the Make article - congratulations! That's really great. I'm happy that the article writer mentioned one of my submissions as a favorite :) Very exciting! Our fame is spreading!

By the way, once a Part 2 gets rolling, I recommend we start a new thread for it since this one's up to 15 pages now.

edit: make that 16!

[Edited on 9-22-2011 by MrHomeScientist]

hkparker - 21-9-2011 at 18:10

H2O2 that concentration really is frightening.

While I agree another thread is better for ease sake, I would want the input of a moderator. I know excessive threads are looked down upon and I see thread merged all the time, but those are usually small, so I'm not sure.

To review, here's what we have lined up for part two so far:

KMnO4 and brake fluid
KMnO4 and DMSO
Turpentine dumped into RFNA and KMnO4
(these 4 thanks to Formatik!)

Pyrophoric iron (possibly)
Phyrophoric Iron dropped onto ethanol (or other flammable liquids. In progress)
(Thanks to TheNaKLaB for those).

#maverick# - 21-9-2011 at 18:27

Yea pretty freighting but if someone has the Huevos to do it it would be rlly cOol

barley81 - 22-9-2011 at 09:47

This weekend I'll try and make aluminum boride from aluminum powder and boric oxide, in turn to make self-igniting borane. Any suggestions for how I should do this? Right now I'm thinking:
1. Mixture of 3-4 mol.eq Al and 1 mol.eq boric oxide to be heated in a small can covered by a lid.
2. Mixture pulverized.
3. A gas-generator purged (continuously) with butane and with a bit of HCl in the flask, connected to a jet.
4. Mixture dropped in and generator quickly stoppered.

woelen - 22-9-2011 at 09:57

Another interesting one I hope to do soon is adding Na2O2 to paper tissue and slightly wetting this. I already did this a few times as demo for kids but never made a video of it. It may take some time before I am capable of making this video, but given the length of time for this project, that should not be a real issue. Some one else who has Na2O2 also could try this spectacular demo.

[Edited on 22-9-11 by woelen]

hkparker - 22-9-2011 at 16:10

Good ideas woelen and barley81.

woelen, whats your thoughts on opening up a new thread for part 2?

Chemistry Alchemist - 22-9-2011 at 17:47

Hey im just saying, ive got a video of KMnO4 and Break fluid on my channel if you want to use it? i could also make better version of it with sound

hkparker - 22-9-2011 at 17:50

Go ahead and make it, multiple shots of the same reaction are good.

Chemistry Alchemist - 22-9-2011 at 17:56

In what way multiple shots? do the reaction few times?

hkparker - 22-9-2011 at 17:58

No, that reaction is already submitted, but multiple people's videos are good.

Chemistry Alchemist - 22-9-2011 at 18:05

ill measure the temperature of the KMnO4 + Break fluid and see how hot it gets

Formatik - 22-9-2011 at 21:27

Hkparker, you might want to add also the other video of the KMnO4 and brake fluid reaction, namely this one. It shows the unpredictability of this mixture. It usually carries a delay, but here just after mixing there was a pretty quick reaction.

There is another older video here that can be used as well. It is a mixture of KBrO3 and sugar, ignited by a drop of conc. H2SO4. Compared to KClO3 in the same instance. KBrO3 and sugar are shock-sensitive detonable mixtures, just like chlorate and sugar, and must never be ground together. KBrO3 burns with a blue light in that instance and then burns a bit quicker than chlorate. Picture of the comparison can be seen here.

Manganese heptoxide is a highly reactive, explosive oil. I would let anyone who is generating it, be aware of that. I would put the information at least in the link to the video. I would stress on the fact of preparing it in small amounts, never large amounts. Also letting all know, it's best to avoid shock, since it's shock sensitive. Certain weak plastics like PETE and styrofoam might react with it. Mn2O7 has seen its way in some chemical demonstrations before as we know, e.g. the infamous "Fire under water" experiment. But there was hazards mentioned of some related reactions of Mn2O7 (see the attached).

I will say I had a friend who nearly got injured from Mn2O7. I told him all about the compound in high school, I wrote about a page and a half of warnings. He was a very intelligent person, so I figure I can tell him about it. He did make some. The only thing I forgot to tell him: don't make it in aluminium foil. He did, and it exploded. But because he listened to some of my instructions he only made a small amount and wore goggles. Nothing really happened. When I saw the brown marks on his arms next day in school, I asked him about it.

The scientific value of that page (the link in the video page) can be increased by adding in literature, more info about the reactions.

The biggest danger with hypergolics I think is the potential of burning down of one's facilities or living area. This is simple enough to happen, with one of these mixtures. It is possible, but not necessarily probable, depending on how reckless the person is. The warning at the beginning of the video is fine, but I think for that reason something a bit more specific like a disclaimer like the one below would also be good in the top of the linked page:

Warning! To reduce unnecessary fire hazard, the following reactions are best carried out away from any combustibles including nearby flammable liquids, cardboard, clothing, dry shrubbery, etc. At best on cemented, tiled or similar open areas, with supports. Having a fire extinguisher ready can be useful. Goggles and gloves are good preventative saftey measures. More energetic reactions may need a face shield, thick clothes and gloves. Do not grind oxidizers together with the combustibles. Avoid the inhalation of any of the fumes, some of which are more or less toxic.

Attachment: Mn2O7accidents.pdf (1.2MB)
This file has been downloaded 521 times

[Edited on 23-9-2011 by Formatik]

hkparker - 22-9-2011 at 21:38

Thank you for all the links! I will most likely be adding that, or at least most of it, to the description.

Chemistry Alchemist - 22-9-2011 at 23:14

I filmed it a few times with the break fluid, smashing up the crystals of KMnO4 causes it to react much faster then the normal size pieces, nd when i done it, it delayed a bit :S havent seen that happen b4 but it heated up a bit, then stopped for about 10 seconds or so, nd then burst into flames, do you want me to put them all into one video and then you just cut end edit your self of do u want me to send u the videos and u do what ever?

hkparker - 22-9-2011 at 23:17

Send me the raw footage, thank you

Chemistry Alchemist - 22-9-2011 at 23:35

How would u like me to send it?

hkparker - 22-9-2011 at 23:36

Megaupload link or my ftp. Please read the previous parts of this thread for details.

#maverick# - 25-9-2011 at 17:53

another cool one is putting aluminum into bromine to make aluminum tribromide its rlly exothermic and bursts into flames, sadly i have no bromine to do it

Chemistry Alchemist - 25-9-2011 at 20:36

You should buy a small amound of sodium bromide, react it with sulfuric acid, collect bromine vapors and chuck in some Al straight away, isnt the best set up, probly really toxic but it probly works still

#maverick# - 26-9-2011 at 05:29

I want to do it right when I do do it. It's just I've been busy with school and such. Haven't been into my lab in a whilq

Chemistry Alchemist - 26-9-2011 at 06:06

yeah, id love to try it out, but 1. i dont have Sodium Bromide (bit expensive aswell) 2. my sulfuric acid isnt a high enough concerntration and 3. dont have the right equipment to do so

#maverick# - 26-9-2011 at 06:27

I have equip and all. All I lack is time an nabr

Chemistry Alchemist - 26-9-2011 at 06:43

Does Chlorine also react to make a fire with hot aluminium foil?

Megamarko94 - 26-9-2011 at 08:49

Quote: Originally posted by Chemistry Alchemist  
Does Chlorine also react to make a fire with hot aluminium foil?

yes it does..periodicvideos did that..

 Pages:  1  2    4    6