Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Most extreme compounds known to man

 Pages:  1  2

Neuro- - 26-1-2016 at 10:31

Nobody mentioned VX, the most toxic man-made substance, also maitotoxin (2nd most toxic) which looks like the most complicated non-peptide toxin. In terms of man-made and complicated I might say vitamin B12 (cobalmin).

careysub - 26-1-2016 at 10:49

Quote: Originally posted by Neuro-  
Nobody mentioned VX, the most toxic man-made substance, also maitotoxin (2nd most toxic) which looks like the most complicated non-peptide toxin. In terms of man-made and complicated I might say vitamin B12 (cobalmin).


VX is not nearly the most toxic man-made substance, not even the most toxic man-made chemical. Some radiotoxins are far more toxic substances (e.g. Po-210) poisonous at the level of tens of nanograms.

Even at the time that the V nerve agents were being developed in the 1950s there were more toxic AChE inhibitors known, particularly a series of carbamates. But they were not volatile at all, thus making them unsuitable for "nerve gas" use.

Probably the most potent AChE inhibitors ever discovered reside in Russian labs, developed during their super-secret biochemical weapon "Manhattan Project" run during the 1970s through the end of the 1980s.

DraconicAcid - 26-1-2016 at 11:51

Quote: Originally posted by zoombafu  
The smallest (neutral) atom is the hydrogen atom. Bet you guys didn't see that one coming.


No, helium is smaller. Atomic radius 31 pm instead of 53 (webelements.com).

aga - 26-1-2016 at 12:49

Quote: Originally posted by Nitrous2000  

Hardly harmless to inhale. It is both an asphyxiant and a gas that is not easily cleared from the lungs.

Please try to revive Old threads with useful, new, accurate and relevant information rather than pointless kak.

Yes, you're 'still here' obviously, and that's fine, just try to get with the program : do some Science, preferably Chemistry, then we'll all talk about That, you, what you're doing etc etc for ages.

[Edited on 26-1-2016 by aga]

Neuro- - 26-1-2016 at 13:09

Quote: Originally posted by careysub  
Quote: Originally posted by Neuro-  
Nobody mentioned VX, the most toxic man-made substance, also maitotoxin (2nd most toxic) which looks like the most complicated non-peptide toxin. In terms of man-made and complicated I might say vitamin B12 (cobalmin).


VX is not nearly the most toxic man-made substance, not even the most toxic man-made chemical. Some radiotoxins are far more toxic substances (e.g. Po-210) poisonous at the level of tens of nanograms.

Even at the time that the V nerve agents were being developed in the 1950s there were more toxic AChE inhibitors known, particularly a series of carbamates. But they were not volatile at all, thus making them unsuitable for "nerve gas" use.

Probably the most potent AChE inhibitors ever discovered reside in Russian labs, developed during their super-secret biochemical weapon "Manhattan Project" run during the 1970s through the end of the 1980s.
Thanks for the clarification, I wasn't including Novichok agents due to the ambiguity, but I didn't know about carbamates.

Maker - 26-1-2016 at 13:13

I've heard of azidoazide azide as being the most unstable, compound. Not really sure about that though, no Wiki page :( .

As far as I know, Palytoxin is the longest carbon chain, biggest molecule ever fully synthesised and most toxic non-protein molecule.

[Edited on 26-1-2016 by Maker]

aga - 26-1-2016 at 13:45

Talking to yourself again ?

Don't worry, some mug will Engage, then you'll get what you're here for : Attention.

Just do some Chemistry, then you'll get all the attention you clearly Need.

Amos - 26-1-2016 at 14:16

aga, you're losing touch with reality.

Big Boss - 26-1-2016 at 14:23

Hmm. Excellent work, Mr Holmes.
Another mystery solved by the great forum drunkard. Who would have thought that all new accounts on this forum are in fact Little Ghost?
Keep up the good work big guy!

Doctor Cat - 26-1-2016 at 14:56

3-Nitrobenzanthrone

One of the most carcinogenic compounds known today


Also, according to wikipedia... monomethylhydrazine scores 4/4/4 in NFPA

sclarenonz - 26-1-2016 at 14:57


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricinus

ricinus comunis
the most inexpensive, easy compound is obtained, it is easy to extract
and the plant exists on every continent:

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamona
breaking bad :)

Neuro- - 26-1-2016 at 15:00

Quote: Originally posted by Maker  
I've heard of azidoazide azide as being the most unstable, compound. Not really sure about that though, no Wiki page :( .

As far as I know, Palytoxin is the longest carbon chain, biggest molecule ever fully synthesised and most toxic non-protein molecule.

[Edited on 26-1-2016 by Maker]
Nope, it's second to maitotoxin at least in toxicity, longest carbon chain? try polyethylene or some other polymer, and complexity's a bit subjective.

[Edited on 26-1-2016 by Neuro-]

aga - 26-1-2016 at 15:08

Quote: Originally posted by Amos  
aga, you're losing touch with reality.

"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart."

Quote from Buddha, who spent more time thinking about it than i ever did, dunno about you.

As far as i can tell using the immediately available metrics, my average mind state has been fairly stable over the past 7 years.

Appologies for lampooning your Username in my sig for a day.

Clearly that caused you some lasting trauma, for which i should make ammends.

What would suffice ?

Amos - 26-1-2016 at 17:44

Quote: Originally posted by aga  

"We are what we think.
With our thoughts we make the world..."


I think you're taking this a bit too literally.
Quote:

"...Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you."


You seem to be running into a lot of resistance from other members lately, wouldn't you say?


[Edited on 1-27-2016 by Amos]

ScienceHideout - 26-1-2016 at 19:35

Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid  
Quote: Originally posted by zoombafu  
The smallest (neutral) atom is the hydrogen atom. Bet you guys didn't see that one coming.


No, helium is smaller. Atomic radius 31 pm instead of 53 (webelements.com).


I must say, if there is one thing that irritates me the most about general/physical chemists it is their inability to a) come up with a good definition for atomic radius and b) define it precisely enough so that there is only one repeatable experimental value for the atomic radii.

Almost EVERY infographic you see on google images of 'atomic radius' shows something completely different. Some of them have helium smaller, others hydrogen. For all intents and purposes, it is logical to list helium as the smallest because it corresponds to the trend that we all learned in high school that 'atoms get smaller as you go right!' However, in my 2013 copy of the CRC Handbook, it lists hydrogen as not only smaller, but considerably smaller. H being .32 A, and He being .37 A. Not only this, but it seems that chlorine is a small amount smaller than argon, fluorine is smaller than neon, etc. It seems as if complete energy levels tend to throw off this periodic trend.

All this really irks me.

What is smaller, then? The CRC Handbook, basically my second bible, says hydrogen is. Countless credible internet sources say that helium is the smallest. Is there a right answer? I doubt it. :mad:

blogfast25 - 26-1-2016 at 19:45

Quote: Originally posted by ScienceHideout  


What is smaller, then? The CRC Handbook, basically my second bible, says hydrogen is. Countless credible internet sources say that helium is the smallest. Is there a right answer? I doubt it. :mad:


Due to the quantum physical nature of atoms they don't have a well defined border, see e.g the radial probability distribution of a 1s (ground state) hydrogen orbital:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hydwf.html#c1

Fuzzy balls don't have precise radii:

http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/1s/e-density-dot...

[Edited on 27-1-2016 by blogfast25]

annaandherdad - 26-1-2016 at 22:05

Blog is right. The electron density dies off gradually as you move away from the nucleus, so strictly speaking there is no radius beyond which there is no more electron density.

It may be that part of the ambiguity about which atom is larger or smaller has to do with the arbitrary nature of various definitions of the atomic radius. For example, you could define the atomic radius as the radius averaged over the electron distribution; or as the radius within which 90% of the electron probability lies; or some other definition. These might give different comparisons between atoms (hydrogen vs helium etc). I don't know, it would depend on the definitions being used.

However, I think there are arguments that helium is smaller than hydrogen, in their ground states, I mean. In both hydrogen and helium, the ground state wave functions are 1s, but the nuclear charge in hydrogen is 1 and the effective charge in helium is between 1 and 2. It is not exactly 2 because the two electrons partially screen the nucleus. By one measure (a simple variational calculation) the effective charge in helium is 1 11/16. So this would make helium smaller than hydrogen by this ratio. But this is only a certain approximation to true helium (not too bad, but not super great either). This is explained in my notes on helium,
http://bohr.physics.berkeley.edu/classes/221/1112/notes/heli...
see the table in Sec. 12.

DraconicAcid - 27-1-2016 at 12:21

The problem is that hydrogen atoms can't be lined up in a nice crystal for an X-ray or neutron diffraction study. They keep forming molecules. Helium doesn't do that. So the radius of hydrogen is generally measured as a covalent radius (half the H-H bond distance) and that of helium would be the inter-atomic distance in solid He. Of course they aren't comparable.

JJay - 27-1-2016 at 14:15

We can't forget nitrogen, which is the most abundant gas on the planet. I believe that silicon dioxide is the most abundant compound. The most abundant liquid... I think that's molten iron, although water is the most abundant liquid compound.

kecskesajt - 30-1-2016 at 01:38

Diazotetrazole isn't friendly, too. 1% solution of it at 0 °C could detonate for no reason. Or if there is a reason: Someone breathed in the other room.

The_Davster - 30-1-2016 at 06:59

With diazotetrazole it does not cause spontaneous detonation of the entire solution above 1%. It has such a low solubility that as its concentration increases, it comes out of solution and the crystals spontaneously detonate when they do.

So one gets repeated, loud, detonations of the contents of the reaction vessel :D:o That may break the glass and cause it to spill everywhere.

Theoretic - 23-4-2016 at 05:57

HIGHEST HEAT CONDUCTIVITY:

Not copper of course (400 W/(meter*Kelvin) at rt)

99.9% C-12 isotopically enriched diamond: 41,000 W/(meter*Kelvin) at 104 K, and 3,320 at rt (observed),
99.999 C-12 isotopically enriched diamond: 200,000 W/(meter*Kelvin) at 80 K (predicted),
and superfluid helium: here given as 3000 times oxygen free Cu at room t. Making it 400*3000=1,200,000 W/(meter*Kelvin). Although at heat flows over ~0.1 W/cm^2 it's not in W/(meter*Kelvin) anymore, but proportional to the cubic root of the temperature gradient. The mechanism and magnitude are quite sensitive to the temperature.

Back at room t, diamond is surprisingly matched not only by graphene/in-plane pyrolytic graphite, but also by cubic BAs (all ~2000 W/(meter*Kelvin).
All boron pnictides are higly heat-conductive, and could benefit from further isotopic enrichment of constituent elements (as well as being more CVDable and thus compatible with the chip they're cooling, than graphite/diamond). Plus points for taking everyone by surprise. :D

STRONGEST MATERIAL:
Possibly not graphene (130 GPa) anymore, borophene could be stronger.

BEST CONDUCTOR:
Was (ironically semimetallic) graphene, borophene is probably better because it's fully metallic.

STRONGEST POISON (if you're a prokaryote)
Enediynes. A single molecule enters the cell and DSBs (double strand break) the DNA, the DNA circle opens and is irrepairable.

STRONGEST ODOR/FLAVOR:
Grapefruit thiol. 0.1 ppt by taste, 0.02 ppt by smell

[Edited on 23-4-2016 by Theoretic]

crystal grower - 23-4-2016 at 06:21

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
We can't forget nitrogen, which is the most abundant gas on the planet. I believe that silicon dioxide is the most abundant compound. The most abundant liquid... I think that's molten iron, although water is the most abundant liquid compound.

Actually, the most abundant mineral on the earth is probably bridgmanite, according to this:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/most-abundant-miner...

Theoretic - 27-4-2016 at 07:34

Quote: Originally posted by crystal grower  

Actually, the most abundant mineral on the earth is probably bridgmanite, according to this:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/most-abundant-miner...

The LEAST common mineral:

"Until recent years jadeite has been something of a mystery mineral, but we now know of primary sources in Guatemala as well as several California occurrences of white or grayish jadeite. Boulders in which a few small freestanding crystals have been seen occur in San Benito Co., California, with additional finds in Clear Creek, between New Idria and Hernandez. All Mexican jadeite is in artifacts, from unknown sources. The record price for a single piece of jadeite jewelry was set at the November 1997 Christie's Hong Kong sale: Lot 1843, the "Doubly Fortunate" necklace of 27 approximately .5 mm jadeite beads sold for US$9.3 million."

[Edited on 27-4-2016 by Theoretic]

crystal grower - 27-4-2016 at 09:26

Quote: Originally posted by Theoretic  
Quote: Originally posted by crystal grower  

Actually, the most abundant mineral on the earth is probably bridgmanite, according to this:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/most-abundant-miner...

The LEAST common mineral:

"Until recent years jadeite has been something of a mystery mineral, but we now know of primary sources in Guatemala as well as several California occurrences of white or grayish jadeite. Boulders in which a few small freestanding crystals have been seen occur in San Benito Co., California, with additional finds in Clear Creek, between New Idria and Hernandez. All Mexican jadeite is in artifacts, from unknown sources. The record price for a single piece of jadeite jewelry was set at the November 1997 Christie's Hong Kong sale: Lot 1843, the "Doubly Fortunate" necklace of 27 approximately .5 mm jadeite beads sold for US$9.3 million."

[Edited on 27-4-2016 by Theoretic]

To be accurate isn't astatine thought to be rarest mineral?

Theoretic - 27-4-2016 at 21:23

Quote: Originally posted by crystal grower  
Quote: Originally posted by Theoretic  
Quote: Originally posted by crystal grower  

Actually, the most abundant mineral on the earth is probably bridgmanite, according to this:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/most-abundant-miner...

The LEAST common mineral:

"Until recent years jadeite has been something of a mystery mineral, but we now know of primary sources in Guatemala as well as several California occurrences of white or grayish jadeite. Boulders in which a few small freestanding crystals have been seen occur in San Benito Co., California, with additional finds in Clear Creek, between New Idria and Hernandez. All Mexican jadeite is in artifacts, from unknown sources. The record price for a single piece of jadeite jewelry was set at the November 1997 Christie's Hong Kong sale: Lot 1843, the "Doubly Fortunate" necklace of 27 approximately .5 mm jadeite beads sold for US$9.3 million."

[Edited on 27-4-2016 by Theoretic]

To be accurate isn't astatine thought to be rarest mineral?

I was kidding, the least common mineral isn't known, because it's too rare to be discovered :P
Astatine would be indeed the least common element, unless there are traces of americium formed from neutron capture in uranium ores (though this is unlikely). Edit: no it's not, one just needs only two more neutron captures after making Pu-239. So there are probably a few atoms floating about :D

[Edited on 28-4-2016 by Theoretic]

phlogiston - 28-4-2016 at 02:18

The "blackest black", ie the least reflective material currently known is also interesting.

It is called "vantablack" (Vertically Aligned NanoTube Arrays), and objects coated with it look pretty much like a hole in space, with no visible surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack

a nitrogen rich explosive - 28-4-2016 at 02:29

Can't remember whether anyone brought this up.

Chlorine trifluoride is the most powerful fluorinating agent known to man. When heated, it decomposes to boiling HF and HCl. It sets fire to anything, including asbestos and concrete.

a nitrogen rich explosive - 28-4-2016 at 02:49

Can't remember whether anyone brought this up.

Chlorine trifluoride is the most powerful fluorinating agent known to man. When heated, it decomposes to boiling HF and HCl. It sets fire to anything, including asbestos and concrete.

woelen - 28-4-2016 at 03:00

Quote: Originally posted by a nitrogen rich explosive  
[...]Chlorine trifluoride is the most powerful fluorinating agent known to man. When heated, it decomposes to boiling HF and HCl.[...]

Remarkable! The compound is so energetic that it is capable of producing hydrogen atoms out of nothing. Or does it break up part of its atoms into protons and neutrons :D ?

[Edited on 28-4-16 by woelen]

j_sum1 - 28-4-2016 at 03:12

I think dioxygen difluoride beats ClF3.
It goes by the lovely descriptive name of FOOF. (For reasons that are obvious if you think about it.)

Derek Lowe gave a wonderful description of its preparation, properties and behaviour here.

a nitrogen rich explosive - 28-4-2016 at 11:27

Dioxygen difluoride? You're having a laugh! :D
Scary stuff. Why FOOF?

clearly_not_atara - 28-4-2016 at 12:50

"Foof" describes a puff of gas emitted from a flask wherein a tiny amount of F-O-O-F has decomposed. A larger explosion is not quite accurately depicted as a "foof", but more of a "HOLY SHIT RUN AWAAAAAY".

Also, I'm pretty sure that KAgF4/HF aka AgF2+/HF is the strongest fluorinating agent; it fluorinates krypton and oxidizes Pt to PtF6. Remember not to confuse potassium fluoroargentate (II), KAgF3, with potassium fluoroargentate (III), KAgF4; the former is reactive, but the latter is ridiculously reactive.

a nitrogen rich explosive - 28-4-2016 at 13:06

Ah. Right.
I have had the joy of working with chlorine trifluoride. Once. The fluorine fire burnt through a house brick.

Personally, the scariest compound for me is either azeotropic perchloric acid making paper explode, or the heptanitropentane I have synthesised. Some batches are extremely stable. Some are friction sensitive.

I am also working on dihydrazino furoxan perchlorate and tetrammine copper hexamethylene triperoxide diamine perchlorate. Peroxyde ion is allergic to Cu...

Theoretic - 28-4-2016 at 22:39

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston  
The "blackest black", ie the least reflective material currently known is also interesting.

It is called "vantablack" (Vertically Aligned NanoTube Arrays), and objects coated with it look pretty much like a hole in space, with no visible surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack

Free-standing graphene, however (probably) beats that. A single layer of it absorbs two and a half percent of incident light.
(2.6% of green, 2.3% of red, to be precise)



(its bro, borophene, is more conductive, but highly transparent, and might displace indium-tin oxide for some uses)

fusso - 16-4-2019 at 00:32

Sorry for bumping this but I found an interesting discussion about the highest molarity possible:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_highest_concen...

clearly_not_atara - 16-4-2019 at 12:53

Silver (still) has the highest bulk conductivity at room temperature of any material.

Graphene may have slightly higher conductivity in certain directions, but this has only been observed at nanoscale. Alloys are invariably worse conductors than parent metals. Ceramics and polymers have yet to approach metallic conductivity.

Pyrolytic graphite, IIRC, has the lowest susceptibility, i.e., the highest coefficient of diamagnetic levitation. Again, advanced materials are worthless here.

Polybutadiene has the highest elastic efficiency of any synthetic material; this is defined as the ratio of the work done by the stretched material in relaxing to the work required to stretch it. Elastin and resilin, natural polymeric proteins, are more efficient. Resilin has an elastic efficiency of ~97% compared to ~80% for polybutadiene.

draculic acid69 - 17-4-2019 at 23:07

Can't believe no ones mentioned it yet: strongest stimulant- methamphetamine which keeps people awake and going for 3-4 days, or strongest opiate: 3fluroanilo methoxyacetylfentanyl 18000-26000 times stronger than morphine and lsd as the strongest psychedelic at 10000 doses per gram. Or per my post about peptides and there retail price which when sold by the 10mg vial retails at $8000 per gram putting it up there as one of the most expensive organic compounds.what a cool thread.
 Pages:  1  2