Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Handling Nitrogen Triiodide NI3

Handling Nitrogen Triiodide NI3

Edward Elric - 15-5-2005 at 06:24

I understand that some of you may be reluctant in answer this question for me, but how do i handle NI3 after I make it?

I was reading about some low explosives I could make once I obtained Iodine. NI3 seemed to be an interesting one I could make.

I read that if have OTC ammonia from the cleaning aisle and use that when making it, the compound won't be so readily explosive. Meaning scraping it off won't really set it off, but slamming it on the ground would.

If I had used lab ammonia, this stuff would be a lot more fragile. I'm not going to use lab ammonia.

I don't know about the accuracy of that information though.

Is it possible for me to scrape NI3 off of a filter into a jar?

Maybe I should have posted this in energetic materials. Whoops sry.

[Edited on 15-5-2005 by Edward Elric]

kyanite - 15-5-2005 at 07:02

Please, for your own safety, stop reading "cook-books". All they're good for is a laugh. If you want to learn from a book, pick up an university/colledge(even high-school) text-book. Unlike crapbooks, the information comes from reputable sources.

Also a few things.
Search.
Google-ing. There are videos etc out there showing that a feather can set it off. I think its safe to say people shouldn't even be near it when it's in solution, and so no doubt it will go off if the filter paper is MOVED(so forget about scraping).

So in conclusion: Cook-book = bad, funded research = good, fingers = definatly good, and Im sure someone could do a better job at flaming but when they do, remember, they do it out of love.

Stay safe.

Edit: Oh yeah, and NI3 is definatly not a low-explosive

Its high-order!

[Edited on 15-5-2005 by kyanite]

Marvin - 15-5-2005 at 07:34

While wet and saturated with ammonia you have some room to manipulate, scrape/move when dry its extremely sensitive. Don't dry on a radiator, it'll go off.

On the handling.... Dont. Make it where you need it and expect it to go off at any point, wet or dry. Don't try to store or stabilise, keep away from anything glass, you get the picture?

Make very small amounts and keep your fingers. I'm thinking 'pea' sort of volume split into several portions. At least infections in cuts isnt a problem, everything gets sterilised (and stained) with the iodine vapour.

I like this stuff, and think its a good introduction to explosives, its relatively weak for a high exposive and too sensitive, unstable and unpredictable to have practical use.

Duster - 15-5-2005 at 07:45

I remember in high school they showed us a video of this guy who does all sorts of pretty neat things...

One of which was NI3... He had just a bit on a piece of filter paper on a ring stand... Using a wooden stick with a feather taped to it he touched the NI3 and it went off...

If that doesnt give you an idea of how dangerous this stuff is, I dont know what will... I would rather handle AP than be near NI3.

Edward Elric - 15-5-2005 at 07:59

Quote:

Originally posted by kyanite
Also a few things.
Search.
Google-ing. There are videos etc out there showing that a feather can set it off. I think its safe to say people shouldn't even be near it when it's in solution, and so no doubt it will go off if the filter paper is MOVED(so forget about scraping).

So in conclusion: Cook-book = bad, funded

I googled it before i started this thread and used wikipedia to search for more info. I saw that video and when I did i wondered what type of ammonia they used, lab grade or household.

There must be a way to contain this stuff? Argon in a bottle with it? Maybe a gelcap with some silica gel in it?

I'm wondering how this stuff can only be one time use stuff. It's like it's only purpose is for building powdered smoke bomb booby tramps for people in Vietnam or wartime.

BTW, stop patronizing me. I'm not reading the anarchists cookbook. :mad:

[Edited on 15-5-2005 by Edward Elric]

Marvin - 15-5-2005 at 08:05

"If that doesnt give you an idea of how dangerous this stuff is"

Is shows how sensitive it can be, how dangerous depends on everything else. If the person making it is dangerous or stupid, then it will be dangerous. Much the same goes for every other explosive.

"I would rather handle AP than be near NI3."

This is why AP kills so many people.

Edit,

"There must be a way to contain this stuff? Argon in a bottle with it? Maybe a gelcap with some silica gel in it? "

No, there is no 'there must be some way' and the thought pattern is defective in this context. Do yourself a favour. Try anyway with *very* small amounts and soft plastic bottles. This will teach you things you just can't be taught any other way, or from virtually any other explosive in reasonable time.

[Edited on 15-5-2005 by Marvin]

Duster - 15-5-2005 at 08:09

Im not saying AP is safe, but I would consider it safer than NI3. I suppose I could be wrong as I havent made either, and dont really plan to, but considering you can press AP into a container... Thats saying a lot more than what you can do with NI3.

a_bab - 15-5-2005 at 08:24

You either have to read more on the subject, or to make it in SMALL quantities. It'll give you some answers why is a "single use" explosive.
You can't store it for more than a week because it'll decompose, leaving nasty iodine stains. Once dried, it's just a matter of time until it will go off by itself, or because of a draft or god knows what. In 24 hours if properly dried it will go off.
Storing it underwater doesn't solve the issue: it will decompose permanently.

Make it and you'll see. Start with a rice grain quantity of iodine and see the results.

1 gram won't kill you but 10 grams will
definately do (especially using a glass container).
I once left about two grams under water in the balcony, and when I got back from work, I saw that the beaker was turned to dust, and a huge ugly spot on the ceiling. So even underwater it's able to detonate.

[Edited on 15-5-2005 by a_bab]

Marvin - 15-5-2005 at 08:51

Sound advise a_bab.

Duster,

"considering you can press AP into a container... Thats saying a lot more than what you can do with NI3"

In a nutshell, this is exactly my point. NI3.NH3 is honest, AP pretends to be safe/stable and its lying, it can go off by itself or by a small external stimulus but you won't expect it when it does. Weight for weight AP is much more violent and they both decompose at similar rates.

Duster - 15-5-2005 at 08:55

That is true. I guess thats why its best to know the properties of any chemical or exposive you plan to deal with...

Surprises are generally a bad thing in the world of chemistry I would think...

neutrino - 15-5-2005 at 09:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Edward Elric
i wondered what type of ammonia they used, lab grade or household.

Ammonia is ammonia.

tom haggen - 15-5-2005 at 10:47

And they don't sell ammonia at the hard ware store. They sell ammonium hydroxide. By the way NI3 isn't even that cool of an explosive. I don't know why newbies are so fascinated with it. NI3 and thermite draws newbies like a bug to a bug light. ZZZZZZZZZZZAP!!!!!! No fingers.

[Edited on 15-5-2005 by tom haggen]

hodges - 15-5-2005 at 13:08

Actually, NI3 made with weak ammonium hydroxide is supposed to be even more sensitve than NI3 made with concentrated ammonium hydroxide. The extra NH3 molecules tend to attach to the NI3 molecules in the form (NI3).(NH3)n. The larger n, the more stable. As the substance dries (or if washed with water for that matter), NH3 is lost, and eventually the NI3 detonates spontaneously. In practice, I've used both concentrated NH4OH and household "ammonia" and have not noticed much difference, at least if the iodine is fine enough.

You really do need to keep the amounts down. The most I ever made at one time was under 0.5 gram. I started with 0.5 grams of KI and produced iodine from it. Obviously, not all of the 0.5 grams in KI is iodine, and my yield of iodine was not 100%, especially after several washings. I'm guessing I ended up with about 0.2 grams of iodine. Yet when I was done with it I concluded I have made too much. It was enough for several loud bangs and numerous cracks and pops as it dried in my bathtub. And be sure to use a soft disposable plastic cup - not a glass one!

mick - 17-5-2005 at 12:09

NI3 does not exist. NI3 solvated with H2O or NH3 does.
mick

neutrino - 17-5-2005 at 12:56

No, pure NI3 had been isolated. I think it was made in the gas phase by reaction of ammonia and iodine vapor.

HNO3 - 17-5-2005 at 16:20

Pure NI3 does exist. To quote my 1956 Encyclopedia Britannica, "Nitrogen tri-iodide, NI3, is a black powder obtained by the action of ammonia gas on potassium iodobromide, KIBr2, washing with water and drying (H. W. Cremer and D. R. Duncan, 1930)."

Marvin - 18-5-2005 at 21:03

Greenwood and Earnshaw "Chemistry of the Elements", a very reliable textbook generally states "Pure NI3 has not been isolated, but the structure of the shock sensitive adduct with NH3 has recently been elucidated". It goes into some detail about the structure.

It also states "The elusive NBr3 was finally prepaired as a deep red, very temperature sensitive , volatile solid by the low temperature bromination of of bitrimethylsilylbomamine with BrCl." Conditions are -87C in pentane.

(Me3Si)2NBr + 2BrCl => NBr3 + 2MeSiCl.

I hold this book in fairly high regard and it does go into considerable detail for a general university inorganic textbook. I'm inclined to believe 3 things,

1, that pure NI3 was not produced before 1984 the date of first publication.

2, that it cannot be produced from a mixture containing ammonia.

3, if it has ever been produced it should be even less stable than pure NBr3.

None of my other books contradicts G&E though one with a first publication 20 years earlier states that neither NBr3 or NI3 have been made apart from as ammonia adducts.

As for making NI3.NH3, I prefer the process of dissolving iodine in a solution of potassium iodide and adding that to ammonia. Saving the filtrate gets the potassium iodide back as well as the half of the iodine that doesnt go into making NI3.

tom,

Those people, and I havnt seen any reports of it happening recently, that would lose fingers playing with NI3.NH3 are the people that would lose limbs or lives playing with anything else. Its a good learning experience, a good novelty and a lousey HE in every respect.

a_bab - 19-5-2005 at 00:20

The first time I made NI3.NH3 I used a KI solution of iodine and the resulted crystals are very small (under 0,5 mm) and dark green. Some will even pop when you swirl the contents of the beaker.

When I made it with pure iodine/ammonia, I suspected that there must be quite alot of unreacted iodine.

NI3

MadHatter - 24-5-2005 at 00:36

Back in high school chemistry, my teacher made a tiny amount in lab. I've never seen an
explosive as friction sensitive as that one !

Zinc - 2-6-2006 at 07:41

A little OT, but do you know what is the VOD of NI3.NH3?

IrC - 2-6-2006 at 11:48

The title of this thread is what we call an oxymoron. A fly could not handle this chemical without it exploding and neither will anyone else.

Back in 1967 I took a 1000 ml beaker and filled it nearly full with all the ingredients, and proceeded to boil above a burner. After a while the beaker exploded while I was stirring it, clearing off a thousand dollars of equipment in 1960's dollars, leaving the bench wiped clean and me soaking wet. I had to slowly dry out the rest of the day as I went to my various classes, creating mayhem in each class as every few minutes my clothes would explode here and there leaving purple stains all over me. About 7 hours later as I walked home from school I was still exploding every so often. The next day my mom freaked when she tried washing my clothes and they started popping again (needless to say I had not told her of my leveling the classroom bench). The next day in school there was the typical hell to pay from the admin people. Lucky me, I was the teachers genius pet and he lied and covered my ass big time.

He told them it was an old bottle of potassium which had "gone bad" innocently sitting on the bench which had exploded and that it was all their fault for not clearing out old chemicals in a timely fashion. I still think to this day the principle knew he was being bullshitted as he always kept his eye on me after that but he could not prove it so I escaped. Strangely enough I was a hero to many of my former bully tormentors, they thought I must be cool to spend an hour exploding in study hall. Needless to say many wanted me to make them some but I refrained from doing that one again! It was years before I understood why suddenly the night janitor started treating me badly, never occured to me what he went through that night.

Later the teacher scolded me in private saying "I do not care what you make in the interest of science as long as you always bring me the exact recipe and let me study it first!". We went to the Linda Hall Library every monday night after school and I had copied this recipe from an old 18th century book on microfilm. I never did get around to trying that weird recipe where one of the old greats (I forget which) had written about an electrochem experiment where he claimed to have created living white things in a beaker. I still wonder if that one was a true story but having lost the story and recipe I never did get to try it.

Maybe someone here remembers reading about this one?

neutrino - 2-6-2006 at 15:17

That must have been a massive explosion. 1 liter of NI3 mixture leveling a benchtop? How did you survive if you were stirring? And why were you boiling it?

I seem to remember something about making a solution of some salt then adding crystals of another. Algae-like things would 'grow' because of osmotic pressure or something along those lines. I can't find the thread tough.

The_Davster - 2-6-2006 at 15:28

Neutrino: https://sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=3361

IrC - 2-6-2006 at 17:59

The recipe called for ammonium hydroxide, alcohol, potassium iodide, and iodine crystals IIRC. While gently boiling the mixture the crystals were added and stirred until they dissolved. It was not an explosion like a stick of dynamite, rather a violent small explosion of a large crystal forming inside the beaker which sent the liter flying glass and all in all directions, knocking other glassware off the bench which of course all broke. It was not really very loud as the bulk was still wet and the explosion was inside the liter which muffled the noise. Kinda hard to describe. Why was I stirring? The recipe didn't mention not to, nor did it mention boiling, those were my ideas. It's been many years, so I don't really remember how forceful it was as I was in shock for a few seconds but it did send people from other nearby classrooms running so maybe it was louder than I recall.

I wish I could remember the text on the electrochemical life thing. IIRC it was written by Faraday in the late 1820's. The Linda Hall Science Library was designed with an underground vault which was supposed to be a repository of mankinds science in the event of nuclear war. The extremely old and rare books could only be seen as microfilm, not touched, and were kept in the stories below ground level as a safekeeping factor. You had to have someone with credentials sign in and stay with you while you were down there, which I did from 5 till 9 every monday night for a year. I do not know what credentials my teacher had as this was nearly 40 years ago but he could get me in the vault so surely he was more than just a teacher. The vault was also where I read an english translation of a Japanese book on electrets (from around the 1920's IIRC), which started a lifelong interest in them for me.

Anyway, in the book it was clear this was not some fungus (fungus as far as I know is not some white things which swim around like sea horses and this was what Faraday described). Faraday believed he had created life in the laboratory using electricity and a chemical solution. If I had to guess this was some text he did not publicize widely as likely he worried about looking like a kook but I clearly remember reading his entire report on it, so it did exist although my memory of the details is poor.

Now you have me started on a search of the net to see if there is anything online about it. If I come across anything of the Faraday research I will mention it.

Update: While searching around the net I recalled it was not a book or treatsie written by Faraday, rather it was a microfilm copy of a letter written by Faraday to Davy, if that helps anyone else interested in searching for record of this rather cool electrochem experiment. I also dimly recall that he mentioned doing this experiment to repeat something described in a personal letter from another of the greats of that day (I do not remember who), where Faraday was repeating the idea told him by this other scientist, with sucessful results. I do not remember who this was but maybe it gives a little more information to search with.

[Edited on 3-6-2006 by IrC]

UniversalSolvent - 4-6-2006 at 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Edward Elric

Quote:

[Edited on 15-5-2005 by Edward Elric]

1)NI3 is far too sensitive to synth is large quantities. Shoot for about a gram.
2)Wait until it is a paste to handle. Detonate immediately. It is extremely dangerous to store, so I don't recommend it, but I hear it can be stored in 100% ethanol. Once again, only about a gram.

Oh, and if you do store it: Only for a short period of time and once the ethanol evaporates, it will become ultra-sensitive again.

IrC - 4-6-2006 at 11:19

"There must be a way to contain this stuff?"

The chemistry teacher I had was one of the smartest people I ever knew. I remember him sitting there thinking about what had gone wrong as it should not detonate while wet. His conclusion was that a large crystal grew due to how supersaturated my solution was, combined with the heating which allowed a large crystal to grow and become dry on the inside, causing it to become super sensitive. If this is so storage is not possible, as crystals would always form even at normal room temperatures, becoming sensitive over time. I would have to say storage of this chemical is not possible unless there was little to none in the container full of alcohol/ammonia. This I remember, that alcohol with a small amount of ammonia was needed for safekeeping of the compound. I imagine over time this chemical was given up on as there is no way to keep it.

NI3

CycloKnight - 9-6-2006 at 18:07

iirc Seymour Lecker mentions this explosive in his book "improvised explosives" as one of the 10 explosive he describes how to make.
I've never understood why he even mentioned it.
The stuff is deadly, as others have stated - it can go off on its own.
Many experienced chemists have been severely maimed by this unpredictable substance, best to give it a miss.

Potassiumcyanide - 10-6-2006 at 01:11

is there also a NBr3 or a NCl3? If there is, are these substances as sensitive as NI3?
does anybody have information about this?

Ramiel - 10-6-2006 at 05:08

<a href="http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=2945">Halogenated amines - the others</a>

this threads worth is pretty tenuous.
Although perhaps I'm discriminating? lost proper hearing in one ear and almost lost an eye to this stuff when I was a k3wl who didn't know any better. Best left alone IMHO.

Quantum - 10-6-2006 at 06:15

Explosives have a way of weeding out the unworthy - or at least preventing them from typing for awhile.

The idea that you could handle and store Nitrogen Triiodide is a great example of hubris.

Potassiumcyanide - 10-6-2006 at 07:15

I'm NOT going to make ANY experiments with this stuff.
I hope that others also won't try such things.
It IS very dangerous (and illegal..)!
We all know, that NOBODY of us is able to control this stuff, so I think giving any advise for making or handling this stuff is some kind of mad and gets other people into trouble.
DO NOT try to make some NI3 and DO NOT think that you will be able to contol it!

What about sience instead of BOOOM ? would't this be a good idea for you??

NCl3

MadHatter - 10-6-2006 at 12:13

Nitrogen Trichloride is probably the most unstable of that group. Exposure to sunlight
is all that's necessary for an explosion.

Jdurg - 10-6-2006 at 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Potassiumcyanide
is there also a NBr3 or a NCl3? If there is, are these substances as sensitive as NI3?
does anybody have information about this?

Yes. Each of the halogens forms a nitrogen trihalide, and the stability of such trihalides decreases as one moves down the group.

NF3: NF3 is actually a very stable, fairly inert gas which is not explosive at all.

NCl3: NCl3 is an oily yellow liquid that is fairly shock sensitive and is sensitive to UV light. It forms readily when bleaches and ammonia are mixed and will detonate randomly.

NBr3: NBr3 has been made before, but it is incredibly unstable and detonates as soon as it is formed. It is a nasty little bugger and is only succeeded by NI3 as the most unstable of the nitrogen trihalides.

NI3: NI3 is a reddish brown crystalline substance that is INSANELY unstable. Loud noises, changes in air pressure, changes in temperature, etc. will set it off. The stuff tends to explode as soon as it is formed.

Now NI3 should NOT be confused with the NI3.NH3 adducts that are commonly made. The nitrogen triiodide being referenced here in this thread is somewhat stabilized by the adduct it forms with ammonia molecules. Therefore, when one makes NI3 from iodine crystals and ammonia, you really aren't making nitrogen triiodide, but the nitrogen triiodide/ammonia adduct which is somewhat stable. It will still detonate with a great deal of force and unpredictability, but it's not the same thing as pure NI3.

The stability of the nitrogen trihalides decreases quite a bit as one moves down the group. However this is to be expected as the electronegativity of the halogens decrease and the atomic size increases, thus destabilizing the N-Halogen bond.

neutrino - 10-6-2006 at 22:01

Two notes to add:

Nitrogen trichloride is EXTREMELY dangerous. Any contact with organic material (a speck of dust, etc) will cause it to detonate violently. Also its synthesis usually calls for an ammonium salt and chlorine gas. Bleach + ammonia only works in some isolated cases (industrial accidents) and can easily form other products.

The ammonia from the NI3.xNH3 adducts (x is a large #, <12, IIRC) evaporates off and leaves the more unstable NI3.xNH3 adducts (small x) and maybe even some bare NI3. I'm not too sure about this last point because, though, making pure NI3 needs exotic synthesis methods, i.e. for some reason this simple method doesn't work.

Pyrovus - 11-6-2006 at 00:15

How about mixed nitrogen halides, such as NClBr2? Could they be expected to be intermediate in stability between, say, in the case of NClBr2, NCl3 and NBr3? Of course, I imagine it would be quite difficult to prepare these mixed halides pure.

[Edited on 11-6-2006 by Pyrovus]

Jdurg - 11-6-2006 at 07:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrovus
How about mixed nitrogen halides, such as NClBr2? Could they be expected to be intermediate in stability between, say, in the case of NClBr2, NCl3 and NBr3? Of course, I imagine it would be quite difficult to prepare these mixed halides pure.

[Edited on 11-6-2006 by Pyrovus]

I would assume that it would be insanely difficult to do, if not impossible. The properties of ammonia (the starting product) and all of the halogenation materials would seem to prohibit selective addition/subtraction of different halogens. I.E. once you get the chlorine atoms on there, you really can't selectively pull a few off and replace them with bromine or iodine atoms.

The whole instability of the nitrogen trihalides (outside of NF3) is due to the relatively weak N-X bonds and the huge steric hinderance caused by having the three very large halogen atoms squeezed into a tiny area around the nitrogen atom. Since NCl3 is still insanely unstable, even if it was possible to replace one or two of the Cl atoms with a different halogen the steric hindernace would still exist and you'd have just as "useless" a compound.

12AX7 - 11-6-2006 at 07:31

How about mono- or dichloramine plus fluorine? NF2Cl could potentially be somewhat stable.

Tim

Jdurg - 11-6-2006 at 07:36

Quote:

Originally posted by 12AX7
How about mono- or dichloramine plus fluorine? NF2Cl could potentially be somewhat stable.

Tim

Possibly, but would the fluorine leave one of the chlorine atoms on there, or would it rip it right off?

12AX7 - 11-6-2006 at 07:44

Idunno...F2 does seem pretty harsh, would be better to get say difluoroamine, if it exists, and chlorinate that, eh?

Tim

Pyrovus - 11-6-2006 at 07:57

Come to think of it, I recall reading somewhere that tetrafluorohydrazine, N2F4 readily dissociates into NF2. owing to the exceptionally weak N-N bond. I think at room temperature it's something like 50% dissociated. So, if you were to react this with chlorine, you could presumably get NF2Cl:
NF2 + Cl2 -> NF2Cl + Cl.
NF2 + Cl. -> NF2Cl

[Edited on 11-6-2006 by Pyrovus]

Danger Will Robinson

franklyn - 12-6-2006 at 06:51

This seems a very popular thread for war stories. Here's mine.
During a lecture at college I witnessed from some distance the
safe transport of NI3 by the adjunct who made it. He appeared from
the back room holding a stick at arms length with a ping pong ball
sized heap of the stuff at it's end. I new immediately what he had
and watched with fascination as he walked very deliberatedly
carrying it like an egg balanced on a spoon, behind the lecturer
across to the other side of the amphitheatre and gingerly layed it
on the bench there. There it remained drying until the the end of
the period when as a demonstration of an exothermic reaction the
lecturer tickled the heap with a feather duster on a pole used to
clean the overhead lighting . I still remember today it sounding
like a 350 Norma magnum with a short barrel from 3 feet away and I
was a good 60 feet away.

Since he was a graduate assistant the adjunct had always prepared
this substance prior to class as it cannot be safely stored. He
later recounted how one time while with his date , having gotten
the stuff on his clothes in much the same manner as [ IrC ] here ,
he periodically snapped crackled and popped throughout that day.

Quote:

Originally posted by IrC
Back in 1967 a 1000 ml beaker exploded while I was stirring it,
leaving me soaking wet. I had to slowly dry out the rest of the
day as I went to my various classes, creating mayhem in each class
as every few minutes my clothes would explode here and there
leaving purple stains all over me. About 7 hours later as I walked
home from school I was still exploding every so often.

Quote:

Originally posted by Quantum
The idea that you could handle and store Nitrogen Triiodide is a
great example of hubris.

I was personally reprimanded by my commander for merely speaking
about making some. I had intended to paint a bit in a book of
matches to place a deck of cards on it and with some other players
try to remove one card at a time without causing ignition.
He was not amused.

The only use I can think of is by performing magicians as the
ignition for nitrocellulose flash paper set off by opening a book.

Take a hint from the wealth of wisdom here , use military grade
primary explosives only. If ease of preparation is your requirement
try Silver Nitride made from Silver oxide and Ammonium Hydroxide
it is much more stable though I would still not want to store it.

.

[Edited on 12-6-2006 by franklyn]

ethan_c - 15-6-2006 at 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by franklyn
Helater recounted how one time while with his date , having gotten
the stuff on his clothes in much the same manner as [ IrC ] here ,
he periodically snapped crackled and popped throughout that day.

What's fun is how a small pile of it will detonate upon being jiggled, where only part of the pile is dry. As most people have probably realized, there aren't any flames or much heat involved, but the detonation velocity is fairly ridiculous, and so everything in the area gets coated with almost microscopic particles of the stuff. Once it's atomized like that, it dries rapidly and every surface within range (usually including you) will pop like it's Chinese New Years if you just tickle it.

Another couple cute things to do are take a q-tip and apply it inside keyholes and door lock mechanisms. Gives the person holding the key quite a surprise!

Quote:

Originally posted by Quantum
The idea that you could handle and store Nitrogen Triiodide is a
great example of hubris.

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. I made not quite a kilo of it about 14 months ago in preparation for our senior prank at school. In what was probably a wise move, we collectively decided not to include contact explosive in the final prank, so I still have it (basically a lifetime supply). If you try to dry it out and store it, the loss of a finger or two might teach you something about doing your homework before messing with explosives. But as long as it's wet, it's relatively safe, and I thorougly tested this before I even thought about storing it away. So I still have at least 700 or 800 grams of it, sealed in a screw-top plastic vial (with parafilm, in an airtight polybag) under distilled water. If I have company or some other occasion to play around, open the container up, stick it out to dry wherever the detonation is planned, and come back in a bit with my nice long metal pole. As I said, 14 months later, no problems to speak of.
Bottom line: be smart.

Organikum - 15-6-2006 at 02:01

I don´t think anybody who makes a kilo of this stuff for a "prank" is smart by definition. I am sure anybody who keeps 800 grams stored, wet or not, is not "smart" but a danger to society.

Have a nice day.
/ORG

[Edited on 15-6-2006 by Organikum]

Fleaker - 15-6-2006 at 08:52

I'm a bit skeptical of having 800 grams of it not detonate just from the mass of its own crystals resting upon it. Having seen and heard of 8g detonating underwater with minimal provocation, I think your conclusion of storing it safely underwater is a fallacy. Also, considering that you're from the San Francisco Bay Area, (which means California, where everything is a hazardous or carcinogenic) I think finding that much iodine would attract attention seeing as it is watched.

I suggest he gets an immediate promotion from "Harmless" to "Hazard to Self". Using a sensitive high explosive for a senior prank in any post 9/11 American High School is the fast track for incarceration.

Jdurg - 15-6-2006 at 15:01

My introduction to NI3 came during my senior year of high school. I was watching the movie "The Manhattan Project" on TV one Saturday and in the beginning of the movie they show a prank where someone makes NI3 and puts it on the inside of a drawer. When the stereotypical "geek" goes to close the drawer, it explodes open and everyone laughs. The person who played the prank said that it was nitrogen triiodide. I was curious, so I did some research and looked up the chemical. I then found that it was indeed a real compound and could easily be made.

I asked my high school chemistry teacher if I could make some, and she IMMEDIATELY said 'NO!'. She was not fond of doing any experiments involving halogens for some reason. So I had to wait until college before I made it. I then discovered E-Bay and the wealth of items you can buy there; pure iodine being one of them. (This was actually when my element collection truly first started). So I got the iodine, got some cheap grocery store ammonia and made my first batch.

As has been mentioned, when you make a batch if a large pile is used, the outside stuff will dry first before the inside stuff does. In addition, if you're impatient like I am you'll try and set it off before it's fully dry. As a result, the pile I made and put in the corner of my dorm bathroom detonated, but not all the way. Therefore, a great deal of it was spread all over the place and the bathroom kept popping and crackling for a good few hours.

Once I made it a few times, however, it really lost its "specialness". It soon become more of a hassle to make than it was worth. The pure iodine makes a mess of everything, and the ammonia fumes are nasty to breathe. Just not all that fun anymore. Maybe it's because I'm getting older.

(Though it was fun putting some sugar crystals on a wet pile and letting it all dry and then detonating when a fly or a hornet went to get the sugar. hehehehe.)

mick - 15-6-2006 at 15:09

I played with NI3 when I was younger. It did exactly what it said on the bottle.
mick

ethan_c - 17-6-2006 at 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Fleaker
I'm a bit skeptical of having 800 grams of it not detonate just from the mass of its own crystals resting upon it. Having seen and heard of 8g detonating underwater with minimal provocation, I think your conclusion of storing it safely underwater is a fallacy. Also, considering that you're from the San Francisco Bay Area, (which means California, where everything is a hazardous or carcinogenic) I think finding that much iodine would attract attention seeing as it is watched.

Well, like I said, I've kept the triiodide for 14 months-ish. I keep it outside in a shed, not next to my bed with the rest of my element collection and mishmash of chemicals.
I acquired my iodine when I first got interested in chemistry, when things were relatively more lax, through local contacts rather than large companies or eBay. I still have a couple pounds I don't really know what to do with, but its hard to get nowadays, so I appreciate having a stock when I need bits for various purposes.

Quote:

I suggest he gets an immediate promotion from "Harmless" to "Hazard to Self". Using a sensitive high explosive for a senior prank in any post 9/11 American High School is the fast track for incarceration.

I thought the triiodide-prank idea was a recipe for disaster from the beginning, but some kids in my grade were so gung-ho about it, I didn't want to rain on their parade. I did talk some sense into them- not so much because the NI3 would actually hurt anyone (the best way to spread it around is put it in a watering can, so it spreads all over and theres plenty of water to evaporate before it becomes volatile. Note: clean can well afterwards!) but, you know- people freak out at the littlest things nowadays.

If anyone has any suggestions as to a worthwhile use for that absolutely ridiculous amount of contact explosive, toss ideas at me.

woelen - 17-6-2006 at 13:49

I would not feel comfortable with 800 grams of NI3.nNH3 around, not even when it is stored under water. I'm no expert on this subject, but I know of some compounds, which can be like a time bomb, which will set off, when its time expires, but the moment of expiry is unknown. It might form larger crystals over the months, it might loose ammonia over the months, which goes into the water, or even, when you look bad at it, when you stepped out of your bed with the wrong leg, it may set off.

I at least would add some ammonia to the water and store it under dilute ammonia. I've read that this makes the stuff already more safe on storage, but even then, I would not feel comfortable with 800 grams of that stuff around. Also, what, if you ever get a fire in your shed, or when the bottle is accidently dropped, when you take something out of it? There are many scenario's for total disaster and I must not think of a detonation of 800 grams of that stuff.

An interesting experiment with this stuff may be to check whether you can detonate it under water. Take 100 mg or so, put that in a metal sturdy pan full of water and then try to crunch this, while the material is under water.

ethan_c - 20-6-2006 at 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by woelen
I at least would add some ammonia to the water and store it under dilute ammonia. I've read that this makes the stuff already more safe on storage, but even then, I would not feel comfortable with 800 grams of that stuff around.

The bottle is airtight- adding ammonia would introduce a variable I don't want to mess with.

Quote:

Also, what, if you ever get a fire in your shed, or when the bottle is accidently dropped, when you take something out of it? There are many scenario's for total disaster and I must not think of a detonation of 800 grams of that stuff.

Actually, fire is pretty much the safest method of disposal. Surprisingly, it will just decompose quite calmly into iodine and nitrogen (and ammonia, if its wet) upon heating with a flame. I mean, if it was already dry and then you lit a match by it, I would suppose it would detonate, but if it's not already dry and dangerous, flame and extreme heat just tear it apart nicely before it can get in the situation to tear itself apart. I have tested this plenty- it is not really feasible to detonate more than a few grams at once, no matter the situation, because it must be dry, and once it is dry, a few grams together will spontaneously decompose, so there is really no 'total disaster' option, as boring as that makes the prospect of me having that 'huge' amount outside.
If there was, I'm sure someone would have devised some unpleasant device to make use of an exothermic reaction to detonate a huge amount at once for quite a destructive potential.

Quote:

An interesting experiment with this stuff may be to check whether you can detonate it under water. Take 100 mg or so, put that in a metal sturdy pan full of water and then try to crunch this, while the material is under water.

I've tried this. It is quite impossible to detonate while wet- I've heard all sorts of wild stories about NI3 detonating under its own weight, completely submerged in water, but frankly none of it is true.

franklyn - 1-7-2006 at 17:57

Nitrogen Tri iodide The MOVIE

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/jcesoft/cca/cca0/movies/ni3iod....

http://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/demos/nitrogen_triiod...

http://www.wikimirror.com/Nitrogen_triiodide

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ni3/ni3j.htm

More links and resources _

http://www.justnitrogen.com/nitrogentriiodide

.

IrC - 28-8-2006 at 15:39

"I wish I could remember the text on the electrochemical life thing."

While it never sounds good to post links from ufo quackery sites, I found one page that talked about the old 1800's experiment creating life. While I do not advise wasting much time with the site itself the page I link here is a good one, and gives enough information for anyone wanting to search the subject further. In 1969 I spent the evening in the secure basement of the Linda Hall science library reading the very book which contained the very complete written account of this man and his experiments. I noticed in the link I give below that they mention not knowing the exact specifics of the experiments in order to recreate them. I remember well that the book I read was complete in detail but it has been far too long for me to remember it. Taking the book out or copying it was out of the question, certain old books they had were only viewable with a library person watching over it and they could not be handled or taken to a copier (the technology of copiers in 1969 was crap anyway). I still do not remember enough to search for the exact book itself but I think it was some type of book printed by the London Electrical society. The reason I kept thinking it was Michael Faraday is that in the book I read was also a report in detail of the experiments he did which had given identical results. It was the writing of Faraday in the book that was so in depth into exact details which stuck in my memory. It was not until I could find the name of the originator that I could do any searching on the subject as nothing appears online related to this under Faradays name.

The experiments mentioned in the links below is the exact scientist I was trying to remember months ago so I put them here as FYI.

http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/mystical/AndrewCr...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Crosse

http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/crossan.htm

Good detail on the experiments:

http://www.rexresearch.com/crosse/crosse.htm

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/sparkoflife.htm

"This is Acarus electricus, a mite first noticed by Andrew Crosse in 1837. Crosse was an amateur scientist, and was conducting experiments on the growth of crystals by subjecting certain minerals to long term, low level electric currents. The mineral sample, an iron oxide, was imbibed with a toxic mixture of hydrochloric acid and a silicate of potash solution, and continuously electrified by means of a battery. Several weeks into the experiment, filaments began to appear on the stone, which apparently resembled insects. Eventually, Crosse noticed movement, and detected a great number of living mites on the sample. He repeated the experiment under closely monitored conditions using sterilized and sealed equipment. Again, the mites appeared. Word soon got out, and popular opinion was that living creatures had been synthesized from inorganic matter. Crosse was called everything from a blasphemer to a Frankenstein, despite the fact that he never made any claims that he had created life, or even discovered a new species. In fact, he never attempted to explain the phenomenon, other than hazarding a guess that they may have hatched from airborne eggs deposited before the device was sealed."

I find it interesting that many including Faraday redid this work with positive results and had also carefully considered contamination among other things. This makes one wonder if there really is something to these experiments. The text just above is the closest I can find to the words in one account I read in that old book, good enough for any of you out here who want to try their hand at making a modern frankenstein.

woelen - 28-8-2006 at 22:51

But if this is so interesting, then why nobody has done it anymore for the last 150 years? The equipment for the experiment is not that extensive, and a small lab with a good oven for sterilizing and vacuum machinery could do these experiments.

IrC - 29-8-2006 at 07:01

No idea. Some things just get lost in time. I would not mind having a few scrolls from the library of Alexandria to study.

Marvin - 29-8-2006 at 08:32

The filiments sound like the 'crystal garden' type experiments from sodium silicate solution.

IrC - 29-8-2006 at 09:28

That was my thoughts also. I wish I had a copy of the ancient book though as reading the work of Faraday and Crosse leaves no doubt these things behaved as if they were an insect colony and while I am not sure about Crosse I know Faraday would not have been so easily fooled nor so cavalier in his experiments. Hell the guy has units named after him he must have been a very good scientist for his day right?

Little crystals certainly would not behave as if they were alive. Interesting mystery for sure, just wish I had a way to copy and paste the words I remember reading by these guys so long ago. What I wouldn't give to be able to go back to K.C. and scan that book.

I just remembered that this book was also where I read this very in depth study of some experiments by a Japanese scientist on electrets, and this story stuck me with experimenting along this line for the rest of my life. I still to this day experiement and play with electrets, recently I just finished building the best over 100 KV supply I have ever owned for just this research.

[Edited on 29-8-2006 by IrC]

Nicodem - 29-8-2006 at 10:23

Quote:

Originally posted by IrC
I wish I had a copy of the ancient book though as reading the work of Faraday and Crosse leaves no doubt these things behaved as if they were an insect colony and while I am not sure about Crosse I know Faraday would not have been so easily fooled nor so cavalier in his experiments.

If they would appear as live insect-like entities, a true scientist, even a 19th century one, would do some very predictable things. First he would switch off the current to see if this phenomenon is current dependent. Second, he would isolate the things in a separate baker and see if it the phenomenon still exists outside the ambient/solution/conditions where it was created. Third, he would most certainly observe the phenomenon under a microscope and make detailed observations of the supposedly alive entity. And all this even before any serious research – definitively the same day of the original observation. How could any of these scientists get a sleep without doing any of these basic steps? IrC, do you happen to remember at least if any of such evaluations was mentioned in that old book, though not necessarily remembering any details?
No available notes on any such preliminary evaluation seam to be available to us regardless of the claim that Faraday and several others were able to reproduce the experiment. So, unless there was some censorship in action, I would say all this is pretty much useless. I would recon this is the reason why this thing simply evaporated from history and only the account of the religious fanatics destroying the career of the young and promising researcher remained written. Remember Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons? Sure you do, but will anybody remember them after 170 years? Unless someone proves they were right, I don’t think anybody will.

Quote:

Little crystals certainly would not behave as if they were alive.

Actually, little crystals certainly could behave like being alive when exposed to a changing electrical field, which an electrochemical cell with errant currents among the chargeable crystals could certainly cause. Compare with iron powder in a moving magnetic field to get the picture. Furthermore, very small crystals could even be prone to Brownian motion that might appear as some kind of lively activity, though this could only be observed under a microscope unless the crystals would be some very light or aerogel-like. (However, Crosse should have been familiar with Brownian motion given that it was described a decade earlier.)

IrC - 29-8-2006 at 11:30

I have no doubt Faraday did the tests you describe and he was aware of brownian motion so I suppose you are right. Censorship seems likely the only reason no other accounts survive, remember what a draconian religious society existed at the time. I know Faraday defended Crosse, but as to any later work being mentioned I am not aware of any. As to electric fields, I clearly remember some of the writings mentioned observing the creatures/entities under static conditions with no juice applied to discount this very idea. Only during formation was a field applied to the cell.

Censorship does indeed suck big time!

This I do know for a fact. The book survives but to see it you need someone as credentials. The basement at the Linda Hall science library is not open to the public as far as I know, I had a science teacher who had past affiliations which gave him access and he used to take a group of us geeks there every monday night in 1969. It was one of the times of my life I remember most fondly no doubt. If anyone here still has access to this vault I would sure like to see the whole book copied. Everything from electrets to whacky lifeforms written by the best scientific minds of the victorian era.

franklyn - 29-8-2006 at 21:59

Quote:

Originally posted by IrC
In 1969 I spent the evening in the secure basement of the Linda Hall science library
reading the very book which contained the very complete written account of
this man and his experiments.

You and all here should be aware that library security is designed to prevent
theft of its collections. It is entirely open to anyone who would surreptitiously
introduce a book or document of his own into such a collection. The recent
" Da Vince Code " is an example of a hoax perpetrated in this way.

Quote:

Originally posted by IrC
Taking the book out or copying it was out of the question

A library that does not possess photographic reproduction capabitlities is just
a private collection.

It took me about 2 minutes to find the citation in the Library of Congress online catalog
searching by author -> Crosse, Andrew
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PA...

Nicodem is right , this written account you read is merely an anecdotal
assertion with a shocking lack of followup.

.

IrC - 30-8-2006 at 01:01

The search you give is not the book I read. It also contained writings by Faraday and others, including a writeup on the electrets and the details were quite good. It was more like a Scientific American in content. Also, 40 years ago the number of fruitcakes was much smaller than it is today. Nobody was going to sneak a book into a library that was so old it was of great value. Besides, this was not a private collection. It was one of two major underground repositories of scientific knowledge for the US to preserve scientific information in case of nuclear attack, this was the purpose of the vault. Also they would have needed to get into the file system of the library to get the book information entered into the filing system as it was going through the fishes that I found this interesting sounding title. There was nothing magical or mystical, or mysterious going on here. It was merely a very old book which was for real at the time of its publication which was in the 1860's IIRC.

I think way too much conspiracy theory crap abounds on the internet and it is affecting your thinking. The book was what it was. There is no point in picking apart too far this whole subject, I just gave it as FYI for anyone interested in looking into some of the stranger scientific works of the past.

Mr_Benito_Mussolini - 30-8-2006 at 14:39

http://rapidshare.de/files/31374912/Cross_s_Acari.djvu.html

IrC - 30-8-2006 at 17:43

Good post. It is another account which so far is also all I can find searching but one thing I got from your post was the name of the book I read so long ago. It was the "Transactions of the London Electrical Society" but I do not remember the year, other than the issue in question I am guessing was in the 1860's, and contained the actual article he wrote which gave details of the work. It also contained a writeup by Faraday on the Crosse subject which gave particulars also, and the issue contained an article on electrets. The articles were along the lines of projects in the Amateur Scientist in that you could recreate the work based upon the information in the articles. So I guess I need to find this publication or at least a copy of the actual article itself rather than more accounts of it.

IrC - 31-8-2006 at 11:59

After thinking about this for a while it came to me that science today really does need to take a long hard look at itself. With this in mind here is some music to listen to while you do.

http://www.theradicalremnant.com/layf.mp3

And why not a little more Uriah Heep:

http://www.theradicalremnant.com/sl.mp3

http://www.theradicalremnant.com/tmb.mp3

http://www.theradicalremnant.com/wizzard.mp3

Anyway, let us think about it. Try putting yourself in the mindset of a scientist during the victorian era. Religion controlled government and society as a whole, and anyone going against this mindset would be unlikely to get into any peer reviewed journals, nor any research grants, such as they were during this time.

Up until the 1930's or so, electricity was the new miracle lifegiver/cureall, until too much publicity of quackery abounded putting more or less an end to such flights of fancy. Even as late as the 1950's, the new miracle cureall was radiation. However too many B movies combined with using nuclear weapons, the cold war, three mile island, etc., removed the magical mindset to even this new form of energy. So in recoil science trended completely away from all such lines of thought. I think the lack of this book being readily available stemmed from this fear of going against the grain of society, not to mention the scientific community.

If you believe in evolution however surely you have read somewhere or other that life began as a lightning strike in some primordial soup in the oceans right? If you can buy this then why is it such a stretch to believe in using batteries in a chemical soup to do likewise? Myself no I do not believe in evolution (other than adaptive evolution where a species grows to meet physical challenges in it's changing world). If however you do believe in these theories of evolution why then is it such a step to think that these old experiments could not contain some form of validity or even some new scientific truth?

Something to think about at least. I really do believe that mindsets even today have prevented science from advancing as far as it might have. During the victorian era it was no stretch to believe that anything was possible. Perhaps this loss has restrained ideas and inventions which we should have already been the benefactors of (or not, frankenstein does come to mind).

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by IrC]

neutrino - 31-8-2006 at 17:37

I don’t know how exactly life began, but I do know that it required time. Lots and lots of time.

As far as I understand the subject, it happened something like this: Originally there were organic molecules floating around. After hundreds of millions of years of random reactions and interactions, some came together to form single-celled life.

I’m sure that some lightning strikes, volcanic events, meteor impacts, and the like were responsible for creating these molecules, but there wasn’t a magic spark that suddenly created a functioning cell out of simple molecules.

Also keep in mind that although life itself has been around for well over 3 billion years, multicelled life is only ~600 million years old. I doubt that the magic jump from single to multicelled life could be recreated in a test tube in only a few days.

Now, why the hell are we talking about the origin of life in an NI3 thread?

[Edited on 1-9-2006 by neutrino]

JustMe - 31-8-2006 at 19:02

I sure don't know why you've gone so far astray from the topic. And, regarding that topic I recall a story from my youth of a fine USE for the ammonia adjunct of Nitrogen Tri-Iodide... as an extermination method for flies.

Huh? Yeah, landmines for flies. Back in the good old days when chemicals were more accessible and mad science easier I heard say of a student who mixed up a batch of NI3 and while it was wet coated a bunch of small pieces of paper with it and either (can't remember) sprinkled sugar on the wet mixture or used sugar water for the moisture, I think the former.

He then spread it out to dry, scattering the paper all about on a hard surface in an area where there were flies and waited for it to dry. The story goes that the flies would be attracted to the sugar, land and BAM, each explode in a purple puff. Myth or not, I don't know, but it is kind of funny in a sick way.

Oh, and the first day I went to college, while walking up the steps to my dorm room I noticed some dark reddish-black powder and instantly recognized it (yes, I have made this stuff in small, repeat, small quantities). It wasn't much and quite spread out but a few minutes later there was a small bang and a "WTF" from the person who stepped on it. Ah, those were the days. Madness, pure madness.

IrC - 31-8-2006 at 19:29

It fit. The quote at the top of page 3 comes from a post on page 1, so it seemed fitting to post it here otherwise no one would have known where the quote came from. But it was not intended as a discussion, rather just a post of some links for people to go look at. Others kept asking questions so on it went. Not worth starting a new thread anyway as I was just answering a question from page 1.

But on that subject I wonder if life does take millions of years. I imagine the "spark" is over in a moment, and the experiments did need to be run from 1 to 2 years or more. Don't say anymore here though or it will confuse the explosive topic.

woelen - 1-9-2006 at 01:13

I'm not sure which is a more explosive topic.
Is it "NI3" or "origins of life" ???? I bet the latter.

But anyway, let's get back to the safe NI3

...

Nicodem - 1-9-2006 at 02:14

Come on Woelen! Don't spoil the fun. This topic is interesting. Maybe not in its implication of creating these little Frankenstein monsters as a way of creating life, but as an anecdote from the old days it is very interesting.
I suggest a moderator to cut out the part about Crosse's experiments and create a new thread safe from NI3 explosions, perhaps in Miscellaneous or Whimsy.
This way we will be able to continue the discussion about these little fellows:

IrC - 1-9-2006 at 08:17

Not a bad idea and it would be easy as this whole page is about it except for justme's post, which could be the new top of page 3. Maybe they should title it "Lost Science" or "Would the real Frankenstein please stand up"?

Or how about just plain old "Acarus electricus"?

woelen - 2-9-2006 at 08:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Nicodem
Come on Woelen! Don't spoil the fun. This topic is interesting.

Of course, I did not say this should not be discussed at all, but it is better to do it in another thread. Indeed, could one of the mods split off this thread?

franklyn - 4-9-2006 at 11:43

Transactions of the London Electrical Society __ 1838 - 1843

This is not available from the Library of Congress , photocopied requests are
available from The British Library. I cannot give you a link since each request
made is individually tracked and times out. Go here first ->
http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/?func=file&file_name=login-bl-l...

next click [color=darkblue]Search the Integrated catalog[/color]
enter [color=darkblue]London Electrical Society[/color] into the search field ,
next to [color=darkblue]Search by[/color] click this -> |[color=darkblue]V[/color]| and from the drop down list
select [color=darkblue]Word from title[/color] , below this line next to [color=darkblue]Exact Phrase ?[/color]
click Yes , and Go

Much quicker and more comprehensive is www.worldcatlibraries.org
here is the link already searched ->
www.worldcatlibraries.org/search?qt=worldcat_org&q=Londo...

The first page gives all ten relevant hits. Fourth from top " Proceedings "
Lists " Linda Hall " , click [color=darkblue]Serial Publiction[/color] to search the citation.
( See attached image 0
You must enter your location into the [color=darkblue]Enter location information[/color] search field
of the first link that you click to obtain the repositories and proximity to you.

My initial skepticism still hiolds. If this were a manuscript written 500 years
before your citation it would be entirely expected to read some alchemical
yarn about spontaneous creation. By the mid 19th century such notions had
long since been discounted. The creature detailed is obviously a dust mite as
any entomologist would tell. Given the time 1840's before Pasteur when no one
yet had any idea of microscopic organisms , one can readily understand the
misunderstanding. Not quite an extremophile , mites , because of their short
life cycle and simple anatomy are resistent even to radiation that would
sterilize all other life forms.
In a related manner minute shrimp can be hermetically sealed into a water
filled glass bulb with algae and form a complete closed biotic system.
http://blizzard.rwic.und.edu/~nordlie/biosphere

[Edited on 4-9-2006 by franklyn]

LES Linda Hall.JPG - 36kB