Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: Chlorate and Urea
12AX7
Post Harlot
*****




Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline

Mood: informative

[*] posted on 27-2-2008 at 14:19
Chlorate and Urea


Two of my "favorite" chemicals, being that I have several pounds of both and they're not very useful!

So whaddya think? Toss NaClO3 + urea into a crucible, maybe NaOH as well, heat it and see what flies out? Maybe heat with a moderator (sand?) so it doesn't fly around so much. How about in solution, ClO3- + H+ + urea --> stinky crap?

Anyone want to take bets on my survival if I do this? Thermonuclear destruction? I'm giving 50:1! :o

Tim




Seven Transistor Labs LLC http://seventransistorlabs.com/
Electronic Design, from Concept to Layout.
Need engineering assistance? Drop me a message!
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
chloric1
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1039
Registered: 8-10-2003
Location: closer to the anode
Member Is Offline

Mood: Strongly alkaline

biggrin.gif posted on 27-2-2008 at 14:30
YOU CRAZY GUY YOU


Tim, Have you heard of self propagated combustion synthesis? The research is more available from Russian sources but english versions not too hard to find. I have seen multiple synthesis starting with metal nitrates and urea as the fuel. Now your chlorate could be tamed down with some silica and you then could add your urea and mix various oxides and bake some ceramic precursors! Make barium titanate, miixed spinels, etc etc.

OOH! Idea! How about aluminum nitrate, silica, sodium chlorate, sodium nitrate, and urea to make a zeolite? Is it possible?

[Edited on 2/27/2008 by chloric1]




In the theater of life its nice to know where the exit doors are located.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
12AX7
Post Harlot
*****




Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline

Mood: informative

[*] posted on 27-2-2008 at 15:58


So the reaction heats itself, making whatever happen to the rest of the stuff in there? What's so special about urea? Seems like a crude, foamy way to make things that deserve a proper sintering. I don't see BaTiO3 of any use being made in this way anyway...

I'm wondering what kind of reactions will occur. I'm supposing the hydrogen and carbon parts of urea will react quite readily (pyrotechnically), but that leaves me wondering if the nitrogen goes to boring N2 or if a considerable portion of NOx is made, especially if the reaction is kept cool. In solution, such a strong oxidizer could make hydrazine, though that would probably be chewed up itself (hydrazine is an alkaline thing anyway, innit?). I'm supposing nitrate wouldn't form in solution.

Tim




Seven Transistor Labs LLC http://seventransistorlabs.com/
Electronic Design, from Concept to Layout.
Need engineering assistance? Drop me a message!
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
not_important
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3873
Registered: 21-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 28-2-2008 at 01:02


Quote:
Originally posted by chloric1

OOH! Idea! How about aluminum nitrate, silica, sodium chlorate, sodium nitrate, and urea to make a zeolite? Is it possible?

[Edited on 2/27/2008 by chloric1]


Zeolites have controlled pore sizes, for many those are formed by including an organic compound that acts as scaffolding for the formation of the actual zeolite with hydrothermal reactions. The organic material is later removed by calcining.

So I doubt that you'd get a zeolite from that high temperature reaction, although it might happen. I'd expect something closer to traditional ceramics or glass to be formed.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2879
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline

Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic

[*] posted on 28-2-2008 at 08:53


Quote:
Originally posted by 12AX7
Two of my "favorite" chemicals, being that I have several pounds of both and they're not very useful!

So whaddya think? Toss NaClO3 + urea into a crucible, maybe NaOH as well, heat it and see what flies out? Maybe heat with a moderator (sand?) so it doesn't fly around so much. How about in solution, ClO3- + H+ + urea --> stinky crap?

Anyone want to take bets on my survival if I do this? Thermonuclear destruction? I'm giving 50:1! :o

Tim


I think there is not too much danger with NaOH being present, maybe some NOx fumes..but with the acid it should be another story... If you want to try...urea nitrate and NaClO3 should give something very interesting, but not very safe....
NH2-CO-NH2.HNO3 + NaClO3 --> NH2-CO-NH2.HClO3 + NaNO3 + ClO2 + Cl2O + NCl3
In summary it is a base for a salt pair exchange explosive with sensitive self detonating stuffs formed in the mix...
Assuming the explosive properties of urea chlorate to be close to urea perchlorate (VOD in the range of 7km/s) but much more sensitive...this should take fire and maybe explode on standing by self heating...effect will be dependant on the amount :cool::cool::cool:




PH Z (PHILOU Zrealone)

"Physic is all what never works; Chemistry is all what stinks and explodes!"-"Life that deadly disease, sexually transmitted."(W.Allen)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DeAdFX
National Hazard
****




Posts: 339
Registered: 1-7-2005
Location: Brothel
Member Is Offline

Mood: @%&$ing hardcore baby

[*] posted on 28-2-2008 at 09:35


Well I can tell you that KClO4 + UREA = molten perchlorate/urea + a shit load of ammonia gas after being torched for a good minute. I honestly doubt you would get much out of the chlorate.

if you do go about this you might want to use a slight excess of Urea though. Your going to lose a bit of fuel in the form of NH3. Might just use melamnine and chlorate instead,
View user's profile View All Posts By User
chloric1
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1039
Registered: 8-10-2003
Location: closer to the anode
Member Is Offline

Mood: Strongly alkaline

[*] posted on 28-2-2008 at 14:18


well some of my ideas where reflections of what I read 4 years ago or complete brain storms in of themselves. The benefit from a self heating reaction with urea is the foaming will tend to produce solids of VERY fine mesh. If I manage to locate my sources I will certainly post them on this thread.



In the theater of life its nice to know where the exit doors are located.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Vikascoder
National Hazard
****




Posts: 309
Registered: 28-1-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 11-4-2012 at 05:49


so how to make urea chlorate if its detonation velocity is so good
View user's profile View All Posts By User
woelen
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 7140
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: interested

[*] posted on 11-4-2012 at 05:53


You don't make urea chlorate as described above. Urea and chlorate will react, but both are destroyed in the process, leaving a lot of crap behind and possibly injuring you if you don't know what you are doing and didn't take safety measures.



The art of wondering makes life worth living...
Want to wonder? Look at https://woelen.homescience.net
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
weiming1998
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 616
Registered: 13-1-2012
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: Amphoteric

[*] posted on 11-4-2012 at 06:18


Really? I find that urea+oxidizer(nitrate or chlorate salt) reactions are not impressive at all. They pretty much don't do anything and after about 30 seconds under an alcohol burner, emits some smoke, then does nothing. That happens to even chlorate (which pretty much oxidize anything organic with a flash), so I highly doubt that urea is combustible/act as a fuel. I suppose that the theoretical reaction would be: CO(NH2)2+ ClO3-===>CO2+N2+2H2O+Cl-, but theories aren't everything and a reaction even close to that would produce a tremendous deflagration because of the amount of gases produced and the fact that the relatively weak N-H and N-O bonds would be replaced by the extremely strong N=N triple bonds, producing a large amount of energy. Does anyone know why this didn't actually happen?

Also, to make urea chlorate, you have to combine chloric acid (made by reacting H2SO4 with excess chlorate, then diluted) with urea. Fairly easy but very dangerous, as chlorate esters is an area that lacks research+ they would indeed be very powerful explosives, more powerful than nitrate ones. Also the fact that chloric acid spontaneously make organic matter catch fire.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
woelen
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 7140
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: interested

[*] posted on 11-4-2012 at 23:43


You are talking about esters, but that is not what happens here. If urea chlorate would be formed in some reaction, then it would be a salt, not an ester! The same is true for perchlorate. I have made many organic perchlorate salts (see some of my threads in the energetic materials section), and these are completely different from perchlorate esters.

The reason why I warned in my previous post is that chlorate usually is quite energetic when mixed with organics. I never tried the urea/KClO3 mix, but I can imagine that this mix can decompose violently, even with a lot of fire and sputtering around of molten and burning material. Also keep in mind that scaling up reactions can be dangerous. The surface area over which heat can be lost to the environment goes up according to square law, but the volume (and hence mass) enclosed goes up with third power law. So, the higher the mass, the more heat will be confined in a small volume and the more risk of violent reaction.




The art of wondering makes life worth living...
Want to wonder? Look at https://woelen.homescience.net
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
AJKOER
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2866
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 12-4-2012 at 03:35


Quote: Originally posted by woelen  
The surface area over which heat can be lost to the environment goes up according to square law, but the volume (and hence mass) enclosed goes up with third power law. So, the higher the mass, the more heat will be confined in a small volume and the more risk of violent reaction.


I would like to re-iterate Woelen's comment as many people do not tragically understand (or are aware) of the third power law when it comes to energetic materials. If one doubles the weight of an explosive compound, the power of the explosion increases approximately by 8 (2 cubed!), triple by 27 (3 cubed!),....
View user's profile View All Posts By User
weiming1998
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 616
Registered: 13-1-2012
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: Amphoteric

[*] posted on 12-4-2012 at 03:51


Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER  
Quote: Originally posted by woelen  
The surface area over which heat can be lost to the environment goes up according to square law, but the volume (and hence mass) enclosed goes up with third power law. So, the higher the mass, the more heat will be confined in a small volume and the more risk of violent reaction.


I would like to re-iterate Woelen's comment as many people do not tragically understand (or are aware) of the third power law when it comes to energetic materials. If one doubles the weight of an explosive compound, the power of the explosion increases approximately by 8 (2 cubed!), triple by 27 (3 cubed!),....


That is very interesting. So if we take 1 gram of a specific explosive and its relative power is 1, 1kg of the same explosive would have a relative power of 1000^3, which is a relative power of a billion! And a ton of the same explosive would have a relative power of 1 000 000^3, or 10^18, a quadrillion! Am I understanding the concept correctly?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Poppy
National Hazard
****




Posts: 294
Registered: 3-11-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: † chemical zombie

[*] posted on 12-4-2012 at 05:31


A billion times closer to its unitary maximum power it is!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
AJKOER
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2866
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 12-4-2012 at 06:20


OK, if the question is how accurate is the rule on a large scale, here is an illustration. The 1st Atomic bomb was (per the NY Times headlines) equated to approximately 20,000 lbs of TNT (I suspect this was rounded up). Contrast this with the a payload of a B-42 which was 8,000 lbs in total (Wiki) and I have seen a picture with 8 bombs being dropped, so assume they were 1,000 lbs each.

Obviously, the first Atomic bomb was many many thousand times more powerful than a single bomb. Now, by the cube rule, the Atomic bomb should have been 20 cubed, or no more than 8,000 times more powerful than a single 1,000 pound bomb. Seems reasonable as the law is most likely an approximation, and the cited 20,000 may be on the high side.

As another comparison, think of the comparison to the 15,000-pound (6,800-kg) BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter," which some inside the US military call the MOAB the "mother of all bombs." I have seem films of this one in action. Again, a couple thousand times bigger would be my guess. The math is 15^3 or 3,375 times (in general agreement).

If you disagree, see the video yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiP7-HBHwPc


[Edited on 12-4-2012 by AJKOER]
View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top