12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
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! 
Tim
|
|
|
chloric1
International Hazard
Posts: 1070
Registered: 8-10-2003
Location: GroupVII of the periodic table
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoichiometrically Balanced
|
|
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]
Fellow molecular manipulator
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
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
|
|
|
not_important
International Hazard
Posts: 3873
Registered: 21-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
Posts: 2893
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic
|
|
| 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!
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 
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)
|
|
|
DeAdFX
Hazard to Others
Posts: 339
Registered: 1-7-2005
Location: Brothel
Member Is Offline
Mood: @%&$ing hardcore baby
|
|
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,
|
|
|
chloric1
International Hazard
Posts: 1070
Registered: 8-10-2003
Location: GroupVII of the periodic table
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoichiometrically Balanced
|
|
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.
Fellow molecular manipulator
|
|
|
Vikascoder
Hazard to Others
Posts: 309
Registered: 28-1-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
so how to make urea chlorate if its detonation velocity is so good
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7976
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
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.
|
|
|
weiming1998
National Hazard
Posts: 616
Registered: 13-1-2012
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Amphoteric
|
|
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.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7976
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
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.
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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!),....
|
|
|
weiming1998
National Hazard
Posts: 616
Registered: 13-1-2012
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Amphoteric
|
|
| 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?
|
|
|
Poppy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 294
Registered: 3-11-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: † chemical zombie
|
|
A billion times closer to its unitary maximum power it is!
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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]
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
