| Pages:
1
2 |
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
In 1864 the formula was supposed to be Ba2C2H5PO4. Not sure how that goes.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspl.1863...
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2692
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
S.C.Wack: it seems like they replace "Ba2" with "Ag2" on the next page. Therefore I would consider that the "Ba2" means something like "barium donates
two moles of electrons" in a modern reading. Otherwise the formula is very weird.
[Edited on 04-20-1969 by clearly_not_atara]
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2692
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
I had another idea. Consider tetramethylammonium phosphate:
(Me4N)3PO4. The expected products of pyrolysis I would guess are
(Me4N)3PO4 >> Me3PO4 + 3 Me3N
Although it would be possible to instead see
Me3PO4 >> H3PO4 + 3 EtNMe2
by rearrangement of the ylide. Which rxn is preferred I'm not sure; energy barriers to both should be very high.
The metaphosphate might also be interesting if it can be made:
Me4NH2PO4 >> (Me4N)6P6O18 + 2H2O
[Edited on 04-20-1969 by clearly_not_atara]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
