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

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2
Author: Subject: Trimethyl Phosphate
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
*****




Posts: 2129
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Enhanced

[*] posted on 12-4-2020 at 18:29


In 1864 the formula was supposed to be Ba2C2H5PO4. Not sure how that goes.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspl.1863...




"You're going to be all right, kid...Everything's under control." Yossarian, to Snowden
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1833
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: Big

[*] posted on 13-4-2020 at 08:44


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]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1833
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: Big

[*] posted on 12-5-2020 at 19:37


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]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2

  Go To Top