Talk:Xenon difluoride

Etchant

Since it occurs on the surface, should not it be " First, the XeF2 adsorbs and dissociates to xenon (Xe) and fluorine (F) on the surface of silicon." instead of "absorbs"? --Szaszicska (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Metallized xenon difluoride: "a new class of energetic molecules or solid fuels"

Here is more info, and contextual analysis, on the just-published scientific paper in Nature Chemistry (doi:10.1038/nchem.724, published 04 July 2010), some claims of which have already been added to, and cited in, the Xenon difluouride article in recent days. Moreover, this info is not behind a paywall, as I found with the Nature Chemistry article. N2e (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The following is from MIT Technology Review. Here is the link.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

New "Ultra-Battery" as Energy-Dense as High Explosives: Metallized xenon difluoride heralds a new class of solid fuels

By Christopher Mims

The energy density of batteries is tremendously important as an enabler of new technologies. Meanwhile, the scramble to create ever more powerful batteries has even led some manufacturers to contemplate powering cell phones with energy-dense hydrocarbons like propane.

This is why the claims made for an extremely early-stage "ultra-battery" recently announced in the journal Nature Chemistry are so remarkable.

"If you think about it, [this] is the most condensed form of energy storage outside of nuclear energy," said inventor Choong-Shik Yoo of Washington State University. Yoo's ultra-battery consists of "xenon difluoride (XeF2), a white crystal used to etch silicon conductors," compressed to an ultra-dense state inside a diamond vice exerting a pressure of more than two million atmospheres.

...

In its ultra-dense state, the mechanical energy transmitted to the metallized XeF2 is now stored in the substance itself as a kind of chemical energy. All it takes to release it is a perturbation of a single atom in the crystal, which will cause the entire metallized substance to spontaneously "unzip," says Yoo.

The reaction would be, quite literally, explosive. In an instant the XeF2 would turn its stored energy into thermal energy with almost 100% efficiency. The XeF2 stores about 1 kilojoule of energy per gram, or "about 10% of the energy stored in a rocket fuel of liquid H2 and O2 mixtures, or about 20% of [the energy stored in] one of the most powerful explosives, HMX," says Yoo. When viewed as a potential energy storage medium, this discovery qualifies as "a new class of energetic molecules or solid fuels," he adds.

The main issue I had with these articles is that ultra-compressed XeF
₂ in a diamond anvil cell is a far cry from an actual, usable battery. Yes, it stores energy in an extremely compact form, but right now, we haven't invented a battery that can extract energy from it in a usable way. The way it sounds, compressed XeF
₂ is more like an explosive than a battery at the moment. That's why I'm not sure the article should be making claims about XeF
₂ being used in batteries. If it states that it's being contemplated to be used in batteries, then I would concede. I'm OK with stating that it's contemplated to being used as a high-energy fuel cell. Note again, though, that it hasn't actually been used in that way yet; just that the existence of its ultra-dense high-energy phase implies that it could potentially be used in such a way. See, that's the issue I have with such claims: everything can "potentially" be used for something, but has it actually been done yet? If it hasn't, then it shouldn't be made to sound as if it has. TNT also packs energy in a compact form, but I wouldn't put statements in the TNT article stating that it can be used in batteries, for instance.—Tetracube (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Even the MIT technology review article itself says that the ultimate goal of using ultra-compressed XeF
₂ as fuel is a long way off, since we haven't found a way to make it metastable. I don't think such remote speculations on future applications belongs in Wikipedia.—Tetracube (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tetracube. I'm not sure to whom you are addressing your comments; certainly not to me (who started this section on the Talk page) as I never said anything about a battery, or any particular engineering use of the technology. I merely found an interesting and informative source, from an MIT technology review publication, that spoke to more aspects of the Xenon difluouride material that goes beyond what the WP article currently covers. Specifically, I called attention (with bold emphasis in the quotation) to the materials' energy storage capabilities: "The XeF
₂ stores about 1 kilojoule of energy per gram" and it may be "the most condensed form of energy storage outside of nuclear energy", and to the existence of the MIT article at all, so that other editors could read the entire thing, and not just my selected quotation.

Overall, I think that the MIT piece is mostly a claim about a scientific property of the material that, quite likely, is worthy information for other editors to consider utilizing in the Wikipedia article. In my view, the MIT mention of batteries was merely introductory material to provide context for their readership; I don't see any strong claim about the XeF
₂ being a battery in these early scientific experiments. So I agree with you that anything worthy of mention in the WP article, at least at this point in time, might be best limited to basic material science claims not applied science or applied engineering claims. But I also think other editors may have different opinions. That is fine too. That is why I called attention to the MIT piece. But as of right now, the XeF
₂ article doesn't say near as much about the basic science of the energy storage properties of XeF
₂ as these new sources indicate might be appropriate. What do other editors think? N2e (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked up Xenon difluoride after its mention as a cutting-edge battery technology in the sci-fi film Project Almanac, and when I didn't find any support for this in the article, I first assumed the filmmakers had made that up. Decided to do a little more Googling, and turned up a bunch of articles (mostly from ~10 years ago) on Professor Yoo's fascinating research. Although I'm not an S.M.E., I agree that this info should be in the article. Tetracube's point about TNT is a good one, though, and I could live with no mention of possible future use in batteries, as long as the "most condensed form of energy storage outside of nuclear energy" stuff were included. --Dan Harkless (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Applications as a fluorinating agent

Reference 25 (J Org Chem, 1969, 34, 2446, doi=10.1021/jo01260a040) seems incorrectly cited, as in this paper fluorination of carboxylic acids is performed using F₂, not XeF₂. --Albris (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Frozen gas

I'm not a chemist, but if the melting point is 128.6 °C, doesn't that mean it's frozen at room temperature? And if it condenses at −30 °C, doesn't that mean it's a gas at room temperature? Is it a frozen gas, or a typo? Art LaPella (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect illustration under aromatic fluorination

The second illustration of aromatic fluorination is incorrect. The picture shows the reduction of nitrobenzene to a substituted fluoro-aniline...which is obviously incorrect given the conditions (xenon difluoride in methylene chloride).

Also the use of HF as a catalyst should be considered.

Ultraexactzz

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xenon difluoride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040913152402/http://www.pelchem.co.za:80/pdf/XeF2-MSDS.pdf to http://www.pelchem.co.za/pdf/XeF2-MSDS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Native xenon difluoride

Can XeF₂ traces to occur in nature, e.g. in antozonite or such a thing? Though, if it is, it could be in very-very subtle amounts (by spontaneous fission of uranium yield xenon, and it subsequently reacts with fluorine, yielded from decomposition of CaF₂). Not sure about enough stability to accumulation Ultima Thulean (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The catch is F2. There is none around. Also, CaF2 is dead chemically. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

In antozonite free F₂ occurs by radiolisis of CaF₂ in tiny amounts Ultima Thulean (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)