Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 June 15

Science desk
< June 14	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 15

This element does not exist in our periodic table

Recently many movies have alien ship crashing to earth and the scientists always says this: After our spectrometry analysis we find out that this object element does not exist in our periodic table. My question is, is that possible? Can the alien have finally find the mythical island of stability? Or they shouldn't need that at all because they probably have the tech to make force field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.5.235 (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question. Bearing mind that creators of fiction can do whatever they want in their stories, the island of stability could be this, I suppose. Mingmingla (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Unobtainium may be an interesting read for the OP. --Jayron32 02:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the spectral data from new, super heavy elements be recognizable as such? I mean, especially if it's ICP-MS...the software wouldn't be able to identify the element, but the charge to mass ratio should just tell you straight off which element it is, even if we never knew that it existed before. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Since this is fiction, Clarke's third law bears reading and understanding in relation to this. --Jayron32 03:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Things past Element 173 are said not to exist, and I doubt the mass spec leaves room in its detector for them. :) It is entirely conceivable that if you're staring at a lump of Element 3501, you'll be seeing some physics you never guessed at. :) Wnt (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is no theoretical limit preventing elements from going past #173. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 14:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Mass spec can certainly detect things of rather large mass, MALDI can get mass spec of proteins and DNA whose mass runs in the tens of thousands of daltons or more. --Jayron32 04:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I may well be wrong here, but MALDI uses a fairly special time-of-flight mass spectrometry with a large mass range. I would assume that if you have some instrument where you vaporize a bit of metal to see what elements are in it, that you'd be using maybe a sector instrument or a quadrupole mass analyzer with (perhaps) a far more restricted range? I'll admit though, I'm out of my expertise entirely where that's concerned. Wnt (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

MALDI is going to several thousands of u. If you assume a island of stability there you should go for a ToF instrument as you suggest. For me this looks a little bit strange to assume that but if gravity takes over the stabilisation there might be a chemical element very similar to a neutron star. This is a little bit larger than what a ToF can handle.--Stone (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think we can totally rule out the possibility of making exotic atoms out of subatomic particles that go beyond the usual protons, neutrons, and electrons. We don't know any way to make anything exotic that is stable, but I don't think we can absolutely prove that it is impossible. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. The way the periodic table is set up, anything composed of protons, electrons and neutrons would be on it, even if you'd have to extend it for things with lots of protons. However, there are a number of exotic atoms which don't fit the proton+electon(+neutron) model of normal atoms, and as such "would not exist in our periodic table". All the ones we know about (and all the ones we've theorized to exist) are unstable - often rapidly so, so even if you were able to get a sizable chunk of it, it would rapidly disapper. (So unfortunately no super-strong ship hulls, etc.) - That said, when exotic atoms are used in fiction, they're always a plot device. TV Tropes calls it Applied Phlebotinum - it's just a way to pretend to explain off unrealistic or exotic effects: "Why doesn't the blaster melt in lava? It's made of unobtainium - now let's get back to shooting things." -- 71.35.105.42 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly true - "unobtainium" is a way out for lazy authors. But although we're reasonably sure that we know about all of the stable elements - and we've mapped the properties of all of their stable isotopes - we haven't explored all of the compounds that can be made from them - and even more significant, we're just scratching the surface of what can be made from nano-structures and smart materials. We can be pretty sure that there isn't a metal that would withstand our most powerful weapons in thicknesses still light enough to build a spaceship hull from. But we certainly don't know whether there isn't some kind of clever material that could heal up puncture holes or ablate to dissipate energy. It's almost certain that there are no magical new elements - but it's just as certain that a sufficiently advanced civilization could find some means to combine them in ways we've never imagined to produce magical-seeming materials. You only have to look at the strides that material science had made in the last few decades to realize that we've got a long way to go yet.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange matter and the stranglets made from it are a "possible" way to get elements that are not in the table. Dauto (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I vote for hypertungsten. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

See also here Count Iblis (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Let we speculate a bit now: What properties will the strange matter/hypernucleus/island of stability matter have? Maybe they are sufficiently dense to make its own gravity field that can mess up with projectiles? Maybe because of there is so many atoms between that they become strong? Its just an spaceship why do they need strange stuff while our normal mundane titanium is enough? If they are going FTL a force field would be better because it will make it lighter 118.136.5.235 (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange matter could be more stable than ordinary matter. Iron is then not the most stable nucleus, it is then only meta-stable with an astronomically large lifetime. But strange matter could catalize the transition of ordinary matter to strange matter. So, a piece of strange matter hirtting the Earth could destroy the Earth in a gigantic nuclear explosion where all the matter in the Earth is converted to strange matter. Count Iblis (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I never understood why strangelets during an early hot epoch of the Big Bang wouldn't have taken everything over then. Wnt (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at a science book published every 5 years back for a few decades and you'll see we are constantly adding new elements and there surely are many more combinations of neutrons protons and electrons that form elements we not only have not included on the periodic table but that might just not exist on earth. Further we always discover elements way before we add them to the PT. My2¢ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.212.70.237 (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No - that's absolutely not true.

The elements are numbered according to the number of protons they have. We know most of what it's possible to know about every single one of them from Hydrogen (1 proton) to somewhere up elements in the mid 110 range - so no new elements in that range are possible - even in principle. You're correct in saying that new elements are added every few years - but none of them with more protons than Einsteinium (element number 99 - discovered in 1952) is stable with a half life over a year - they all decay into something more mundane after a few days - so you can't build starships out of them. Not one element that has been discovered since 1952 has a half-life longer than a year...and there are no gaps in our table of the elements up to well over element 110 so no new discoveries of stable elements is now likely.

The plot over on the right here is a graph of number of neutrons versus number of protons. The color and height of each column shows how stable each combination is. The dark brown columns are "stable" elements that would exist for more than a year or two. The red ones are stable for days to weeks and all of the other colors represent things that decay within hours to milliseconds. So only the brown combinations are useful for making physical objects. Viewed as a landscape, there is that island off to the top-right of the table. This is the hypothical "island of stability" - a bunch of elements that have yet to be discovered that might be stable. If any "unobtainium" starship hulls are to be found, they'd have to be made up of elements in that part of the table. Sadly, even the peak of that island is a red column...and that means that those very heavy elements are unlikely to be stable for more than hours to days. Only a very few "fringe" scientists believe that the peak on that island will be tall enough for elements found in that region to be stable for more than a few days...and nobody who knows what they're talking about believes that there will be other islands of stability in the further realms of that chart.

Altering the number of neutrons does generate new isotopes - and some of those are moderately stable - but because the majority of the chemistry of atoms comes from the number of electrons (which equals the number of protons), these isotopes are unlikely to have much in the way of interesting properties - and, again, they are likely to be much less stable than the form of the element that we already know.

Summary: Our current knowledge strongly suggests that the 99 elements up to Einsteinium (along with a handful of isotopes of each of them) are the only ones that will ever be sufficiently stable to be useful - and we know of every single one of them in wonderful detail. There are no "new elements" or "new isotopes" that could possibly be used to make a starship hull.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is that nobody has ever managed to make isotopes with lots and lots of neutrons - nothing to make them out of - so when you look at the tables, the cutoff of what is known is at the most stable point known. See Isotopes of livermorium, Isotopes of flerovium, etc. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that would be just totally ignoring my suggestion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That is like LHC doomsday scenario so creepy because a single strange matter could destroy entire Earth... so if we have those how do we contain it? 118.136.5.235 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You can't, strange matter is electrically neutral. Only gravity can keep it at bay, and last time I checked, we can't artificially cause gravity. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Structural steel bolts

What type of bot provides the most clearance? machine, high strength, rib, spline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.160.118 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. And if I may add a personal comment, this is the type of "learn the answer by rote without understanding the subject" question that Feynman so robustly decries in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!. Our articles Screw and Bolted joint may be useful. Tevildo (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Cicadas in NJ?

Can anyone recommend a good location, centered on Camden and Gloucester Counties, NJ, for me to look for cicadas this weekend? I missed them in 1996, and only found one molting in 1979. Thanks! μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No personal experience, but these maps [1], [2] are fairly reliable, from what I can tell. If you are interested, many people also enjoy eating them: [3]. SemanticMantis (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The maps are cool, but the dots range up to covering areas of hundreds of square miles. I would really need a source that says "spotted in Cooper River Park" or something like that to be helpful. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This map depends on reports from the public, so it's not likely to be complete; but the closest locations to your area of interest that it currently shows are Franklinville and Pittsgrove. (Note that it shows only the 500 most recent reports, so there may have been earlier reports from the area.) Deor (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverse osmosis

My understanding of the process of reverse osmosis is that it is essentially molecular level filtering, where the solution is pumped through a membrane that allows the solvent molecules through, while excluding dissolved ions and molecules that are too large to pass through. If I understand the process correctly, then it seems that fluoride, with its small radius, should pass through a membrane more easily than water, so RO should be ineffective for its removal. The Wikipedia article on RO seems to say that only molecules are able to pass the membrane, and ions are always rejected irrespective of size, but it doesn't say that clearly, or explain why that would be the case. A Google search shows many commercial sources that say RO units are effective for home removal of fluoride from drinking water [4], [5], [6]. I also found this opinion that isn't obviously commercial and claims to be from a PhD [7]. But there are some sources that agree with my reasoning that it is ineffective [8]. So if RO is effective, what the flaw in my reasoning? 202.155.85.18 (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Your most obvious mistake is the assumption that the fluoride ion can somehow pass through the membrane while leaving its positively charged counterion behind -- an impossible situation in the absence of a strong electric field such as is used in electrolysis. So even if the RO membrane doesn't block the fluoride ion itself (and I don't see why it shouldn't), it could easily block the fluoride ion indirectly by blocking the counterions (sodium, potassium, etc.) Also, even though the fluoride ion is small, its high electronegativity means that it's much more likely to form ion pairs (which would be too big to pass through the membrane), and also to stick to the membrane itself. These are just 2 reasons why RO can remove fluoride from the water -- I'm sure there are others, but these are the first two I can think of. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

According to ionic radius, the ionic radius of Na⁺ is only 116pm compared to 119pm for F^-. Oxygen as a neutral atom is 73pm and water's bond length is 95pm according to water (data page), so if you negate the contribution of the hydrogen, the width is minimum width of a water molecule is 130pm at its equilibrium bond length and angle (this is using the trig to work out the minimum distance between one hydrgogen and the axis formed by a line running from the oxygen to the other hydrogen, and adding that value to half the neutral oxygen atom's radius). Even if the NaF is present as an ionic pair, the two can orient themselves along the axis of the membranes hole's and pass through with the minimum width of the largest ion. So, again, as I see it, NaF can pass through a membrane hole with a minimum width of 119pm whereas water requires a minimum width of 130pm. This same analysis results in the conclusion that Cl-, Br-, K+ and I- are all removed from the solution by RO, which I know from experience to be the case. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Oooops...I was conflating radius and diameter. The water's minimum width is 166pm whereas F- is 238pm. 182.6.227.104 (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A different perspective on 24.23.196.85's view above. While I don't believe strongly dissociating ionic solutions can be characterized as forming ion pairs (in that the counterion is anywhere nearby), each ion has a strongly polarized cloud of solute molecules around it that in a sense displaces the charge of the ion towards the outside of the cloud. If a flouride ion were to fit into a the channels of a membrane, and the membrane material were not as readily polarized as the solute (and water is exceptional amongst most materials in this regard), stripping most of this cloud to allow it through would be energetically unfavourable. Ions with their polarized clouds of water molecules, therefore, will behave like much larger "balls" that will not fit into the small channels of the membrane – it should have the effect of an effective repulsive force that keeps the ion itself at a distance from the membrane surface. — Quondum 17:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Very true for all ions in aqueous solutions; but in addition, in the case of the fluoride ion specifically (and unlike most other ions), ion-pair formation is also significant. (BTW, can you please explain what is a "flouride" ion -- is it an ionized form of flour?) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Point taken about my misspelling – I'll watch for that particular case in future. My explanation is not applicable to ion pairs, though a dipole variant of the argument may apply to extremely polar molecules (though I would not expect a species such as biflouride to be polar). — Quondum 12:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Celibacy vs. female sexual desire

If female sex hormones are estrogen and progesterone which are produced by the ovaries, could a celibate adult female have her ovaries removed to end her natural occasional desire for sex? What noticeable changes would this have on her mind and body? And I read today that women have a small amount of testosterone as well - can a woman have that removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.51.113 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, removing a woman's ovaries would end her desire for sex -- but it will also have some VERY noticeable changes on her mind and body (like the effects of menopause, but MUCH more severe -- see Oophorectomy#Risks and adverse effects). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any backup for the contention that it ends a woman's desire for sex, but rather that there is an increased risk that it will. (See the abstract of the article referenced in the linked section above.) And it is not so much the loss of estrogen and progesterone -unless I am misreading the report- as it is the reduction in testosterone. Bielle (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Libido isn't just moderated by the obvious female hormones. There is some evidence that hypothyroidism also affects libido. I really wouldn't recommend thyroid removal as a means of managing the female sex drive! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you doubt it? We have an article (or at least a section of an article) about that. Oophorectomy#Adverse effect on sexuality. Thincat (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"as a means of managing the female sex drive"? While we can comment on the possible effects of oophorectomy, we most certainly cannot comment on it as a means of managing anything, and it does not appear that we have any material on that subject. The OP's original question does carry with it an implication of inquiring about it as a means rather than its effects, which pretty much puts it out of line of permissibility for this page as being a request for medical advice. BTW, the bald statement that "removing a woman's ovaries would end her desire for sex" is not even correct, even though there is apparently a correlation. — Quondum 18:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

History tells us that celibate orders came up with far more restrained methods of managing sex drive, such as the use of lettuce opium,^[9] common rue and various other reputed anaphrodisiacs. The level of evidence for such things varies, but surgical methods would need to prove not merely some possibility of effectiveness, but superiority to herbal approaches. (There is also a question here that science can't answer, namely whether religious orders would view such methods as "cheating" rather than fighting an inner jihad against what they perceive to be sinful temptations) Wnt (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Melting point of calcium acetate

Not just a reference desk question but an article issue. At the help desk, here, a user asked for help fixing the display of {{chembox}} in calcium acetate, which was displaying an error upon his change from listing the melting point in it from 160 °C to 400 °C. I fixed the template error, but then seeing such a radical difference in the information, went to check myself, and the sources seemed to verify the earlier number. I thus changed it back to 160 °C and added a source I found. I don't have access to the paper the user had cited when he made his change. He has followed-up. I am posting below the conversation to this point, and hope that someone here with a chemistry background can speak authoritatively on this issue, where I certainly cannot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

---

(Originally posted at help desk)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. Thanks for solving the formatting problem. I would be grateful if you could confirm that you read the paper I cited before your latest edit. The TGA curve and Results and Discussion section showed 400°C, and the XRD data supported this. I also have several other published papers that give this figure. Please could you provide a TGA curve, or some other actual data (ie not just a number), that proves that calcium acetate melts at 160°C - I have not been able to find this data on the net. I was curious, so actually heated calcium acetate in the lab, but all that happened at 160°C was that it lost the water of hydration and became calcium acetate anhydrous. TIA Taikobeat (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Taikobeat - I'm sure you know far more than I do about chemistry. I only know that the article previously said 160, and after fixing the chembox display, I went to look at what sources say because 400 °C and 160 °C are so radically different—it's not like you were correcting a rounding error to something more precise. So upon looking I found that everything seemed to confirm the original number. I accordingly added what appears to me to be a very reliable source ([10]) upon reverting back to 160.

Now I note that this and other sources qualify "melting" to decomposition to acetone and CaCO₃ I don't precisely understand that distinction. Are they using "melting" loosely; that we are not talking about a change from the solid to liquid state but that "melting" is used as a term of art in chemistry to denote the decomposition point into another substances, even if there is no state shift? I don't know. I certainly can't argue from a knowledge standpoint with you on this topic and have no stake but to keep the encyclopedia proper. But on Wikipedia we follow the sources. Since you cite a source (which I don't have access to), I think it's best at this point to turn to people who actually know this stuff. Let me go post to the science section of the reference desk, laying out the issue, so that people with a background can hopefully comment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

---

I see values in the mid-100s from various refs based on MSDS, NIOSH, etc. and much higher values from some journal articles. The journal articles suggest several origins of confusion in figuring out the "right" value. First, various hydrate salts loses water at mid-100s, which is technically decomposition of the chemical...if the chemical is the hydrate rather than the anhydrous form. It's the anhydrous form that decomposes to form the carbonate via loss acetone. But there appear to be two different crystalline forms: one seems to be described as one O from each acetate binding to the Ca2+ ion, whereas the other specifically has two acetates each binding by both oxygens (chelation). I have no idea which (or both) of these would decompose how and at what T. DMacks (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this] is the article used to reference 400 °C. So far as I can see it is publicly available. Thincat (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thincat, Yes, Bilton (2012) is the open access article I linked to as a reference. Perhaps the best solution is to expand the information included to make the entry easier to understand. The information currently displayed is incorrect as decomposition to CaCO₃ + acetone occurs at 400°C. Taikobeat (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to express an opinion on the temperature. However yesterday, when looking into the matter, I found a fascinating discussion about completely different chemicals but along similar lines. see Talk:Cyclohexanone#Cyclohexanone melting point. Thincat (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Advantage of smoking when it comes down to getting the substance

I don't see any advantage in burning and inhaling the resulting smoke, I wonder why people don't administer the drug through a more efficient way. Specially if you are taking a scarce drug, you don't want to partially waste it. Is there any regulated drug that was ever smoked? I know that some are inhaled, but that's a different scenario, more efficient. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Smoking gives direct access of the drug to the bloodstream, similar to injection, which is even more unpleasant to most people, and snorting. The point in smoking is not to burn the active ingredient, but to volatilize it. That's the benefit of such things as e-cigarettes. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the benefit of e-cigarettes, pipes, bongs or whatever you got. But why would any one smoke a plain cigarette, given that it's either a highly taxed legal substance or a expensive due scarcity illegal substance? Lots of the substance gets lost through this inefficient way. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Smoking was never about efficiency. There was probably originally an element of "proving your bravery" by having something on fire in your mouth. Later on it became a "mark of sophistication" since only the wealthy could afford tobacco. Then it became "a sign of rebellion", especially after it was found to be unhealthy. So, various social aspects explain smoking, more than delivering nicotine efficiently. Indeed, trying to get people to quit smoking by giving them nicotine patches or gum isn't all that successful, precisely because the social aspects are lacking with such a delivery system: "What do you say we go out on the balcony and chew some nicotine gum together ?". :-) StuRat (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, smoking not only volatilizes the drug, but in some cases also partly ionizes it, thus increasing its solubility and making it easier for it to diffuse into the bloodstream. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Smoking is rarely used with prescribed drugs because it is very difficult to precisely control the dose. For nicotine that doesn't matter so much, and consuming nicotine by mouth is not a good option, because in the stomach it causes nausea and vomiting. In fact if you consume poison and need to make yourself vomit quickly, eating a cigarette is one of the standard suggestions for how to make it happen. Looie496 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  Well, not only that but there are huge numbers of nasty side-effects from all of the other ingredients present in the smoke. But there are other "drugs" that are volatilized and inhaled - I well recall as a child having to lean over a bowl of hot water with a towel over my head to allow me to inhale some kind of menthol-based decongestant (although I suspect that the high humidity levels that resulted did most of the work!). Transdermal_patch#Vapour_Patch describes a device that releases vapors to treat various conditions. SteveBaker (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether combustion or vaporization (or both) occurs, the lung alveoli are a huge absorption surface, and they provide a rapid delivery to the rest of the body, and in the case of psychoactive drugs, the brain. It also avoids first pass metabolism that occurs in ingested drugs. IV injection is similar, although different. Shadowjams (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Explosives from creosote

Is it feasible to make homemade high explosives from creosote, or are the necessary separations/purifications simply not worth the effort? Has anyone actually made high explosives from creosote (I'm asking about the French Resistance, in particular)? DISCLAIMER: I'm NOT trying to blow anything up, so please don't give me any recipes, I don't CARE about the recipes -- all I want to know is, is it feasible in practice, and has it been done in real life, either in the French Resistance or elsewhere? (For the record, I'm asking because I've read in Nancy Wake's biography that she was trained to make explosives from "everyday ingredients", and it seems to me that creosote would be particularly suitable for this purpose -- and also, because I'm writing a military thriller about the French Resistance where one of the good guys works as a chimney sweep, and another as a pharmacist, which suggests how they can collaborate on making explosives.) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

One comment: Creosote stinks. That makes it less than ideal for secret use, as a French resistance member trying to bicycle past some Nazi guards with a basket full of the stuff would give the show away. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I know it does (I've worked with the stuff personally) -- but, if the person bicycling past the guards with the stuff has a legitimate reason for having it with him, wouldn't that make the odor a moot point? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

And, just so we're clear, I wasn't envisioning the Maquis demolitionists nitrating raw creosote (which would in any case be very dangerous due to the risk of runaway side reactions, etc.), but rather, separating it into its individual components by distillation, liquid-liquid extraction, etc., to make picric acid, TNT and other suchlike compounds. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that high explosives generally have lots of loosely bound nitrate groups. Looking at our article for the composition of a typical creosote, I can't see even a single nitrogen atom in there. So it doesn't seem likely to me. It would probably be relatively easy to get stuff that would burn like gasoline, but I doubt you'll be able to get something that makes a bang. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Creosote consists of about 20% cresols. These can be converted to toluene, which can be used to produce TNT, a high explosive. The other chemicals used in the process are easily acquired. As for "homemade", not exactly. Making significant quantities of high explosives requires considerable expertise and a good facility. However, the resistance movement had access to these and it is entirely feasible that they covertly produced high explosives from creosote. Whether they actually did so is another matter.

More likely is using creosote in improvised low explosives and incendiary devices. Creosote lends itself well to such purposes, as do most flammable fluids. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, as I suspected, creosote has been used to make high explosives, including before the war: [[11]]. It's a cheap and easily available source of raw material. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but think of Mr Creosote now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why do you want to know this 24.23.196.85 ? One can even make explosives form oxidants in denture cleaners mixed with any suitable fuel. Why, oh why, do you think your life will be enriched by this information? And to have the answer posted 'here' so that others can see and maybe miss use the chemical technology? I am aware that I can be accused of being paternalistic here, but if you don't already know then you need not to know. --Aspro (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Aspro, read the OP's post more carefully. The answer to your question is there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, our OP has a long and interesting history of asking the weirdest questions in the process of writing this book. It's quite clear that no ulterior motive is present here. This is a shining example of why the Reference desk does not have a rule about not giving out information about dangerous activities such as making high explosives. SteveBaker (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point! OK, so 24.23.196.85 is researching for a book. Have you ever noticed the artist licence taken by Hollywood films? You could go through the footage of similar scenarios frame by frame and try to duplicate it and it wont work. There is also creatures commonly referred to as teenagers. Now you may have come into this world for all I know, equipped with false dentures, hearing aid, wrinkly skin and knowing all the irregular Latin verbs already. Some teenagers don't have your advantage. You say: Reference desk does not have a rule about not giving out information. I also agree with that but would you agree that with that freedom comes responsibility. One of my flatmates told me how as a school kid he badly got the back of his hand burnt trying to make gunpowder. He was woefully ill informed about the correct process. Now lets get back to 24.23.196.85 question. Yes, creosote would be a suitable fuel and in occupied France probable more obtainable than paraffin (kerosine). Yet, creosote is far from a pure hydrocarbon. It is a complex mixture. Why does that matter you might well ask. Well, mixing fuel with an oxidiser can be a risky process. Pure paraffin mixed with say con nitric will just sit there … unless you introduces a suitable catalyst. Then it reacts. It may not exploded but the reaction is so quick that one hasn’t the time to take one or two steps back until its finished. The heat pulse is such, that one cloths can just spontaneously ignite in an instant. Now, I have never attempted to make an explosive with creosote and I'm pretty sure that posters here haven't but I do know that it is a dirty chemical. It may well react whilst mixing in the oxidant (ie it contains it own catalysts). So back to the OP question and to help him with his book. “Is it feasible to make homemade high explosives from creosote”. My gut reaction is that creosote mixed with any oxidant won't make a good high explosive, it will be too unstable and the Nazi's will laugh themselves silly that all the French Resistance can do is blow themselves up. However, a low explosive mix of creosote with a booster (to achieve true detonation throughout the charge) could well have all the neighbours with in earshot asking c'est quoi ce bordel que c'était? So finally, to 24.23.196.85. Use your artistic licence to the full, be vague in the details (after all its fiction and only a small percentage will relize that like all Holywood films it too cantains a lot of nonsence ) and good luck with your book.--Aspro (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

AND Don't forget to add in the intro that Wikipedia aided (hindered ?) you in your research.--Aspro (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Whilst uploading this reply, someone was looking over my shoulder and asked (as teenagers do) what is a “# ¿ @%** booster”? So for completeness -please also see:Explosive booster. --Aspro (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Creosote is not easily available anywhere in the European Union, due to its carcinogenic properties. Sale to the public was banned on 30 April 2003 and use was prohibited from 30 June 2003. It can only be used commercially with a special licence. [12] Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about WWII. Read the original post. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, something smells fishy there. "Creosote and coal tar creosote are complex mixtures of coal tar derivatives..." But the article says there is also a wood tar creosote. Did somebody manage to get wood tar banned as coal tar for financial advantage? (From [13] it kind of sounds like it ... wonder who has the patent?) Wnt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Creosote itself is sticky enough to be an acceptable substitute for napalm, it would probably make a fairly good molotov cocktail filler if petrol or diesel was hard to obtain or too valuable as a vehicle fuel - a likely sitution in the "Resistance v. le Boche" scenario. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

By the time that the French resistance were able to truly take offensive action, there was so little of anything available, that any inflammable liquid served the purpose. Used engine oil (sump oil) (remember Nazi aircraft had around ten gallon sumps and the ground crew were not against earning a little on the side by selling the wast oil off), this stuff only needs a little petroleum sprite and alcohol added to make it into a incendiary grenade. It would be interesting to get the input from an member of the French Resistance as to what measure he-himself had to go in-order to to singe the Nazi's hair. All my antidotes are second hand.--Aspro (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Creosote to explosive the safe way: Wood tar creosote -> liquid-liquid extraction or fractional distillation -> get cresol -> distill cresol with zinc dust to get toulene -> I have no idea what to do with it, search it yourself but toulene can be used to make bioplastics or TNT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.5.235 (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The obvious next question is whether that chemical pathway would have been known to a civilian chemist in France during WWII...also whether you could have performed those steps with easily available equipment and in a manner that would not attract a lot of attention (eg, Does it produce nasty smells? Is the equipment sufficiently compact that you could run it out of someone's basement?). SteveBaker (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason why this discussion has been foundering is that the OP is actually asking a Humanities question (did anyone ever USE creosote as an explosive) but the people here are more oriented to explain how, which the OP isn't even looking for. I'd suggest re-asking over there. Wnt (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(un-indent) Thanks for the replies! And no, the discussion has NOT been "foundering" the way I see it -- in fact, I see a lot of useful info here. So, let me answer you one by one:

-DV and Dodger: Yes, creosote can in fact be used as a thickener for Molotov cocktails (along with some other chemicals to make it self-ignite on impact) -- in fact, that sounds like a good use for the heavier hydrocarbons left over as still residue after the cresols and toluene have been distilled off! I'll have Francois (the pharmacist) make use of this in the "Sub Pens at St. Nazaire" chapter (which I will start writing shortly).

-SteveBaker: Thanks for helping me make my intentions clear! As I've already said in a previous discussion (that one was about the effects of EMP), I would NEVER seriously consider blowing up my own countrymen for ANY reason (true, I might want to blow up some others, but I wouldn't need to make my own explosives for that, given that those nations are at war with my country). (And in any case, if I was up to anything, I wouldn't be asking this on Wikipedia from my own personal computer -- I'd just get ahold of a copy of the "Terrorist's Handbook" (or is it the "Anarchist's Cookbook"?) ) So yes, in a word, this IS for book research ONLY (as evidenced by the "No Recipes" disclaimer in my original comment) -- and if Homeland Security wants to make sure, they're welcome to look, I got nothing to hide and will even let them see my manuscript if they ask for it.

-Aspro: Thanks for the technical info in your comment, but I find it VERY hypocritical of you to screech about teenagers "miss using (sic) the chemical technology" when in fact the relevant Wikipedia articles THEMSELVES have some quite detailed info about how to make guncotton, nitroglycerine, TNT, Molotov cocktails, thermite mixture and a whole bunch of other high explosives (believe me, I checked -- see for yourself if you want to know!) So if someone wants to misuse this knowledge, it's ALREADY out here on Wikipedia, REGARDLESS of my question! Also, regarding the nitration process itself: You said that "Pure paraffin mixed with say con nitric will just sit there … unless you introduces a suitable catalyst. Then it reacts." Well, I already know that you DON'T premix the organic material with the nitric acid and then introduce the catalyst (not unless you're competing for a Darwin Award, anyway) -- you FIRST mix the acid with the liquid catalyst (I know what the catalyst is, but I won't say here -- but anyone who's taken college-level o-chem would know this without me telling them, or otherwise they can just look it up in the relevant Wikipedia articles), and THEN add the organic material, SLOWLY, with CAREFUL STIRRING, and in some cases in an ice bath for cooling. And also, I'm well aware that "[creosote] may well react whilst mixing in the oxidant (ie it contains it own catalysts)" -- that's exactly what I meant when I said that nitrating raw creosote would be "very dangerous due to the risk of runaway side reactions", and this is precisely the reason why I specifically said that they WON'T be nitrating raw creosote, but instead will separate it into its individual components and nitrate THOSE. (And one final comment: Yes, I know exactly what is an explosive booster, as well as what is a "f*&%ing booster" ;-) .)

-118 IP: Yes, I'm aware of the pathway you mentioned for making "toulene" (sic) from creosote (as well as how to convert the "toulene" to TNT by aromatic nitration, which I won't describe in detail either here or in my novel, for obvious reasons). And for the record, this reaction was well known since the late 19th century, so it's very plausible that a French chemist in the 1940s would be aware of it.

-And finally, regarding SteveBaker's last comment: As I just said, this reaction was well known in the 1940s; as for the necessary equipment, it depends on the quantity to be manufactured, but for small quantities (up to a few pounds per batch), ordinary lab glassware would suffice (or even improvised equipment, provided that it's made of suitably acid/base-resistant material). And as far as attracting attention: The equipment CAN be made compact enough to fit in a basement (for small quantities of explosives, anyway), but the process WILL produce nasty smells -- so in order to conceal this activity, ALL who live in the house upstairs will have to be sworn to secrecy.

24.23.196.85 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Its toluene herp derp and anyway it is theoretically possible to hide the smell at that time, which is to make an improvised fume hood out of the fireplace chimney and for optional extra protection if they really want to dedicate the chimney to making that stuff put some charcoal inside it to absorb the smell and put a fan on top of it. Well no one in the house will recognize that that is creosote smell because it is coming from the usual place it come from and the authorities wouldn't suspect a secret lab because they probably will think ohh that is a normal fireplace chimney, alright nothing wrong here 118.136.5.235 (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea! Yes, this would be a feasible option; however, in my case, I'll have the homeowners be willing to put up with the occasional smells from the basement, and to keep the explosives-making activities of the Maquis team a secret. After all, they want to help drive the Nazis out of France, and this small sacrifice would be well worth it, wouldn't it? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, when I suggested that improvised hood I was thinking more of small but dangerous amounts of chlorine gas. Distilling flammable liquids and using a wood-burning stove for draw might be pushing your luck too far. :) But then again... for Maquis safety was definitely a rare luxury, and it certainly adds a little dramatic question when you're never quite sure if it will reach an explosive mixture. Wnt (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It would strain credulity that anyone who had the requisite expertise to synthesize high explosives would be stupid enough to do it in an occupied residential building. The risk of mishap is pretty high, and they wouldn't want to put innocent lives at risk. Even if it doesn't blow up, your still talking about some pretty nasty chemicals, including phenol and toluene, that you definitely don't want to expose anyone to. Getting rid of the waste products is going to be a major problem, too. These aren't things you can just dump down the sink.

Making high explosives isn't kitchen chemistry like making Molotov cocktails. The French resistance would most probably convert a remote and isolated barn or abandoned industrial building into a properly equipped facility. The French resistance would have had contacts who could supply the equipment and chemicals. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll reconsider the basement -- maybe they could convert a horse stable into their explosives lab, or something (which would also keep the smell from becoming an annoyance to the homeowners). But then, there's another difficulty -- how can they rig up a vacuum pump for creosote distillation and for "getting the red out" (an essential precaution to keep them from blowing themselves up during the nitrating process) if they don't have running water? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with phenol and toluene doesn't seem like that big a deal. Yeah, sure, if you get phenol on your hand and you don't wash it off you get a big nasty (but oddly painless, for some people, it seems) blister. Toluene is technically not that good for you but back then I don't think people knew nor cared. I mean, those were the days when the maids scrubbed the floors with carbon tetrachloride! You don't want your Maquis to seem like shrinking violets. As for disposal, it's called a pit. Preferably an outhouse. The Nazis are welcome to search through it all they want. :) Yeah, I know, I know, it's not really so funny because they had the local citizens for that... Wnt (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

They'll have running water. It's a trivial thing to set up a proper water and power supply when converting the barn. Just so that you understand, the resulting facility is going to be pretty sophisticated and rather high tech. It's definitely not going to be a slapdash effort, like the tunnels in Hogan's Heroes, nor you local meth lab, nor even your college chem lab. Even a facilty for "small scale" production is going to be much larger scale than you imagine for it to be worth the undertaking and investment. The smallest feasible operation would be still be a very professional industrial setup, requiring at least a few professional industrial chemists, and a few professional engineers, as well. It would be a VERY BIG project for the Resistance, requiring the coordination of dozens of members and contacts.

It's far beyond the capabilities of a handful of non-specialists, like your two blokes, one of whom is a "pharmacist". If that's all you have to work with, forget about high explosives altogether and stick with improvised incendiary devices like molotov coctails. If your two blokes really needed high explosives on small amounts, it would be far, far easier simply to steal them from the Germans than to attempt to manufacture them themselves. And a lot less risky. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For someone that says you cannot pour this chemical down the sink, who cares? This is a warfare situation and no one thinks about enviromental stuff now. For the vacuum distillation part, the vacuum pump could be a steam ejector outputting into a radiator that outputs to a open ended pipe under water. For the still part, it could be like your normal moonshine still with all the leak sealed to seperate the cresol from creosote, and run the cresol vapor into a zinc bed to convert it directly into toluene and condense it.

But there is still a question: How do you get enough wood tar creosote? It is more feasible to make a fertilizer explosive in my mind 118.136.5.235 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Explosives for demolitions (civil or military) come on two forms: those for steel and those for masonry. Destroying masonry requires large quantities of cheap explosives, set carefully into place beforehand by digging holes and tamping them into place with soil or rubble on top. A vast bulk effect "shoves" the masonry out of the way. It's a lot of work, for a lot of people, for a lot of time. There's a lot of materiel to bring, and a lot of work to do on-site. Even for an occupying army, this is hard work. Many bridges were built with demolition chambers pre-formed during construction to simplify this work. On the other hand, cheap low-velocity explosives like TNT (cheapish) or ammonium nitrate can be used.

Destroying steelwork is rather easier (assuming good supplies, but a well-guarded target), whether this is high value equipment (factories, electricity distribution, railways, trucks) or just the girders of a steel bridge. A high-speed shock wave is used to cut the steel. This is generated by explosives with a high Vdet, such as plastic explosives. Inertia at these high velocities is such that tamping is less essential (although charge placement is even more so) and a small package of explosives can be placed, tied or held magnetically in place and left uncovered. The explosives used are complex, expensive, but are required in smaller quantities.

In the French Resistance context, the obvious implications of all this are that they went after the high-value steel targets, using small quantities of high-quality plastic explosives, supplied by the Allies. These could be put in place by small teams, working quickly and quietly. Masonry targets were either ignored, or marked as targets for air bombing. The French Resistance was well-supplied by RAF air drops, including explosives, and shortage of demolition explosives (AFAIK) just wasn't a problem. They had neither the need, nor the capacity to start making their own. The SOE training for "home made" is almost entirely about incendiaries, not blast. It's also notable that the ordnance consumed by infiltrating demolition teams (whether the Resistance or Popski's Private Army) much favoured plastic explosives over the TNT that was the stock in trade of mainstream Engineers performing battlefield demolitions. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)