hypervalent_iodine

19 hours ago, Questionasker said:

Electrostatic interaction is caused by atoms/molecules that have are attracted to opposite charges. I know that electrostatic interaction is the cause of ions interacting with each other since they can have the same or opposite charge.

They don't necessarily need to be charged, they can be partially electron deficient / electron rich. Do you know what effect the strength and extent of these interactions might have on things like boiling point? 

What do you know about intermolecular forces / electrostatic interactions? 

Is this for homework?

2 hours ago, tmx3 said:

How does comparing the ratio of oxygen to carbon in first carbon monoxide and then carbon dioxide, and then making a ratio out of those two ratios, support the idea of the particulate nature of matter versus the elemental nature of it?

I genuinely cannot understand your question. Dalton looked at the ratio of masses of products of defined reactions that were known to give rise to multiple products, and used that to deduce what was essentially chemical formulae. It formed part of the basis of atomic theory, which I assume is what you mean by particulate nature of matter? What it helped to show, building from work by Lavoisier and Proust and along with many other things such as the conservation of mass, was that matter is made up of discrete, indivisible units (i.e. atoms). He did that by showing, as you have described, that "if the same two elements can be combined to form a number of different compounds, then the ratios of the masses of the two elements in their various compounds will be represented by small whole numbers." (from here). The key part being that the ratios were always whole numbers. His work has its limitations, but I do not understand how you would interpret it as being in support of Aristotelian elements, or why that would be a useful interpretation to begin with. The two concepts are not really related. 

2 hours ago, tmx3 said:

For example... CO is gas, a type of air. That (being gaseous)  is its element (air).

What about when CO isn't a gas? What about when it is a liquid or a solid? 

We moved away from this because it is simply not a useful (nor scientific) way of thinking about or categorising matter. 

I'm not a historian, but I think you might be confused here. Dalton did not disprove Aristotle per say, since scientists of Dalton's time had already moved well past the views of the ancient Greeks. It was actually Robert Boyle in the mid 1600's who first proposed that there may be more than the 3 or 5 element system of Aristotle's time. This is from wiki:

Quote

In 1661, Robert Boyle proposed his theory of corpuscularism which favoured the analysis of matter as constituted by irreducible units of matter (atoms) and, choosing to side with neither Aristotle's view of the four elements nor Paracelsus' view of three fundamental elements, left open the question of the number of elements.^[32] The first modern list of chemical elements was given in Antoine Lavoisier's 1789 Elements of Chemistry, which contained thirty-three elements, including light and caloric.^[33] By 1818, Jöns Jakob Berzelius had determined atomic weights for forty-five of the forty-nine then-accepted elements. Dmitri Mendeleev had sixty-six elements in his periodic table of 1869.

From Boyle until the early 20th century, an element was defined as a pure substance that could not be decomposed into any simpler substance. Put another way, a chemical element cannot be transformed into other chemical elements by chemical processes. Elements during this time were generally distinguished by their atomic weights, a property measurable with fair accuracy by available analytical techniques.

The elements as per Aristotle (air, earth, wind, water, and aether) are not really comparable how we look at modern chemical elements, except in the very basic definition of an element (that is, a building block of matter). This is why I asked you if you disagree with atomic theory. 

13 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

But, the way I see it, we're just observing different kinds of matter in the sense that, when we look at gases we're observing some different type of gas but of an air element, or when we look at minerals or salts or metals we're just looking at different earth-like elements.

I am having trouble making any sense out of this. Could you explain what specifically you mean by air element or earth-like element? Because to me it sounds like you're just renaming basic states of matter (solid, gas, liquid). Do you disagree with atomic theory? 

Rubbing alcohol (isopropanol) is not the same as the alcohol in the stuff you drink (ethanol). So, no. 

I suggest we stop the bickering and petty downvoting and return to the topic.

fizzicle has been banned as a sock puppet of pittsburghjoe. 

This article goes into a lot of what CharonY and Sensei are saying, if you’re interested: 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00661-w

A literature search suggests your conditions are too harsh. How are you tracking the reaction and working it up? I found a few references for you that cover the synthesis (you might have to look in the SI). If you have access to SciFinder or Reaxys, you can look these reactions up. 

 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.9b00298

Because of the CH2 difference, as you put it. They’re different compounds, hence different names, though it is worth noting that they are common but not preferred names (as per IUPAC). Are you familiar with the syntax used in naming (eg the difference between propyl and butyl, or iso and sec)?

2 hours ago, KspThings said:

Hello !

Is it possible to produce hypochlorous acid by reacting chlorine gas with water ?

Cl2 + 2H2O --> 2HOCl + H2

If it is, is there special conditions for the reaction to occure ? And if it is not, is there another way to make hypochlorous acid ?

Thanks 

I would strongly discourage you from playing around like this if you don’t know what you’re doing. 

Staff have decided to update the forum rules to include the following:

Quote

We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.

This is in response to a number of threads and certain members who have made threads here under the premise of 'just asking a question,' only to reveal that they are in fact trying to peddle conspiratorial or otherwise nonsense ideas. While covered to some extent by pre-existing rules, we have decided to make it explicit that we will not be hosting these sorts of threads, if for no other reason than the fact that they are a waste of everyone's time. 

Bmpbmp1975 has been suspended for one month to give everyone a break from the incessant trolling. 

2 hours ago, KspThings said:

Thank you hypervalent_iodine

I'm a "beginner" in organic chemistry. Do this reaction is simple and it's just to help me with that, not just in theory (and i have a bit of dioxane to use so..) But i know that it's not the best thing to start with because dioxane is carcinogenic and the 1,4 Dioxanyl-hydroperoxyde is potentially explosive..

 

Yes, not something I would recommend for a beginner.

The CAS number is 4722-59-2, AKA 1,4-dioxan-2-yl hydroperoxide. What do you need it for?

2 minutes ago, poo thrower said:

ok; but i think you maybe misunderstanding that i have told you NO 2x already (- if you kept your telephone outside of your house in the public domain you wouldn't be able to hear it ringing... (- it would quickly become another cells property))

i will stop posting in your thread on account of our obvious "crossed wires" with the following link that i hope will be helpful ?:

 

dad has been banned for ignoring staff warnings to quit it with the thread hijacking.

On 2/5/2018 at 8:23 PM, hypervalent_iodine said:

Tony2018 has been banned as a sock puppet of YuanshenHao

TonyWang is also banned for the same reason.