Dragoncaviar

It was a car battery according to aommaster, When i open up AA batteries, I get Manganese(IV) Oxide, and this acts as a catalyst, and releases amounts of oxygen if you put it in H2O2 Burns quite nicely

YT, with regards to post 13, about your vaccume packing up and making a new one with 2 litre bottles, well, I may have understood you wrong, but could you just not do it on a much bigger scale with bigger containers than 2 litre bottles, and siphon (not sure about spelling) the water out? Might be completely wrong, but its just an idea

Why does the car battery need to be wet, I got my H2SO4 from a dry battery, and I'm not dead.

Try to find some NH4NO3, and detonate it with a blasting cap, (This isn't one of these "throw on a match to get it going" experiments from all accounts!)

I heard from one of my many chemist friends studying chemistry Masters Degree at York University (Yes England) That NH4NO3 and aluminium powder proves to be somewhat interesting if not deadly. He would not tell me much, but said two words "Rocket Fuel", is he lying or can someone fill me in. Iron Oxide can be used instead of ferric oxide in thermite right? Also can anyone tell me what a suitable detonator for ANFO's would be, and the ratio of Fuel to NH4NO3 would be. I can get hold of blasting caps, however I would need to "Borrow" these if I did, so any alternative to these would be better. Regards

I have been looking around on chemistry forums, and on crappy ones (Example: http://www.rotteneggs.com/) I think your quote about being obsessed with explosives is completely true, however I think that it is not so true for quality and (nearly always) correct forums like this.

I find some concepts in physics hard to grasp, and it almost irritates me to despare that there is nothing I can do about it. Like time travel, Is it going to happen, has it already happened, but we just don't know as we are in the past, or are we the furthest forward in future? Time is a difficult concept to grasp in my opinion. And also, this is less physical I think (not sure though) but where do we go after death, I surpose that all depends on your religion. Wouldn't it be good if we all went to where we believe in rather than just one place, so christians went to heaven, and erm, well pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what happens to people after death in other religions, as I have only been taught about Christianity, but you get the point I was trying to get at. (Don't want to spark a violent religious argument, was just mentioning it). But Chemistry to me just works, It all makes sense, everything glues together. The mind is a wonderful and strange thing. If we only use 3% of our mind power (Like some scientists believe) then we all probably have the power to grasp all subjects to an advanced level, Unless the 97% of our brain that we don't use is used for something that we don't currently do, or haven't been able to, but not memory. Sorry for rambling on. Ahh well

I don't know how you would hold an atom, It was just an example suited for the quote.

I posted an article pretty much discussing exactly the same thing, only I was an idiot and accidently posted it in the Chemistry section, where I was at the time. I'll just Copy and Paste it here (Sorry those fo you who have read it before) Colder than Absolute Zero? I just wanted to post a thread discussing the different ways of looking at why it is not possible for anything to reach temperatures below absolute zero. Look at it this way: Molecules have energy they have to do something with this energy though, so they make themselves vibrate and move to different degrees depending on how much energy they have. If they lost all of the energy, they wouldn't move - i.e. there's no energy for them to do work with to actually move. Cooling is a process of slowing the movement of molecules in a substance, but if you cool things down, the energy has to be removed somewhere. The energy can't be removed without movement though - otherwise it would just sit there, so the movement gives energy, and warms it up again. Look at it another way: You say - I'm not going to stop them moving by taking their energy away, I'm going to stop them moving physically, and make them lose their energy O.K. - so you invent something small enough to hold one atom still that one atom loses all its energy This means it is the coldest thing in existance colder than EVERYTHING else, even if only by a little. this means there's an energy imbalance - nature like equilibrium So the atom absorbs energy from the thing holding it. The holder moves a little less, having lost energy, but the atom starts again. So you say - well what if the holder could have less energy than the atom That means the holder would be the coldest thing, and that it would absorb energy from the atom. alternatively - what if we could stop the holder moving, as well as the atom, so we make a bigger holder to hold the first holder, to hold the atom, and run into the same problem. You would need a holder entirely made up of atoms that were the coldest thing on the earth, but all those atoms would need to be held by the coldest thing on earth, and all the holders held by something colder, and the holders holders held by something even cooler, etc. etc. Leaving you with nothing more than an infinite chain of infinitely impossible possibilities. Are there any other ways of looking at it? Sorry people, I only just realised I am in the Chemistry forum, and this should be in Quantum Physics. Advanced apologies!

I just wanted to post a thread discussing the different ways of looking at why it is not possible for anything to reach temperatures below absolute zero. Look at it this way: Molecules have energy they have to do something with this energy though, so they make themselves vibrate and move to different degrees depending on how much energy they have. If they lost all of the energy, they wouldn't move - i.e. there's no energy for them to do work with to actually move. Cooling is a process of slowing the movement of molecules in a substance, but if you cool things down, the energy has to be removed somewhere. The energy can't be removed without movement though - otherwise it would just sit there, so the movement gives energy, and warms it up again. Look at it another way: You say - I'm not going to stop them moving by taking their energy away, I'm going to stop them moving physically, and make them lose their energy O.K. - so you invent something small enough to hold one atom still that one atom loses all its energy This means it is the coldest thing in existance colder than EVERYTHING else, even if only by a little. this means there's an energy imbalance - nature like equilibrium So the atom absorbs energy from the thing holding it. The holder moves a little less, having lost energy, but the atom starts again. So you say - well what if the holder could have less energy than the atom That means the holder would be the coldest thing, and that it would absorb energy from the atom. alternatively - what if we could stop the holder moving, as well as the atom, so we make a bigger holder to hold the first holder, to hold the atom, and run into the same problem. You would need a holder entirely made up of atoms that were the coldest thing on the earth, but all those atoms would need to be held by the coldest thing on earth, and all the holders held by something colder, and the holders holders held by something even cooler, etc. etc. Leaving you with nothing more than an infinite chain of infinitely impossible possibilities. Are there any other ways of looking at it? Sorry people, I only just realised I am in the Chemistry forum, and this should be in Quantum Physics. Advanced apologies!

Pardon my ignorance but i think it is slightly more complicated than that, Sorry if I'm wrong, but for a start the HNO3 isn't formed in a gas state, and plus, I didn't think that NaHSO4 would reduce nitrates. This is what I thought happened: MNO3(aq) + NaHSO4(aq) ------> NaMSO4 + OH- + NO2 Now maybe the OH and NO2 react, but im not sure, they would, but if your talking about a gas, think that would be NO - which reacts with air to give NO2. By all means correct me, but if it was that easy, wouldn't we all have done it by now?

Thanks Eveyrone, could you ship a bucket load of that HCL over to England??? That would only be 20 Years inprisonment over here! bastard Government, Big Brother!!!

I have access to H2SO4, and can make it conc if needs be

I want to make it for personal use I can't use HNO3 because I don't have any and Do not know where to get it as it is virtually impossible to buy as it is one of the most common ingredience in most explosives now adays. If you know a little shop down the road where I can buy it, please tell me, and every terrorist in the world, as I'm sure they're gagging to buy it. Alternatively, tell me how to make it with NH4NO3. Again any help much appreciated

Is there any substitute for HNO3 In the manufacture of Aqua Regia? Also, what's the easiest method of manufacture for the HCL in Aqua Regia? Does anyone know how to turn NH4NO3 back to HNO3, or separate the ammonium phosphate from the nitrate? Why bother adding 54% Ammonium Phosphate, when they know that eventually we will find a way of separating the two! Any help on these matters would be appreciated,