Chemical Weapons Of The Future

[Guest MacPhee]

We know that existing elements can provide good chemical weapons. Like Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun and so on. Could even better weapons be obtained, by extended the menu of available elements? I was recently reading H C Asterley's SF novel "Escape To Berkshire".

 

This excellent book deals with a future world war. In it, new elements are employed as method of population-destruction. One such method is the "Cough Drop". This isn't a therapeutic lozenge, but a high-altitude drop of new elements.

 

They are, to quote from the book:

 

"The invisible, radioactive microdusts from the so-called trans-CD elements: those terrible, toxic, man-made horrors beyond element 150, neronium, rhadamanthium, satanium and the like - the cough-drops. Their dust was floated down, sometimes from vast heights. Unsuspecting victims below breathed in a critical amount, then there was a reaction: a short-lived glow of heat. The lungs in which it happened were seared as with a blow-lamp flame".

 

This sounds very attractive, from a military viewpoint. But is it actually possible - what I mean is, can we predict what the properties of elements "beyond element 150" would be?

 

[edited to cut out Chemistry]

Edited July 9, 2012 by MacPhee

[ragnarok438]

Well, it would not be very surprising if we used elements beyond those we know already if we can learn to control them. Scientists have confirmed that although they do not know what the new elements are capable of, they will most like be highly unstable and possibly radioactive both good for warfare.

[Moontanman]

We know that existing elements can provide good chemical weapons. Like Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun and so on. Could even better weapons be obtained, by extended the menu of available elements? I was recently reading H C Asterley's SF novel "Escape To Berkshire".

 

This excellent book deals with a future world war. In it, new elements are employed as method of population-destruction. One such method is the "Cough Drop". This isn't a therapeutic lozenge, but a high-altitude drop of new elements.

 

They are, to quote from the book:

 

"The invisible, radioactive microdusts from the so-called trans-CD elements: those terrible, toxic, man-made horrors beyond element 150, neronium, rhadamanthium, satanium and the like - the cough-drops. Their dust was floated down, sometimes from vast heights. Unsuspecting victims below breathed in a critical amount, then there was a reaction: a short-lived glow of heat. The lungs in which it happened were seared as with a blow-lamp flame".

 

This sounds very attractive, from a military viewpoint. But is it actually possible - what I mean is, can we predict what the properties of elements "beyond element 150" would be?

 

[edited to cut out Chemistry]

 

 

The main thing we can say about them is that they would have half lives of nano seconds and couldn't possibly be used as anything... if they can exist at all...

[hypervalent_iodine]

What Moontanman said. There is a reason why we haven't discovered them (yet). Higher elements become so unstable that they are barely able to be made or detected. It makes them fairly useless for any sort of large scale application such as what you might see in the military. And by large I mean anything requiring more than a few atoms of material.

[Guest MacPhee]

What Moontanman said. There is a reason why we haven't discovered them (yet). Higher elements become so unstable that they are barely able to be made or detected. It makes them fairly useless for any sort of large scale application such as what you might see in the military. And by large I mean anything requiring more than a few atoms of material.

Thanks hypervalent and Moontanman.

 

But what if when we get past a certain element number, like 150 or whatever, the atoms become stable again?

 

If they do, couldn't that explain the "Dark Matter" that currently puzzles us. Perhaps DM isn't made of any weird or exotic particles - just bog-standard protons, electrons and neutrons - arranged in a different pattern, to make a stable but really heavy atom. Such atoms could account for the missing mass in the Universe.

 

And these atoms would doubtless have exciting chemical properties. Not just for military purposes, but also there might be alien life-forms based on heavy-water, perhaps!

 

I wonder what happens if chemical experiments are carried out using heavy-water as a solvent, instead of our usual light-water, has this been tried?

[Moontanman]

Thanks hypervalent and Moontanman.

 

But what if when we get past a certain element number, like 150 or whatever, the atoms become stable again?

 

There is no reason to think such a thing is possible and every reason to think that there are no stable atoms above the ones we now know.

 

If they do, couldn't that explain the "Dark Matter" that currently puzzles us. Perhaps DM isn't made of any weird or exotic particles - just bog-standard protons, electrons and neutrons - arranged in a different pattern, to make a stable but really heavy atom. Such atoms could account for the missing mass in the Universe.

 

Dark matter is not baryonic matter, it does not interact with normal matter except through gravity.

 

And these atoms would doubtless have exciting chemical properties.

 

No doubt such atoms would indeed have unique chemcial properties but they, as far as we know, cannot exist.

 

Not just for military purposes, but also there might be alien life-forms based on heavy-water, perhaps!

 

What does heavy water have to do with matter above above 150? Heavy water is poisonous to earth life but it's possible that deuterium might be used by life forms just like regular hydrogen if the life form had evolved in it. I know of no natural mechanism that would concentrate heavy water that way over normal water.

 

I wonder what happens if chemical experiments are carried out using heavy-water as a solvent, instead of our usual light-water, has this been tried?

 

Yes it has been tried, heavy water is poisonous to life as we know it...

[hypervalent_iodine]

Thanks hypervalent and Moontanman.

 

But what if when we get past a certain element number, like 150 or whatever, the atoms become stable again?

 

If they are stable, then how come they've not been discovered yet? Heuristically speaking, any element above 82 is unstable (radioactive). The reasons for this are (IIRC) due to the composition of the nucleus - i.e. the ratio and quantities of protons and neutrons - and is summarised by the binding energy of a given nucleus. Large elements have a negative binding energy, which means that the bound nucleus has a higher energy than the corresponding 'unbound' state. In an atomic nucleus, neutrons hold things together via strong nuclear force. This force must be greater than the electric repulsion experienced by having positively charged protons in close proximity to one another. Unlike electric repulsion, however, nuclear force can only act at very small distances. So when you have larger atoms with larger nuclei and a higher number of protons, the net electric repulsion experienced by a given nuclei becomes greater than the nuclear force holding it together (since it cannot reach as much of the nucleus) and it is therefore unstable.

 

Hopefully that explains some of it. I apologise if there are any errors in my description; I'm actually quite far from being an expert on nuclear physics and had to do a bit of reading up to understand it myself.

 

I wonder what happens if chemical experiments are carried out using heavy-water as a solvent, instead of our usual light-water, has this been tried?

 

Yes, absolutely. Chemists use D₂O and other deuterated compounds all the time. Typically this is done to either exchange a hydrogen for a deuterium to probe for functional groups (such as you might see in certain NMR experiments), to assess the regioselectivity of a reaction or to investigate biochemical pathways. As a common solvent, deuterated compounds are a bit useless because of how expensive they are. the most common one use would have to be deuterated choloroform, which is used as a solvent in the vast majority of NMR experiments as deuterium does not show up on an NMR spectrum.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Yes it has been tried, heavy water is poisonous to life as we know it...

 

And so are 99% of the chemicals used in organic synthesis. I know we chemists can be pretty bonkers from all the huffing, but we usually don't go so far as to drink our solvents before we use them. :P

[C1ay]

We know that existing elements can provide good chemical weapons.

How long will it be before mankind realizes that the endless quest to find better and better methods of killing mankind is one of man's biggest downfalls as a species?

[Lancewen]

If they are stable, then how come they've not been discovered yet? Heuristically speaking, any element above 82 is unstable (radioactive). The reasons for this are (IIRC) due to the composition of the nucleus - i.e. the ratio and quantities of protons and neutrons - and is summarised by the binding energy of a given nucleus. Large elements have a negative binding energy, which means that the bound nucleus has a higher energy than the corresponding 'unbound' state. In an atomic nucleus, neutrons hold things together via strong nuclear force. This force must be greater than the electric repulsion experienced by having positively charged protons in close proximity to one another. Unlike electric repulsion, however, nuclear force can only act at very small distances. So when you have larger atoms with larger nuclei and a higher number of protons, the net electric repulsion experienced by a given nuclei becomes greater than the nuclear force holding it together (since it cannot reach as much of the nucleus) and it is therefore unstable.

 

I was under the impression that the strong force acted on protons and neutrons next to eachother and not from the center of the nucleus (like the center of gravity). If that's the case then the possibility of new heavier elements might be possible. Some scientist believe there might be some stable elements between 120 -130. I do have my doubts, only because if those elements could exist. Why don't they?

[Moontanman]

I was under the impression that the strong force acted on protons and neutrons next to eachother and not from the center of the nucleus (like the center of gravity). If that's the case then the possibility of new heavier elements might be possible. Some scientist believe there might be some stable elements between 120 -130. I do have my doubts, only because if those elements could exist. Why don't they?

 

 

While I agree that any such super heavy elements would most certainly be inherently unstable.... I can think of reasons why they wouldn't exist even if they were stable. It's quite possible the necessary events/conditions that could form any stable super heavy elements can not occur.

 

An old novel I once read had to do with why there were no or next to no Super Heavy Elements was because the only thing that could from them was a super nova, if a planet like Jupiter managed to survive the super nova it's solid surface, after all the gases and ices had been stripped away would contain the SHEs formed by the violence of the supernova. So in effect you had to travel to a star that had exploded to find the SHEs, Of course they were the only materials you could use to build a FTL space ship or something like that :rolleyes:

Edited July 22, 2012 by Moontanman

[hypervalent_iodine]

I was under the impression that the strong force acted on protons and neutrons next to eachother and not from the center of the nucleus (like the center of gravity). If that's the case then the possibility of new heavier elements might be possible. Some scientist believe there might be some stable elements between 120 -130. I do have my doubts, only because if those elements could exist. Why don't they?

 

Yes, but I think the problem is that electric repulsion can act over longer distances. Honestly, outside of my rudimentary explanation, my understanding of matters concerning atomic nuclei is sparse. I'm an organic chemist and it is very rare that I have to care about what goes on in the nucleus of an atom.

 

Anyway, here's a wiki quote that may describe it a bit better.

 

 

However, in heavier nuclei, the disruptive energy of protons increases, since they are confined to a tiny volume and repel each other. The energy of the strong force holding the nucleus together also increases, but at a slower rate, as if inside the nucleus, only nucleons close to each other are tightly bound, not ones more widely separated.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy#Binding_energy_for_atoms

[Guest MacPhee]

my understanding of matters concerning atomic nuclei is sparse. I'm an organic chemist and it is very rare that I have to care about what goes on in the nucleus of an atom.

 

This raises an interesting point, which occurs to me after mulling over the posts.

 

Which is this - why do we have two different sciences called "Chemistry" and "Physics"?

 

Or to put it more bluntly - what justifies "Chemistry" as a separate science? Isn't it only a kind of inferior version of Physics. Inferior, in the sense that Chemistry only deals with gross outward interactions between atoms and molecules. Like how do you make sulphuric acid, what substances do you need to make Gunpowder, or TNT, and so on.

 

Whereas Physics cuts to the quick, and asks: "What's really going on within the nuclei of atoms?". A question which sounds vastly more intellectual. So much so, that Chemists can only duck and weave away from it. This might be why Physicists notoriously regard Chemists with disdain.

 

To avoid this invidious schism in Science, couldn't we have a simple change in nomenclature: Bring in a new term "Matterology". Then Physicists would be "Atomic Matterologists", and Chemists "Molecular Matterologists"

 

That would be much more equal-sounding. But I'm not quite happy with "Matterology". Perhaps a better word could be found. One could always go back to Anglo-Saxon roots, and call it "Stufflore"?

[Lancewen]

This raises an interesting point, which occurs to me after mulling over the posts.

 

Which is this - why do we have two different sciences called "Chemistry" and "Physics"?

 

Or to put it more bluntly - what justifies "Chemistry" as a separate science? Isn't it only a kind of inferior version of Physics. Inferior, in the sense that Chemistry only deals with gross outward interactions between atoms and molecules. Like how do you make sulfuric acid, what substances do you need to make Gunpowder, or TNT, and so on.

 

Whereas Physics cuts to the quick, and asks: "What's really going on within the nuclei of atoms?". A question which sounds vastly more intellectual. So much so, that Chemists can only duck and weave away from it. This might be why Physicists notoriously regard Chemists with disdain.

 

To avoid this invidious schism in Science, couldn't we have a simple change in nomenclature: Bring in a new term "Matterology". Then Physicists would be "Atomic Matterologists", and Chemists "Molecular Matterologists"

 

That would be much more equal-sounding. But I'm not quite happy with "Matterology". Perhaps a better word could be found. One could always go back to Anglo-Saxon roots, and call it "Stufflore"?

 

Physics is the search for how everything works, which includes chemistry. A chemist is a specialist in how matter elements combine into natural substances and how we can manipulate element combinations to enhance our lives, by making products we are willing to pay for. Also, it's been my experience that physicists pretty much regard everybody else in disdain. They aren't just picking on chemists.

[Guest MacPhee]

Also, it's been my experience that physicists pretty much regard everybody else in disdain. They aren't just picking on chemists.

 

Well, that's true. Physicists think they're one-up on all other scientists. Who in their view, are just stamp-collectors.

But even Physicists are one-down to Mathematicians, the real snooty guys.

 

There seems to be a pecking order: Mathematician - Physicist - Chemist.

 

Personally, I would rate Chemists as most worthy of admiration. If the Physicists didn't hold the trump card: 20 Megatons of demonstrable Instant Sunshine. As for the Mathematicians, let them get on with their scribblings. They didn't even think of decimal notation for 5,000 years, so that don't say much for their intellect.