Author Archives: gaussling

About gaussling

Gaussling is a senior scientist in the chemical business. He occasionally breaks glassware, spreads confusion and has been known to generate new forms of hazardous waste. Gaussling also digs aerospace, geology, and community theatre.

Fulminate- Noun or Verb?

I think it is fair to say that most chemists are familiar with the fact that mercury fulminate, Hg(CNO)2, is a pressure sensitive explosive material. But because only a few of us actually handle such materials, myself not included, thankfully, the history and actual boundaries of safe handling practice are probably somewhat indistinct. Mercury, as the fulminate or the metal, has been applied to the extraction of gold and silver from ore. The former as a primary explosive for blasting compositions, and the latter as a solvent (and possibly a reductant).

In the course of my ongoing studies in historical metallurgy, I have been searching the very earliest history of chemicals and processes related to the extraction of gold and silver. The threads between these two metals in history are closely interwoven and include an extensive list of civilizations, scholars, monarchs, banking institutions, viceroys, scientists, engineers, and chemical technology.

One fascinating thread in the metallurgy of gold and silver is the role of quicksilver. The discovery of native mercury occured independently in Asia, the Iberian penninsula, central Europe, and the American CordilleraCinnabar has been used as a pigment by aboriginal peoples for adornment and decorative purposes back into prehistory.  There is no documentation in written or other form of the sudden discovery of native mercury. The earliest references to metallic mercury are from Pliny, who mentions some curious properties of the substance in relation to gold, namely, that gold was the only substance known to sink in quicksilver, leaving behind the mineral components of the ore floating on the surface.

The invention comprising the use of quicksilver in the refinement of silver is usually attributed to Spanish merchant Bartolomé de Medina in the part of New Spain comprising what is now Mexico. According to the story, Medina was approached by a German known only as “Maestro Lorenzo” who described a process by which ore was treated with sodium chloride (sea salt water) and quicksilver. Medina travels to Mexico and develops what will be come to be known as the Patio process.

The Patio process proves to be a substantial improvement over smelting processes known in Europe at the time and this fact leads to a long term demand for quicksilver in the Americas. According to records from New Spain, for every quintal (100 lbs) of silver extracted, two quintales of quicksilver were consumed in the Patio process. The primary quicksilver mines in operation by the close of the 16th century were Almaden in Spain, Idria in Slovenia, and Huancavelica in Peru.

Over time mercury was used to produce explosives, Fahrenheit‘s thermometer, and antimicrobial preparations. The discovery of mercury fulminate was crucial to the production of detonating caps for mining and bullet cartridges. Unlike NI3, mercury fulminate, Hg(NCO)2, could be isolated and handled, albeit with great care.

The shelves of a chemist (or apothecary) of the late 18th century would have certainly have contained sulfuric acid, nitric acid, numerous salts, sulfur, lime, various extracts and elixirs, caustics, etc.  It was inevitable that one day someone would combine nitric acid, ethanol (“hydrated ethylene”), and a metal or its salt.  This particular admixture of nitric acid and ethanol, to which a metal oxide or other compound was added would produce a mixture whose vigorous ebullition with the evolution of vapors and smoke would be referred to as fulmination. A residuum or precipitate recovered from the mixture came to be known as a fulminate.  The treatment of red mercury oxide with nitric acid and ethanol produced a mercury fulminate. 

Mercury fulminate was discovered by Edward Howard around the year 1800. The details of his work were published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol 90 (1800), pp. 204-238.  The paper can be found at jstor.org and is worth a read. In it Howard describes an experiment wherein he detonates a small quantity of mercury fulminate in a thick glass vessel and notes the relatively small volume of gas produced in the explosive reaction. He also notes the presence of finely divided mercury on the vessel walls.  The reader will notice that Howard fabricated a rudimentary electrical resistance heater as an initiator to stimulate the fulminate into decomposition.

Howard’s attempts to evaluate this fulminate as a new type of gunpowder are also detailed. Howard’s experiments show that the fulminate reliably burst the breech assemby of all of the guns tried, but strangely did not have the ability to propel a ball with the energy of an equivalent quantity of gunpowder. What he learned was that great sensitivity does not necessarily confer high explosive energy.

As an interesting aside, it was later determined by Gay-Lussac, Liebig, and Wöhler that silver fulminate had the same composition as silver cyanate. After much debate, Berzelius was able to introduce the idea of isomerism to settle the matter.

Mass Transfer Hijinks

Wow. Got a big reminder of some principles of  mass transfer the other day.  Kettle reactors have big limitations if your material won’t mix.  Even if your reaction is approximately diffusion limited, it is possible for things to go haywire if you can’t get it to move. A fellow knows this, but when confronted with it the magnitude seems greater than expected. There must be an exponent in the equation. Scheisse.

Stupid Tricks with LN2

One of my favorite tricks with liquid nitrogen (LN2) was to pour some onto a chalk tray at the bottom of a chalk board. The skittering, madly boiling liquid would entrain the chalk dust from the tray and transport it to the end where it would plummet to the floor making that wonderful muffled popping sound. The chalk dust would be splatted onto the floor where it would lie as a thin, mysterious white cake. I suspect the janitors were rather less delighted by this than I was.

Today’s youthful chemists, these tender shoots, probably think that dry erase white boards have been around since the time of the pilgrims. That’s OK.  I’ll not speak of squealing chalk, long leatherbound erasers, and chalk dessicated hands. The use of blackboards and chalk will remain our little secret.

Business and Government

There is a common conceit out there that business people are in possession of some kind of skill set that makes them uniquely suited to occupy congressional and executive seats in government.  While business folk have organizational experience in general, it is hard to reconcile why the citizens of the USA would want the autocratic style of business lorded over them. Business serves the interest of shareholders primarily and stakeholders a distant second. Government serves at the interest and pleasure of citizens.

The imperative of business is to grow for the profit of the shareholders. Given this basic reality, I fail to see why a businesslike template should be applied to governance. We do not want government to grow for it’s own sake. 

Business, in principle at least, has better command and control feedback. Or so goes the thinking.  Have you ever tried to get an answer or some kind of satisfactory resolution to a problem from a very large company? As an individual with average cash resources, your singular pull is usually not very large.  If we are going to let market forces have control of national and state governance in the manner conceived by hard-right political candidates, what of the individual?

The marketplace is a kind of 24/7 professional wrestling match. It is a Darwinistic contest of the strong vs the weak. Do we really want to be governed by this kind of system? Do we really want every single aspect of our lives to be a dog-eat-dog competition? I thought the purpose of civilization was to buffer some the harshness out of our lives.  Do the proponents of 100 % laissez-faire really want the system to snuff out the weak and those of lesser means?  That would be those who occupy the opposite side of the bell curve from those of means.

The notion that we should let market forces freely influence governance is popular among those of means.  The privatization of government services will immediately benefit those who are already flush with resources. Because only those with current resources will be able to step into such a position.  It would represent a transfer of power to those who already hold commercial power. Power is in the ability to allocate resources.

Why low and medium income republicans favor privatization of government services is a complete mystery. The loss of control over the influences in their lives to unrestrained market forces is contrary to the common self-perception of rugged individualism.  Money and power tend to accumulate into the hands of a few. Examples are all over the place.  This is the lesson from the age of monarchy and of robber barons. 

Privatization in and of itself is not the answer. It is just another type of concentration of power that favors corporations and individuals who already have the resources to buy a seat at the table. Why would citizens of ordinary means want this? 

Well, they wouldn’t want this ordinarily. But if you create a stampede of frightened citizens, it is possible for a small group of highly motivated demagogues to steer a frightened herd in whatever direction they want. This is precisely what is happening today.  The overthrow of the prevalent system by such means has many examples on history.  Just look around.  The manufacture of consent is a thriving business.

A most unlikely question

Saw Apollo 18 at the cineplex last night. It is filmed in a rough documentary style with “recovered” footage. My recommendation? It’s worth seeing on a big screen. Probably not a good date flick, though.  But that depends on your date.

While at a brew pub in Denver Friday night, I was summoned to a table of 20-something ladies who were obviously celebrating a girls-night-out before a wedding.  The bride-to-be, decorated with a pink faux veil, gestured for me to come answer a question. I walked over and bent down to hear her. It was then that she looked me in the eye and asked a question that most fellows rarely ever hear: “Can I pat your booty?” she said.  I looked at the table of a dozen well coiffed lovelies watching me for some sign of a reaction.  The guest of honor had a list of items in her hand that she needed to check off.  Seeing this, and noting the urgency with which she needed to complete the task, I grinned and “relented”.  At least she asked first. So I stood up, turned around and bent over a few degrees in supplication, and received the pat. With my brief role completed, I turned back around and bid them a farewell. Moments later I found my dinner party and sat down with them, satisfied that I had just participated in an important cultural rite of passage.  Hours later the wife unit assured me that this happened only because I appeared harmless. So it goes.

Eat Venter’s Dust

I gave a talk in a morning I&EC session last thursday at the Denver ACS National meeting. During an interlude provided by a no-show speaker, a member of the audience began to quiz down a hapless speaker who earlier presented on the filtration of plasmids. The gentleman’s concern was this- We are continuing to develop conventional processing technology while fellows like Craig Venter are devising step-change techniques for genomic analysis and synthesis. People like Venter have their names mentioned in the same sentence with “synthetic biology”.  Why do we bother with the more primitive methods of research when the real action is with folks like Venter?

The inquisitive fellow was asking a rhetorical question to all of us. But the point he skipped over was the matter of intellectual property. He kept asking why don’t “we” just switch the paradigm right now and use such technology? Why continue with highly manual R&D?  The problem with his question was in the assumption that Venter’s technology was something that “WE” have access to. Venter’s technology does not automatically translate into a community tool. It is more like an item of commerce. In reality, this will likely represent a major uptick in productivity to the financial benefit of the intellectual property owners and licensees and their stockholders.

How the scientific workforce will fare is a different matter. Increased productivity usually means reduced labor per unit of output. I suspect that Venter’s technology represents a higher entry barrier to those who want to be in the market.  It may be that the outcome will be a broader range of diagnostic and treatment services available to a shrinking pool of insured people able to afford it.

Is this as good as it gets?

I’ve had this notion (a conceit, really) that as someone from industry, I should reach out to my colleagues in academia in order to bring some awareness of how chemistry is conducted out in the world.  After many, many conversations, an accumulating pile of work in ACS activities, and a few visits to schools, what I’ve found is not what I expected. I expected a bit more curiosity about how commerce works and perhaps what life is like in a chemical plant. I really thought that my academic associates might be intrigued by the wonders of the global chemical manufacturing complex and product process development.

What I’m finding is more along the lines of polite disinterest. I’ve sensed this all along, but I’d been trying to sustain the hope that if only I could use the right words, I might elicit some interest in how manufacturing works; that I could strike some kind of spark.  But what I’ve found is just how insular the magisterium of academia really is. The walls of the fortress are very thick. We have our curricula firmly in place on the three pillars of chemstry- theory, synthesis, and analysis. In truth, textbooks often set the structure of courses.  A four year ACS certified curriculum cannot spare any room for alternative models like applied science. I certainly cannot begrudge folks for structuring around that reality.

It could easily be argued that the other magisteria of industry and government are the same way.  Well, except for one niggling detail. Academia supplies educated people to the other great domains comprising society.  We seem to be left with the standard academic image of what a chemical scientist should look like going deeply into the next 50 years. Professors are scholars and they produce what they best understand- more scholars in their own image.  This is only natural. I’ve done a bit of it myself.

Here is my sweeping claim (imagine the air overhead roiled with waving hands)-  on a numbers basis, most chemists aren’t that interested in synthesis as they come out of a BA/BS program. That is my conclusion based on interviewing fresh graduates. I’ve interviewed BA/BS chemists who have had undergraduate research experience in nanomaterials and AFM, but could not draw a reaction showing the formation of ethyl acetate.  As a former organic prof, I find that particularly alarming. This is one of the main keepsakes from a year of sophomore organic chemistry.  The good news is that the errant graduate can usually be coached into remembering the chemistry.

To a large extent, industry is concerned with making stuff.  So perhaps it is only natural that most academic chemists (in my sample set) aren’t that keen on anything greater than a superficial view of the manufacturing world. I understand this and acknowledge reality. But it is a shame that institutional inertia is so large in magnitude in this and all endeavors.  Chemical industry really needs young innovators who are willing to start up manufacturing in North America. We could screen such folks and steer them to MIT, but that is lame. Why let MIT have all the fun and the royalties?  We need startups with cutting edge technology, but we also need companies who are able to make fine chemical items of commerce. Have you tried to find a brominator in the USA lately?

The gap between academia and industry is mainly cultural. But it is a big gap, it may not be surmountable, and I’m not sure that the parties want to mix. I’ll keep trying.

ACS Denver Last Day

I’ve spent much of my time at the Denver meeting talking to vendors in the exposition.  There were some very good pieces of equipment at the show. One company had a GC the size of a sub sandwhich.  Pretty cool. It’s for on-site work and actually comes in Army green and camo. I wish I could remember the name.

The Agilent ICP/MS is truly amazing.  Sub part per trillion capability.  The system uses something called the “helium collision mode” to exclude polyatomic cations from the mass analyzer.  You know those pesky argon chloride cations from sample plasma, right?  The argon polyatomic cations can mimic heavier elements by virtue of their combined atomic mass.  The instrument has an octapole chamber with helium in it that serves to impede the larger polyatomic cations. Clever monkeys.