Follow

blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/

Um, 1) How did no one notice a drug we've been using since the 1970s is very explosive

2) How did anyone NOT think THAT drug was explosive? LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT ALL THAT NITROGEN.

· · Web · 4 · 12 · 8

@Canageek Yeah, I'm on team “What percentage of compounds with 3 N’s in a row are stable?” :ac_shocked:

@Canageek I'm a little concerned that "weighable" is a notable characteristic of this compound

I don't like being reminded how many chemicals there are that are too volatile for us to actually measure how much we have

@WizardOfDocs Weighable means can exist as a pure solid: Lots of compounds like this would need to stay in solution, which makes measuring them annoying, or are gases, etc etc. You want pure liquids or solids to make working with it easy.

@Canageek

on the other hand, there's a whole lot of nitrogen in DNA and RNA. A naïve comparison to the purine parts of A, U, and G might leave one shrugging.

It's those three nitrogens all crammed together next to each other in that ring in particular that makes my hair stand on end.

if you see two or more N's together like that and they aren't just plain old common-as-the-air-we-breath dinitrogen?

then they're just resting on their way to becoming dinitrogen.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purine

@deejoe I've heard from some of my organic chemist friends (I'm a dirty inorganicer) that there are also some rules about %N they follow to not make things that go boom.

But you've got three in a row, then two more which can't help, then three more scattered throughout the other parts of the molecule. Just to make sure that once it starts breaking apart you can make extra N2

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Cybrespace

cybrespace: the social hub of the information superhighway jack in to the mastodon fediverse today and surf the dataflow through our cybrepunk, slightly glitchy web portal support us on patreon or liberapay!