Di-Radicals and O=CC=O in the news -- Does this Molecule exist or not?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Di-Radicals and O=CC=O in the news -- Does this Molecule exist or not?

Post by Cr6 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:08 am

There might be a more direct, non-quantum, explanation:


Long-standing puzzle about a small molecule solved: Spectroscopic characterization of ethylenedione

July 15, 2015
(more at link)

Does ethylenedione exist or not? This controversy about the tiny OCCO molecule, which is formally a dimer of carbon monoxide, has been quietly continuing for about a century. American researchers have now presented conclusive experimental proof for the existence of this mysterious compound in the journal Angewandte Chemie. Using photodetachment photoelectron spectroscopy, they were able to make ethylenedione and to spectroscopically characterize the electronic states of the molecule.

Despite the apparently simple structure of O=C=C=O, in which the atoms are all linked by double bonds, the molecule has been hard to track down. It was first postulated in 1913 as an intermediate in the reaction of oxalyl bromide with mercury to make carbon monoxide (CO). In the 1940s it was claimed to be the active component of Glyoxylide, a purported antidote for a long list of afflictions, from exhaustion to cancer – which was soon revealed to be a complete fraud. The synthesis of OCCO has been tried for decades, but the molecule never even turned up as a short-lived intermediate.

Andrei Sanov and his students Andrew Dixon and Tian Xue at the University of Arizona (Tucson, USA) have now finally proven the existence of OCCO. Using a special reaction involving negatively charged oxygen radicals, they converted glyoxal (C2H2O2) to an ethylenedione anion, which bears a single negative charge. They then used photodetachment photoelectron spectroscopy to study the neutral species that results from the removal of the excess charge from this anion. In this technique, injection of a defined amount of energy in the form of a photon is used to "shoot" the extra electron away from the anion. The energy of the electrons being released in relation to the incoming photon energy gives an energy spectrum that makes it possible to draw conclusions about the energy states and modes of vibration of the neutral molecule—which is formed during this spectroscopic examination.

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-long-standing-puzzle-small-molecule-spectroscopic.html

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 695
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Di-Radicals and O=CC=O in the news -- Does this Molecule exist or not?

Post by Nevyn on Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:56 am

Nice find Cr6!

Here's my analysis:

The OCCO molecule is a possibility. It could be created in the right environment. However, in the normal environment we live in, it would burst apart from the inside. The oxygen atoms can work with a lot more charge than the little carbons and in that configuration, with O's on the outside and C's on the inside, it's like 2 cannons shorting into those poor little carbons. Oxygen and carbon can work together, even just the 2 of them, but the carbon needs the room to vent or some help from other atoms to get rid of all the charge that oxygen can give it.

In the OCCO configuration, we get 2 powerful charge streams colliding in the middle which only has an alpha in there. And it is not really an alpha either because they are single protons bonding the 2 carbons together, there are no neutrons to provide support. The bond is just not strong enough to control the charge streams.

Still, I like the experiment and the way they talk about shooting electrons out of the way with photons.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 826
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Di-Radicals and O=CC=O in the news -- Does this Molecule exist or not?

Post by Cr6 on Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:15 pm

Nevyn wrote:Nice find Cr6!

Here's my analysis:

The OCCO molecule is a possibility. It could be created in the right environment. However, in the normal environment we live in, it would burst apart from the inside. The oxygen atoms can work with a lot more charge than the little carbons and in that configuration, with O's on the outside and C's on the inside, it's like 2 cannons shorting into those poor little carbons. Oxygen and carbon can work together, even just the 2 of them, but the carbon needs the room to vent or some help from other atoms to get rid of all the charge that oxygen can give it.

In the OCCO configuration, we get 2 powerful charge streams colliding in the middle which only has an alpha in there. And it is not really an alpha either because they are single protons bonding the 2 carbons together, there are no neutrons to provide support. The bond is just not strong enough to control the charge streams.

Still, I like the experiment and the way they talk about shooting electrons out of the way with photons.

Found this quote in the Methane paper. It mirrors your analysis Nevyn:

======

Well, we have also found that larger elements can re-arrange the protons of smaller elements, but only when they are brought nucleus-to-nucleus like this. The charge channels of Oxygen are stronger than the charge channels of Carbon, so when a Carbon nucleus is brought very close to an Oxygen nucleus, the Oxygen nucleus trumps the ambient charge field. In this case, Carbon is forced to channel the charge field coming out of Oxygen rather than the ambient field. In this way, Oxygen can “break” Carbon, forcing it to take configurations it couldn't normally take.

Since each blue disk here represents an alpha (two protons), each Oxygen wants to channel more charge than it is channeling. What I mean is that the core of Oxygen is composed of three alphas in parallel. These three alphas can channel more charge than is being pulled in by the single protons at the poles. In fact, that is why Oxygen is so reactive. The nuclear composition of Oxygen gives it a charge potential above its own charge strength. It can channel more than it normally does channel, taken alone. Therefore, it will tend to move into molecular situations where it can channel more.

Pulling in Carbon is one way it can do this. Once we build the chain, each Oxygen in the chain is channeling more charge than it was alone. The core of the Oxygen nucleus is thereby closer to its channeling potential. And so, in a charge-rich environment like we see on Earth, the diagram of CO2 will be this:

The Oxygens on each end have re-aligned the protons in the nucleus of Carbon, making it better able to channel charge along the main line. You see, if Carbon remained as before, its core alphas would be releasing charge radially instead of along the main line from left to right here. Any charge channeled out radially doesn't make it to the other Oxygen, and the power of the molecule is diminished. But if we have enough charge moving along the poles here (again, left to right), that charge stream can turn one of the core alphas of Carbon. Once that alpha is turned, the two protons in it can be used to channel along the line, instead of releasing to the sides.

I assume that both core alphas are not being turned, since if we turn them both, there is nothing to focus the charge along the line at the center of the molecule. We need at least one core alpha diagrammed up and down here to channel the charge from left to right. Remember, the charge is moving through the poles of that alpha. It is through charge. But if we turn it sideways as well, then the center of our molecule loses its main vortex. There is nothing to prevent all those black disks from flying out of there.


You will say, “The strong charge stream should prevent them from flying out of there.” And given a strong enough charge stream, that may be true. There may be cases where both core alphas of Carbon do turn. However, in natural situations like we are looking at, I don't think that happens. It might be forced to happen in a lab, but it doesn't happen in nature.

http://milesmathis.com/meth.pdf

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 695
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Di-Radicals and O=CC=O in the news -- Does this Molecule exist or not?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Aug 02, 2015 9:57 pm

Cr6, Nevyn, Hope all is well!  

After a century long search, O=C=C=O has finally been discovered. The paper didn’t say what conditions favored the elusive CO dimer. Why is this configuration so unstable? “In the normal environment we live in, it would burst apart from the inside”, Nevyn said. I think I agree, but I’m not sure why.

Is it true to say that Oxygen has a 3X throughput capacity, but Carbon just has 2X? Are there other or more important factors determining the charge channel flows within nuclei? What are the physical explanations of these limits?

Are ambient wisps of high charge densities, passed by the Oxygen triple alpha, busting the molecular connections with the smaller Carbon atom structure at the weak spots Miles mentioned in the Methane paper? But how can the mostly interpenetrable charge fields destroy the atomic connections so easily?

On the other hand, Miles describes how we can form somewhat stabler, greater capacity charge flow molecules such as CO2 where he believes that Oxygen can turn one of the Carbon alphas. Miles said, (see above) “Remember, the charge is moving through the poles of that alpha. It is through charge. But if we turn it sideways as well, then the center of our molecule loses its main vortex. There is nothing to prevent all those black disks from flying out of there”. In OCCO however, as Nevyn has observed, both the main guns (Oxygen) point inward, toward the much weaker Carbon links.

Did you notice, “our molecule loses its main vortex”? When did we go from, “the ambient charge field mainly enters via the poles, and exits near the equator”, to “channeling atomic vorticies”? This is a significant change in perspective. I’m actually delighted, as it fits into my rotating magnetic vortices – Windhexe musings. I think it’s correct to say that these vortices increase throughput by increasing the length of the path taken by the charge photon within the proton.

Nowhere do “we” seem to be addressing the important double bonds.
 
I agree that some of the descriptions within the article were nice. Firing photons and such. And, by Einstein - all energy has a mass equivalence. They can no longer legitimately deny the reality of photons. Unfortunately, the article contained several stretches of gobbledygook that I could not begin to follow.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 620
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Di-Radicals and O=CC=O in the news -- Does this Molecule exist or not?

Post by Cr6 on Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:42 am

I wonder LTAM if there are some angled bends developing with this? Like with Phosphine and Methane?

The Phosphorus-Hydrogen Bond

Mathis wrote:If we study the Phosphorus nucleus closely, we see we have more than one open hole in the outer level.

In fact, we have three. Since the core is blue, that means we could plug two protons in top and bottom. Or, two in the north pole and two in the south pole. Each blue disk can accept a maximum of two protons. If we plugged the protons in firmly, we would have a variant form of Argon. Argon isn't built that way, and we will see why, but we do have open channels of that size here. In fact, that is how we build Phosphine and Disphosphane and so on. Remember, they have known about Hydrogen/Phosphorus compounds for a long time. But until now, they have tried to tell us Phosphorus had gone negative in some way to explain this.

Mathis wrote:More mainstream fudging, in other words. P-orbitals and s-orbitals aren't even the same shape, we are told, so how are they creating a bond here? In other words, the p-orbitals of Phosphorus should exclude the electron-less Hydrogen ion, but they just choose to ignore that here. They know the s-orbitals can't be causing the bond, because that would break another of their manufactured rules: the bond angles aren't right, as they admit. So they push you into this s-p bond because it is the only other thing available. But then they forget to tell you that breaks other rules. They also forget to show how and why Phosphorus is acting negative in Phosphine. To be rigorous, Phosphine was always just as illegal as the new P-H bonds they are touting this week. Given mainstream theory, the Phosphorus in Phosphine should have never attracted Hydrogen to begin with.

http://www.milesmathis.com/phos.pdf

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 695
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Di-Radicals and O=CC=O in the news -- Does this Molecule exist or not?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:04 am

Cr6, Funny you should say that. The carbon and oxygen are nuclear elements joined with molecular bonds. Under STP ambient conditions, how can one of the two carbon alphas be de-nucleared – reduced to two separate protons? When the molecular bonds are broken, how can those two protons be rejoined as an alpha? Instead, "angled bends" that can deform back into the carbon core actually sounds pretty good.


CO2, see "The Great Methane Stink" http://milesmathis.com/meth.pdf

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 620
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Di-Radicals and O=CC=O in the news -- Does this Molecule exist or not?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:00 pm

Cr6 wrote: I wonder LTAM if there are some angled bends developing with this? Like with Phosphine and Methane?

Cr6,

Well, Your “announcement”, as well as the content, of Miles’ latest paper http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t115-8-8-15-the-gas-discharge-lamp#813 floored me. I think it’s significant and timely – for us.  

First I need to answer my objection above.

In, ”Gas Discharge Lamps a Better Theory”, Miles cites a change due to his recent conference; he has improved the alpha deformation model he proposed in the Methane paper.

Old: Strong charge channel flows associated with the larger atom –(i.e. Oxygen), causes a core alpha (of Carbon) to re position its protons to pillar positions.

New: Strong charge channel flows can turn individual alpha neutrons (180 degrees), initially antiparallel, (see diagram) to parallel.


This image shows the basic, antiparallel positions of neutrons within alphas.

Further, I looked at the nuclear models too linearly. Paraphrasing myself, “does 3 versus 2 alphas (Oxygen vice Carbon) represent 3X versus 2X nuclear charge flow?” No. Alphas, like little jet engines, aren't exactly linear. Rather than add, each neutron rotation results in a surprising 6-fold increase in the charge channeling capacity of the nucleus.

Of course this is all theory, but "alpha neutron turning" is a robust improvement in Miles' nuclear model.

So, Cr6, I think that OCCO can definitely turn neutrons, but bending as a charge flow mitigator needs defining. This new mechanism doesn't prevent, on the contrary, it would seem to enhance the possibility that OCCO exists.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 620
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Di-Radicals and O=CC=O in the news -- Does this Molecule exist or not?

Post by Cr6 on Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:33 am

Well there is always Cabon-suboxide:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_suboxide

Biological role
Those are 6- or 8-ring macrocyclic polymers of carbon suboxide that were found in living organisms. They are acting as an endogenous digoxin-like Na+/K+-ATP-ase and Ca-dependent ATP-ase inhibitors, endogenous natriuretics, antioxidants and antihypertensives

Carbon suboxide, C3O2, can be produced in small amounts in any biochemical process that normally produces carbon monoxide, CO, for example, during heme oxidation by heme oxygenase-1. It can also be formed from malonic acid. It has been shown that carbon suboxide in an organism can quickly polymerize into macrocyclic polycarbon structures with the common formula (C3O2)n (mostly (C3O2)6 and (C3O2)Cool, and that those macrocyclic compounds are potent inhibitors of Na+/K+-ATP-ase and Ca-dependent ATP-ase, and have digoxin-like physiological properties and natriuretic and antihypertensive actions. Those macrocyclic carbon suboxide polymer compounds are thought to be endogenous digoxin-like regulators of Na+/K+-ATP-ases and Ca-dependent ATP-ases, and endogenous natriuretics and antihypertensives.[11][12][13] Other than that, some authors think also that those macrocyclic compounds of carbon suboxide can possibly diminish free radical formation and oxidative stress and play a role in endogenous anticancer protective mechanisms, for example in the retina.

(I guess this is why people thought O=CC=O was an anti-cancer solution?)

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 695
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum