Brings back childhood memories of my first attempt at making formic acid- I was feeling very much like a real scientist LOL- i had fashioned Na formate using paraformaldehyde and fairly dilute aqueous H2O2- then i concentrated the liquid, used NaOH to neutralize ( of course, being a kid, i didnt pay very much attention to the weight of the base i added-AND the para was otc with significant impurities...AND I DIDNT KNOW HOW TOUGH IT WAS TO GET RID OF ALL THE WATER TRAPPED IN my homemade NaCOOH- so my stoichiometry was way off, I thought that I had way more NaCOOH than i did by weight and using 98% H2SO4 in large excess...!!!! luckily, after distilling for a while, feeling odd- I aborted--Im STILL sensitive to CO!! Chemistry is NOT for the faint of heart
@@jhyland87 Lol, *_yes._* Did you see him controlling the temperature by varying the intensity of a constantly applied flame, or by controlling how long a non varying flame was contacting the glass in pulses of varying time scales?...
Such an excellent video! I was looking at a table of explosive limits for gasses, saw carbon monoxide and thought whaaa? Carbon monoxide is flammable/explosive?!? Then I tried to find some information and, of course, didn't see anything about it until I found your video. Great demonstration and explanation on the utility of CO in chemistry and metal refining, I'm looking forward to seeing you use it in some reactions.
I certainly learn something new. I consider myself somewhat of a Layman scientist if such a thing could exist, but I never knew that carbon monoxide was flammable.
I'm liking your videos more and more lately, thank you for the trip into the world of chemistry. Sometimes looks almost like MythBusters. I have a question. Which do you reckon would produce more CO? 2 parts formic with 1 part sulfuric or 1 part formic with 2 parts sulfuric? Please tell where did you based your answer. Thanks
To safely ignite the jet (in any apparatus making flammable gas), first collect some of the gas in an inverted test tube (upright if the gas is denser than air). Carry that to a distant flame & ignite. If the gas burns quietly at the tube's mouth, the air has been excluded & it is safe to ignite the jet. The safest way to ignite the jet is to carry the burning test tube back & put over the jet. if the gas in the tube pops on ignition, do not ignite the jet. Collect more gas & test again.
shouldn't you have used an arrester to prevent explosion? i'm not a chemist so maybe it's just the gasses that are flammable. but still, if it were to explode that would send out a huge amount of atomized solution, which will increase reaction time due to surface area, and then cause a quick massive fireball. since the solution wasn't being continuously heated and stirred, i assume its pretty safe to keep it without one.
Very interesting video. I have some questions though. the endproduct that comes out of the experiment has what consentraition of carbonmonoxide? How much is roughtly generated in Mol or volume per minute in your setting? how long will this generate? regards and thanks for the video
At 7:23 you said you tested that apparatus setup by using it to generate smoke to ensure it was all going out the fume hood - what chemical(s) did you use to generate some smoke? Is there a simple and safe combo thats ideal for that kinda test? I get I could just light a smoke bomb, but if there's a reaction that can easily be done in a glass setup like yours, without generating too much heat or annoying side products, that would be neat.
He said "chlorate smoke mixtures" in his first video on this channel, I'd just assume stuff like rocket candy or other pyrotechnics that generate smoke
Interesting video, mainstream states that CO is produced from incomplete combustion from a carbon based fuel and yet I noticed in your production there was a very clean combustion. Care to explain the inconsistency? Also the flame burns with a blue flame yet I've never known carbon to burn blue. So what are you actually burning?
In the video, it is just carbon monoxide is burning, there are no other fuels being burnt. When Carbon Monoxide is produced through incomplete combustion, the thing that is being burned is a hydrocarbon fuel such as methane, ethane, gasoline, kerosene, etc.
@@tlangdon12 tks tony for your opinion but i'd disagree - doug mixed formic acid with sulphuric acid and heated to produce what he called carbon monoxide. However there was no incomplete combustion to produce any carbon monoxide!! Therefore CO doesn't come about solely through incomplete combustion! Do you understand??
@@PeterPete I think you misunderstood my reply, because my reply agrees with your assertion that CO doesn't come about solely through incomplete combustion. My point was that WHEN CO is produced through incomplete combustion, it is the incomplete combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel that produces the CO. In the video, we are not seeing incomplete combustion producing CO, we are seeing the reaction of Formic Acid and Concentrated Sulphuric Acid producing CO. The CO being produced in the video is being burnt completely due to the excess of oxygen available in the air. This answers your original question.
@@tlangdon12 looks like many people should specify that 'carbon monoxide' can be produced in a number of different ways, instead of giving people the impression it is only produced as a result of incomplete combustion!
When making carbon monoxide, why would you direct the flow of carbon monoxide into a water bath? I saw someone make it this way and the tubing went into the bottom of a two gallon plastic container one fourth full of water, with a second tube coming out the other side of the water bath container. The carbon monoxide was fed through a tube into the water where you could see the bubbles of it coming up through the water, then into the top half of the plastic container, with the second tubing on the top where the gas was going from the plastic water container. Why would they direct the gas into water?
Is there a substitute for formic acid in this experiment? There is a guy here in the comment section who lost his formic acid.. So i figured id ask on his behalf then let him know! 🙂
What's the polarity of the molecule, the oxygen should have the positive dipole because one of it's normally antibonding pairs is involved in the triple bond, but that doesn't seem right. My instincts say it should have a slight dipole moment with the negative charge being on the oxygen like in all other carbonyl and carboxylic acid, but the fact it's triple bonded with 10 electrons says it has to be positive charge on the oxygen.
Dom Vasta Oxygen is electron-withdrawing through the sigma bond, but electron-donating by the involvement of its lone pair. It turns out that the electron-donating effect and the resulting triple bond character predominate (based on the very short bond length of CO) and that carbon monoxide has a small dipole moment with the negative charge polarized towards the carbon atom.
degrees Celsius is a measure of temperature not heat production. You're looking for a measurement in btu, calories, watts or some other equivalent unit.
You can also make CO by reacting iodoform with aqueous silver nitrate. Btw, as CO and C2H4 density is equal to air density, these 2 gases are not retained by any gas mask (gas masks work by diferentiating gases based on their density)
Strange, I was given the impression in my hazmat classes that our gas masks essentially worked by filtering and reacting the incoming gas stream within the matrix of the chlorine impregnated activated carbon filter.
That is factually incorrect. Gas masks do not sieve out the gases. They absorb them on filters' high surface areas covered with chemicals that react with those particular gases.
Good afternoon. You have not tried to obtain gasoline from water gas by the Fischer Tropsch reaction. With your level of equipment you can carry out such an experience. If you are interested in course. It is necessary to let water gas flow over a cobalt or iron catalyst. I have studied enough literature on this subject. But so far there is no access to equipment. But it is very interesting to carry out such a reaction. I did primitive experiments and got the smell of gasoline from the reactor, but there were no temperature controllers and everything else. In general, if you are interested, I can tell you how to make a catalyst and other conditions of experience.
What about putting charcoal into a ceramic tube, igniting it at one end and feeding in oxygen (from a tank or an oxygen concentrator)? The charcoal will heat, initially producing CO2, then producing CO through CO2 + C > 2CO. This can continue as long as charcoal remains in the tube and oxygen is fed in. Rate is controlled by controlling rate of oxygen feed.
Dehydration of formic acid is a more convenient process. Even if several kilograms of carbon monoxide are required, it is more profitable to choose this method for one-time work.
In fact, that's what they use to smelt iron from iron oxide industrially, they mix charcoal and ore together and regulate the amount of air injected to maintain more CO than CO2, the CO then reduces the iron oxide to iron
Yes. I did it with 85% formic acid about two years ago, but I used more sulfuric acid so that at the end of the process there is the same concentration of sulfuric acid. The yield (by volume of gas) was quantitative or so. As indicated in the book by Hans Rupe "Lecture experiments in Organic Chemistry", it is enough to mix 50 g of 86% formic acid and 50 g of concentrated sulfuric acid and heat it up to get ~25 l of carbon monoxide. Other books indicate, as a rule, a larger amount of sulfuric acid, but this is not necessary.
Heating decreases solubility of CO in the solution causing it to leave the solution, which shifts the equilibrium to the right (at least this is my best guess)
It was not bad example and he is right in general. When reaction takes place it is because particles interact. However, they don't have to interact everytime they bump into each other. They need right orientation and enough energy in order to form product. the faster those particles are the more energy they have and also more bumping occurs. This happens whether the reaction is exo- or endothermic. What type of reaction it is determines only if energy is released or consumed. His example was right because you are essentially saying in your first comment that you're doubting heating up the mixture will help it react faster. If it wasn't helping, every exothermic reaction would happen without any action of ours. That would mean that wood would combust on its own, for example. Hence that was good example and you only showed your arrogance.
bad example because by heating firewood you pyrolytically decompose it into charcoal and light hydrocarbon fractions(including methane) which catch on fire, so by heating firewood you preparing fuel(mix of flamable gasses). It is bases of burning wood, burning charcoal is another story and would be better example. As for adding heat: there is thermodynamic equilibrium, at some point, after adding more heat, numbers of reactions will go slower and eventually in reverse path, so reactions like 2co + o2 = 2co2 after adding too much heat will result in decomposing of co2 into co and o2, same with 2h2 + o2 = 2h2o.
I'm no expert, but given the triple bond and hydrogen's electron deficiency, I see no reason why that wouldn't work. How you'd go about doing it or if you need a catalyst is unknown to me, however.
You can but you need very extreme conditions. On the english wiki page on Methanol it says: "Carbon monoxide and hydrogen react over a catalyst to produce methanol. Today, the most widely used catalyst is a mixture of copper and zinc oxides, supported on alumina, as first used by ICI in 1966. At 5-10 MPa (50-100 atm) and 250 °C (482 °F), the reaction is characterized by high selectivity (>99.8%)" so definitly not lab friendly :D
Nice video, sulphur burns with a blue flame which is flammable and which is in sulphuric acid, which also produces hydrogen that is also flammable. Even formic acid contains hydrogen. I really can't understand how it's carbon monoxide. Anyone care to shed some light?
Doug explained the chemical reaction produces CO, but did not emphasis that it also produces water as well. His whiteboard drawing of the formic acid molecule omits the carbon atom at the centre, so it is unclear where the carbon comes from to make CO. The Sulphuric acid basically splits the Formic acid (HCOOH) into CO + H2O. There is not much heat available in the video to convert the water to steam, so we are just seeing pure CO being ejected out of the flask to be burnt. All the hydrogen and sulphur remains in the flask in the form of water and sulphuric acid, we are not seeing sulphur or hydrogen burning here. It really is CO burning.
@@tlangdon12 Cheers for your opinion Tony but you can't prove anything you've typed to be true. My opinion is that hydrogen is burning along with the sulphur impurities from the acid, hence the blue coloured flame. I'm sure you know sulphur burns with a blue flame. FYI they even use 'carbon monoxide' to make formic acid. Personally I consider carbon monoxide contains hydrogen because without it, it would not burn. And finally one cannot make water from the reaction because water is already present in the acids - water just migrates along with the hydrogen.
a flame that makes no water as a byproduct! this has to be useful somewhere. the only byproduct is co2 which is the same byproduct you get when burning solid carbon, except instead of being a solid, its a gas, because you already have one of the two required oxygens attached to the carbon.
It's just not really safe, natural gas already has traces of CO and people can die from CO poisoning from gas leaks, methane is just the safest and most efficient option for now (hydrogen is also a contender but is easily explosive)
Industrially, phosgene is produced by passing purified carbon monoxide and chlorine gas through a bed of porous activated carbon, which serves as a catalyst
Please don't, myfanwy, a former sciencemadness user and youtuber most likely died from phosgene as that was his last post, about making phosgene, if you want organic carbonates, buy them
I read an article in a science magazine talking about the affects of carbon monoxide on the human body, and it is actually as poisonous as hydrogen cyanide gas!
No, actually it is not. Carbon monoxide is quite toxic, no doubt about that. But far less toxic than hydrogen cyanide. Not only carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide is also listed under category 4 in health rating. But, they are not same in the toxicity level. Hydrogen sulfide is often compared with hydrogen cyanide in toxicity but actual it is not that toxic. It is because they attack our body almost in the same way but their toxicity levels are different. Our body can tolerate some toxic gases like hydrogen sulfide & ammonia and it converts them into non toxic compounds if the exposure is low. But the story is different in the case of hydrogen cyanide. It will kill you even on short time exposure.
@@EdwardTriesToScience Yes, I’m quite aware of that. CO2 isn’t “harmless”, it’s quite toxic above a certain blood concentration, regardless of the oxygen level. That’s all I’m saying.
That is incorrect. Inert gasses, such as the noble gasses are not toxic as long as the partial pressure of O2 remains above a certain level (there are countless academic articles online that clearly state this). That’s why helium mixes can be used in scuba diving tanks. However, there’s no such thing as CO2 breathing mixtures because, again, CO2 is defined as “toxic”, “lethal” and has a published “lethal dose” from accredited sources. It’s the dose that makes the poison - just because you can take small amounts of it and it’s a common substance that people tend to ignore doesn’t make it “harmless”. Check out some of the sources cited in my other reply. 💪
Thankyou! I was about to comment that one of the reasons guys like NurdRage have a gazillion subscribers is because they cut to the chase but then thought twice as maybe I was being unreasonable; how dumb is it when a ten-minute video has a 1/2-minute introduction, especially with asinine music blaring over it. And then after the 'Hollywood' intro. we cut to the first scene; a poorly lit 'whiteboard', the color of tobacco lung or urine-stained underwear, in what looks like a bunker, and with sound recorded using paper cups and a long piece of string. I guess contemporary RUclips standards have spoiled us but jeez, that intro was excruciating. It's a shame because otherwise the content was top notch.
Beautiful flame color! I like how you put the black board behind it. I have wanted to do this for awhile, but lost my formic acid. anyways good video!
Didnt know you would be in this comment section, But i love your videos! :D
How does one lose their formic acid xD
Thanks. Will use it someday. It's always nice to know that i can opt out of life in a painless manner.
wow, I did not know that Carbon Monoxide was flammable. that was fascinating to follow along with.
"It's actually leaving the fume hood, and not endangering my health from it." The dead bird outside: "Must be nice." XP
Brings back childhood memories of my first attempt at making formic acid- I was feeling very much like a real scientist LOL- i had fashioned Na formate using paraformaldehyde and fairly dilute aqueous H2O2- then i concentrated the liquid, used NaOH to neutralize ( of course, being a kid, i didnt pay very much attention to the weight of the base i added-AND the para was otc with significant impurities...AND I DIDNT KNOW HOW TOUGH IT WAS TO GET RID OF ALL THE WATER TRAPPED IN my homemade NaCOOH- so my stoichiometry was way off, I thought that I had way more NaCOOH than i did by weight and using 98% H2SO4 in large excess...!!!! luckily, after distilling for a while, feeling odd- I aborted--Im STILL sensitive to CO!! Chemistry is NOT for the faint of heart
lesson learned: use hydrochloric instead of sulfuric acid for making formic acid
as rule of thumb i not only formilda-hide i Chemistry hide all together because i don't mess with stuff i don't understand 😭😭😭
I wish every school has teachers like you,amazing video👍
I didn't know that "Gently" and "torch" could be used in the same sentence.
Its essentially sloppy PWM control. You can use a million btu element or burner to apply an average of 1btu.
@@AtlasReburdened You consider him torching the flask to speed up the reaction as a form of _pulse-width modulation?_ lol
@@jhyland87 Lol, *_yes._* Did you see him controlling the temperature by varying the intensity of a constantly applied flame, or by controlling how long a non varying flame was contacting the glass in pulses of varying time scales?...
Thanks Doug's Lab,
I built CO Production plant with capacity of 25 Nm3/Hr after inspired by watching your video
Thanks for uploading. Your videos are a pleasure to watch.
Such an excellent video! I was looking at a table of explosive limits for gasses, saw carbon monoxide and thought whaaa? Carbon monoxide is flammable/explosive?!? Then I tried to find some information and, of course, didn't see anything about it until I found your video. Great demonstration and explanation on the utility of CO in chemistry and metal refining, I'm looking forward to seeing you use it in some reactions.
Can I done this reaction in tin canisters?
I too had no idea that carbon monoxide was flammable, very informative video Doug thankyou!
This is how science class is supposed to be
still don't get it 😭😭
I certainly learn something new. I consider myself somewhat of a Layman scientist if such a thing could exist, but I never knew that carbon monoxide was flammable.
So, how much of these compounds would have to be mixed to create a dangerous buildup in a room? Need to know for safety.
I'm liking your videos more and more lately, thank you for the trip into
the world of chemistry. Sometimes looks almost like MythBusters. I have
a question. Which do you reckon would produce more CO? 2 parts formic
with 1 part sulfuric or 1 part formic with 2 parts sulfuric? Please tell
where did you based your answer. Thanks
To safely ignite the jet (in any apparatus making flammable gas), first collect some of the gas in an inverted test tube (upright if the gas is denser than air). Carry that to a distant flame & ignite. If the gas burns quietly at the tube's mouth, the air has been excluded & it is safe to ignite the jet. The safest way to ignite the jet is to carry the burning test tube back & put over the jet. if the gas in the tube pops on ignition, do not ignite the jet. Collect more gas & test again.
Doug plz make a video of how to oxidize methanol using a copper catalyst and how to contain formaldehyde generated by this method ..great channel
shouldn't you have used an arrester to prevent explosion? i'm not a chemist so maybe it's just the gasses that are flammable. but still, if it were to explode that would send out a huge amount of atomized solution, which will increase reaction time due to surface area, and then cause a quick massive fireball. since the solution wasn't being continuously heated and stirred, i assume its pretty safe to keep it without one.
even after 8 years the video is still helpfull
Can you tell me more about making a gas drying train, and an absorption unit? Also, in what videos do you use CO?
Very interesting video.
I have some questions though.
the endproduct that comes out of the experiment has what consentraition of carbonmonoxide?
How much is roughtly generated in Mol or volume per minute in your setting?
how long will this generate?
regards and thanks for the video
At 7:23 you said you tested that apparatus setup by using it to generate smoke to ensure it was all going out the fume hood - what chemical(s) did you use to generate some smoke?
Is there a simple and safe combo thats ideal for that kinda test? I get I could just light a smoke bomb, but if there's a reaction that can easily be done in a glass setup like yours, without generating too much heat or annoying side products, that would be neat.
Probably he used Ammonium chloride as a "smoke"
He said "chlorate smoke mixtures" in his first video on this channel, I'd just assume stuff like rocket candy or other pyrotechnics that generate smoke
Interesting video, mainstream states that CO is produced from incomplete combustion from a carbon based fuel and yet I noticed in your production there was a very clean combustion. Care to explain the inconsistency? Also the flame burns with a blue flame yet I've never known carbon to burn blue. So what are you actually burning?
In the video, it is just carbon monoxide is burning, there are no other fuels being burnt. When Carbon Monoxide is produced through incomplete combustion, the thing that is being burned is a hydrocarbon fuel such as methane, ethane, gasoline, kerosene, etc.
@@tlangdon12 tks tony for your opinion but i'd disagree - doug mixed formic acid with sulphuric acid and heated to produce what he called carbon monoxide. However there was no incomplete combustion to produce any carbon monoxide!! Therefore CO doesn't come about solely through incomplete combustion! Do you understand??
@@PeterPete I think you misunderstood my reply, because my reply agrees with your assertion that CO doesn't come about solely through incomplete combustion. My point was that WHEN CO is produced through incomplete combustion, it is the incomplete combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel that produces the CO. In the video, we are not seeing incomplete combustion producing CO, we are seeing the reaction of Formic Acid and Concentrated Sulphuric Acid producing CO. The CO being produced in the video is being burnt completely due to the excess of oxygen available in the air. This answers your original question.
@@tlangdon12 looks like many people should specify that 'carbon monoxide' can be produced in a number of different ways, instead of giving people the impression it is only produced as a result of incomplete combustion!
Would Carbon Monoxide be able to react with Nitrogen monoxide to produce Carbon dioxide and Nitrogen Gas? 2CO + 2NO -> 2CO2 + N2
When making carbon monoxide, why would you direct the flow of carbon monoxide into a water bath? I saw someone make it this way and the tubing went into the bottom of a two gallon plastic container one fourth full of water, with a second tube coming out the other side of the water bath container. The carbon monoxide was fed through a tube into the water where you could see the bubbles of it coming up through the water, then into the top half of the plastic container, with the second tubing on the top where the gas was going from the plastic water container. Why would they direct the gas into water?
To remove any aerosolized acids and to prevent an explosion as the flame cant go through water, doug doesn't since he's just burning it
Hope you're ok Doug. Happy New year friend.
Is there a substitute for formic acid in this experiment? There is a guy here in the comment section who lost his formic acid.. So i figured id ask on his behalf then let him know! 🙂
Can i carry this reaction in tin canisters?
Its a bit late now, but I kind of wish you'd added links to the videos you produced certain chemicals for.
What's the polarity of the molecule, the oxygen should have the positive dipole because one of it's normally antibonding pairs is involved in the triple bond, but that doesn't seem right. My instincts say it should have a slight dipole moment with the negative charge being on the oxygen like in all other carbonyl and carboxylic acid, but the fact it's triple bonded with 10 electrons says it has to be positive charge on the oxygen.
Dom Vasta Oxygen is electron-withdrawing through the sigma bond, but electron-donating by the involvement of its lone pair. It turns out that the electron-donating effect and the resulting triple bond character predominate (based on the very short bond length of CO) and that carbon monoxide has a small dipole moment with the negative charge polarized towards the carbon atom.
7:20 whats do you use for the smoke tests you mentioned? Just curioua
Same color as the outer cone of a neutral oxygen-hydrocarbon flame. Neat.
How much heat will be produced (in Celsius pls), i know its exothermic. and how long did it take to fully end this reaction ?
degrees Celsius is a measure of temperature not heat production. You're looking for a measurement in btu, calories, watts or some other equivalent unit.
Is that a reason why Fast & Furious cars have flame on their exhausts? to burn CO into CO2?
I never thought much about it watchin the movies till now
You can also make CO by reacting iodoform with aqueous silver nitrate. Btw, as CO and C2H4 density is equal to air density, these 2 gases are not retained by any gas mask (gas masks work by diferentiating gases based on their density)
Strange, I was given the impression in my hazmat classes that our gas masks essentially worked by filtering and reacting the incoming gas stream within the matrix of the chlorine impregnated activated carbon filter.
That is factually incorrect. Gas masks do not sieve out the gases. They absorb them on filters' high surface areas covered with chemicals that react with those particular gases.
At 0:40 there are two smileys! Can you find them?
+LargeVirus Destroyed
LV except they are not, they are pairs of electrons
But if one were to heat the flask with nothing more that a hot water bath, would it be sufficient ?
He said it works, you probably dont need more than 50C to get a very vigorous generation
Good afternoon. You have not tried to obtain gasoline from water gas by the Fischer Tropsch reaction. With your level of equipment you can carry out such an experience. If you are interested in course. It is necessary to let water gas flow over a cobalt or iron catalyst. I have studied enough literature on this subject. But so far there is no access to equipment. But it is very interesting to carry out such a reaction. I did primitive experiments and got the smell of gasoline from the reactor, but there were no temperature controllers and everything else.
In general, if you are interested, I can tell you how to make a catalyst and other conditions of experience.
Using the Carbon monoxide flame to heat the flask will lead to a runaway reaction... Right🤔? I would love to see that Reaktion 👀!
What about putting charcoal into a ceramic tube, igniting it at one end and feeding in oxygen (from a tank or an oxygen concentrator)? The charcoal will heat, initially producing CO2, then producing CO through CO2 + C > 2CO. This can continue as long as charcoal remains in the tube and oxygen is fed in. Rate is controlled by controlling rate of oxygen feed.
Dehydration of formic acid is a more convenient process. Even if several kilograms of carbon monoxide are required, it is more profitable to choose this method for one-time work.
In fact, that's what they use to smelt iron from iron oxide industrially, they mix charcoal and ore together and regulate the amount of air injected to maintain more CO than CO2, the CO then reduces the iron oxide to iron
make metal carbonyls and can you do a video on making red phosphorous and one on making pyridine from niacin
Yes.. Nickel carbonyl. AKA "liquid death"
***** this guy is immortal, uhm he made carbon monoxide
He even survived marriage recently if I'm not mistaken.
does this work with 85% formic acid? in my knowledge this should work just as fine but i am not sure
Yes. I did it with 85% formic acid about two years ago, but I used more sulfuric acid so that at the end of the process there is the same concentration of sulfuric acid. The yield (by volume of gas) was quantitative or so. As indicated in the book by Hans Rupe "Lecture experiments in Organic Chemistry", it is enough to mix 50 g of 86% formic acid and 50 g of concentrated sulfuric acid and heat it up to get ~25 l of carbon monoxide. Other books indicate, as a rule, a larger amount of sulfuric acid, but this is not necessary.
If it's exothermic how does it help to warm it up?
Heating decreases solubility of CO in the solution causing it to leave the solution, which shifts the equilibrium to the right (at least this is my best guess)
Every reaction get's faster by heating. How do you think firewood catches on fire?
Krisztián Szirtes You are wrong, and bad example.
It was not bad example and he is right in general. When reaction takes place it is because particles interact. However, they don't have to interact everytime they bump into each other. They need right orientation and enough energy in order to form product. the faster those particles are the more energy they have and also more bumping occurs. This happens whether the reaction is exo- or endothermic. What type of reaction it is determines only if energy is released or consumed.
His example was right because you are essentially saying in your first comment that you're doubting heating up the mixture will help it react faster. If it wasn't helping, every exothermic reaction would happen without any action of ours. That would mean that wood would combust on its own, for example. Hence that was good example and you only showed your arrogance.
bad example because by heating firewood you pyrolytically decompose it into charcoal and light hydrocarbon fractions(including methane) which catch on fire, so by heating firewood you preparing fuel(mix of flamable gasses). It is bases of burning wood, burning charcoal is another story and would be better example.
As for adding heat: there is thermodynamic equilibrium, at some point, after adding more heat, numbers of reactions will go slower and eventually in reverse path, so reactions like 2co + o2 = 2co2 after adding too much heat will result in decomposing of co2 into co and o2, same with 2h2 + o2 = 2h2o.
can you react carbon monoxide and hydrogen to create methanol?
I'm no expert, but given the triple bond and hydrogen's electron deficiency, I see no reason why that wouldn't work. How you'd go about doing it or if you need a catalyst is unknown to me, however.
thor holton water gas(mixture of CO and H2)do react to form CH3OH(methanol).However it is endothermic and The resulted methanol also burns.
@@nemeanlyan7918
You'd basically have to hydrogenate the CO. I think that a palladium catalyst should do the trick.
You can but you need very extreme conditions. On the english wiki page on Methanol it says: "Carbon monoxide and hydrogen react over a catalyst to produce methanol. Today, the most widely used catalyst is a mixture of copper and zinc oxides, supported on alumina, as first used by ICI in 1966. At 5-10 MPa (50-100 atm) and 250 °C (482 °F), the reaction is characterized by high selectivity (>99.8%)" so definitly not lab friendly :D
It's what they do industrially but not easy to accomplish in a amateur lab, you need high pressure high temperature reactors and catalysts
hi can you make zippo gas
Nice video, sulphur burns with a blue flame which is flammable and which is in sulphuric acid, which also produces hydrogen that is also flammable. Even formic acid contains hydrogen. I really can't understand how it's carbon monoxide. Anyone care to shed some light?
Doug explained the chemical reaction produces CO, but did not emphasis that it also produces water as well. His whiteboard drawing of the formic acid molecule omits the carbon atom at the centre, so it is unclear where the carbon comes from to make CO. The Sulphuric acid basically splits the Formic acid (HCOOH) into CO + H2O. There is not much heat available in the video to convert the water to steam, so we are just seeing pure CO being ejected out of the flask to be burnt. All the hydrogen and sulphur remains in the flask in the form of water and sulphuric acid, we are not seeing sulphur or hydrogen burning here. It really is CO burning.
@@tlangdon12 Cheers for your opinion Tony but you can't prove anything you've typed to be true. My opinion is that hydrogen is burning along with the sulphur impurities from the acid, hence the blue coloured flame. I'm sure you know sulphur burns with a blue flame. FYI they even use 'carbon monoxide' to make formic acid. Personally I consider carbon monoxide contains hydrogen because without it, it would not burn. And finally one cannot make water from the reaction because water is already present in the acids - water just migrates along with the hydrogen.
Would this example create a lethal dose?
yes
a flame that makes no water as a byproduct! this has to be useful somewhere. the only byproduct is co2 which is the same byproduct you get when burning solid carbon, except instead of being a solid, its a gas, because you already have one of the two required oxygens attached to the carbon.
It's just not really safe, natural gas already has traces of CO and people can die from CO poisoning from gas leaks, methane is just the safest and most efficient option for now (hydrogen is also a contender but is easily explosive)
@@EdwardTriesToScience you know oxy-hydrogen torches? well imagine a ozone carbon monoxide torch!
Sounds interesting
"Carbon and monoxide, that old Detroit perfume..."(Papa Hobo, Paul Simon)
i'd like to make CO using UV light from a deuterium lamp to break up CO2,
How would I use it to synthesize phosgene?
you don't.
Max Klemke aka myfanwy. Look him up buddy.
Industrially, phosgene is produced by passing purified carbon monoxide and chlorine gas through a bed of porous activated carbon, which serves as a catalyst
Please don't, myfanwy, a former sciencemadness user and youtuber most likely died from phosgene as that was his last post, about making phosgene, if you want organic carbonates, buy them
Duuuude I hope you had a fume hood. Making CO with concentrated acids and using a BLOW TORCH ON THE GLASS? Not cool man.
I read an article in a science magazine talking about the affects of carbon monoxide on the human body, and it is actually as poisonous as hydrogen cyanide gas!
No, actually it is not. Carbon monoxide is quite toxic, no doubt about that. But far less toxic than hydrogen cyanide. Not only carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide is also listed under category 4 in health rating. But, they are not same in the toxicity level. Hydrogen sulfide is often compared with hydrogen cyanide in toxicity but actual it is not that toxic. It is because they attack our body almost in the same way but their toxicity levels are different. Our body can tolerate some toxic gases like hydrogen sulfide & ammonia and it converts them into non toxic compounds if the exposure is low. But the story is different in the case of hydrogen cyanide. It will kill you even on short time exposure.
Shiva Chemist I probably mistaked for something else
Josh Deffenbaugh there is a lot of misinformation out there too
Works well using oxallic acid as well instead of formic acid. 🤓
any videos about NOx please tag me in
So why aren't car mufflers flamethrowers
low amount of monoxide and no oxygen in exhaust gas
Idiots often do run their engines super rich without mufflers and add a spark plug to create said flame thrower effect on cars.
Carbon dioxide is harmless ... hmmm???
It's plain CO2, not toxic but it will suffocate you (any gas that isnt oxygen will suffocate you)
Monoxide is CO, dioxide is CO2
@@EdwardTriesToScience Yes, I’m quite aware of that. CO2 isn’t “harmless”, it’s quite toxic above a certain blood concentration, regardless of the oxygen level. That’s all I’m saying.
That is incorrect. Inert gasses, such as the noble gasses are not toxic as long as the partial pressure of O2 remains above a certain level (there are countless academic articles online that clearly state this). That’s why helium mixes can be used in scuba diving tanks. However, there’s no such thing as CO2 breathing mixtures because, again, CO2 is defined as “toxic”, “lethal” and has a published “lethal dose” from accredited sources. It’s the dose that makes the poison - just because you can take small amounts of it and it’s a common substance that people tend to ignore doesn’t make it “harmless”. Check out some of the sources cited in my other reply. 💪
OMG. Shorten that "intro".... face palm
Thankyou! I was about to comment that one of the reasons guys like NurdRage have a gazillion subscribers is because they cut to the chase but then thought twice as maybe I was being unreasonable; how dumb is it when a ten-minute video has a 1/2-minute introduction, especially with asinine music blaring over it. And then after the 'Hollywood' intro. we cut to the first scene; a poorly lit 'whiteboard', the color of tobacco lung or urine-stained underwear, in what looks like a bunker, and with sound recorded using paper cups and a long piece of string. I guess contemporary RUclips standards have spoiled us but jeez, that intro was excruciating. It's a shame because otherwise the content was top notch.
Jail time. This world is up side down🎉
Cannot understand you talk too fast!