Talk:1-Diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole

Raman IR spec

The article suggests the substance exploded when an attempt was made to chart it's "IR spectrum", but then says this was using Raman spectroscopy. Raman spectroscopy does not operate in the IR spectrum as far as I know, and the source linked does not appear to explicitely say this to me, though it does sound as though it's implied. Really not sure if this is a valid concern, but I think it's worth checking. Avocado tea (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Having now looked at the source paper, I think the source is being misrepresented.

From page 3 of the article:

"The frequencies derived from Raman and IR measurements are compiled in Tables S1, S2, and S3 in the Supporting Information together with the calculated values and their possible assignment. As all compounds could only be measured with traces of solvent (CHCl3) left, bands in the C-H region are observed at 3000–2800 cm-1 in the IR spectra of 2 and 3 and in the Raman spectra of 1 and 2. Caution: Compound 2 detonated several times during the Raman measurement (laser energy < 150 mW!). Measurements were therefore performed at 50 mW using a higher number of scans using one crystal."

To be honest, I'm not sure. The azide group here here is both IR and Raman active, so it's the same peak being obtained in both, but I don't know if I was interpreting the article poorly / with a lack of knowledge, or if it should be updated. It should definitely be updated to note that although it exploded multiple times, spectroscopy was successfuly performed upon reducing power input. Any input would be very appreciated Avocado tea (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

real reference: visible in https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14061/1/Martin_Franz_Albert.pdf from page 80 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this, I've been trying to find the original source that wasn't locked behind a paywall. WhittleMario (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Not as sensitive as people thought?

I recently watched a video of an amateur chemist preparing this compound and evaluating its properties. Since it's amateur work, I don't think it would be considered reliable enough to include here, and may even count as original research. However, the video description did include three links to academic papers on the compound, one of which is not currently cited in this article. This paper compared the so-called "open form" and "closed form" of C₂N₁₄, and found that the open form, once thought to have been synthesized first, rapidly forms the closed form at room temperature.

Banert, K. , Richter, S. , Schaarschmidt, D. and Lang, H. (2013), Well Known or New? Synthesis and Structure Assignment of Binary C2N14 Compounds Reinvestigated. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 52: 3499-3502. doi:10.1002/anie.201209170

The main two takeaways are as follows:

1. The compound was not first synthesized in 2011, and source 3 reports. It had been synthesized long before this, in 1969, but only in 2011 did they obtain the proper structure.
2. Although the compound is quite sensitive, the characterization of it exploding in response to "(n)early any stimulus", as the article puts it, is false. The sensitivity is indeed below their limits to measure, but that doesn't mean that it will explode at the slightest prompting, nor does source 4 claim as much.

More sources will probably be needed on this, but I think this is a good starting point. Most of the characterizations in literature of the open form, Isocyanogen Tetrazide, would likely be applicable to this article. Waterfire (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the video linked above is a demonstration, the synthesis is documented (by the same author) in this video.

This wiki page is very sparse considering the mythic status the chemical has acheived within hobby chemistry/pop science.

Cdpas (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think it's appropriate to use amateur backyard chemistry videos to "debunk" peer-reviewed publications. –dlthewave ☎ 02:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUE WEIGHT is another problem with this content. Even if we accept these primary sources as reliable, I'm not seeing enough coverage by secondary sources to merit inclusion. –dlthewave ☎ 22:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I note you have previously removed the same paragraph from the article on the 18th of September, but your edit was reverted. I think there is merit to the inclusion of it, it isn't "debunking" the peer-reviewed publications, only offering another viewpoint. The authors of the publications even confirmed that the amateur chemists had produced the chemical. 102% Yield (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a marginally better source, but there's no sign of peer review or editorial oversight whatsoever. Even if we accept this as expert opinion, do you feel that it satisfies our due weight requirement? –dlthewave ☎ 22:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly think the sources merit inclusion, though possibly rewording the sentences in the article to say something more like "At least two chemistry hobbyists have purportedly produced the compound, using the isocyanogen tetrabromide and sodium azide method, and documented their supposed results online. Preliminary qualitative observations suggested that although still highly sensitive, the compound is much less so than other explosives such as Nitrogen triiodide, requiring moderate force to trigger a detonation." may be a better option, as this doesn't contradict the peer reviewed papers. The video sources don't actually claim that the explosive is less sensitive than described in the papers, so I'm not sure why the contradiction was added in the article here.102% Yield (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Is the lemma correct?

According to the link https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi/searchId.do;E6435736D754428CE647ACA0D93BE7F6?printerFriendlyView=true&locale=null&chebiId=23004&viewTermLineage=null&structureView=& the carbamoyl group describes R-CO-NH2. But here the group R2C=N-. Two different chemical groups can not have the same name? --Mark McWire (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You will see that the IUPAC name differs. The name this article gives appears to be the one given to it by the discoverers. They are taking "carbamoyl" to mean substituted on the oxygen. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Fire diamond source?

I couldn't find a source for the fire diamond, especially for the "health" division. Are the poisonous properties of the compound even tested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korky Buchek (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This was done by user:ThesenatorO5-2 without any source supplied. How about we remove the fire diamond, I think it would be all original research. could also be added, but unless there's a product with this label, I think we can omit it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I recently remembered I watched a talk hosted by the author of source 7: "I make C2N14 in my shed (azidoazide azide) - Ex&F" where one of the authors of source 4, Jörg Stierstorfer was a participant, and they discussed the work done in the youtube video and mentioned that this explosive was the compound formed. Would this be reason enough to remove the unreliable source tag? 102% Yield (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources and the entire paragraph this is in relation to have been removed, though this edit has been reverted once already. If restored I'll remove the source from "ReactiveChem" due to unreliability and replace it with the video mentioned above to improve credibility, unless anyone has any objections to this. 102% Yield (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I added both videos in External Links section --Mark McWire (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I Dunno About This

Decided to check back on this article after being away from Wikipedia for a while, and it's way different from what I remember. It feels like an entirely different chemical now, and I'm really doubting some of these claims (e.g. nitrogen triiodide supposedly being more sensitive than this thing). Feels a bit like false information to me. For now, I'm still on the fence about whether to edit this article or not, but I'll refrain until I get a definite answer

1700 (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Did some more looking around the talk page here. Still pretty skeptical, but at least I know where some of the claims are coming from now. 1700 (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)