yeah, not natural.
man made solid oxygen.
What form is this in? How is the oxygen “solid”? Is there some substance other than oxygen binding the oxygen into a solid form?
solid oxygen is often used for rocket fuel.
that is all i know.
i think it is O2 but it can be O3 or something. but not bind to any other element.
What makes you think oxygen won’t form a solid at the proper temperature and pressure?
nth, what rockets? Liquid, yes, but I’ve never heard of solid being used.
Squink is right about the bubbles and such. The calculation is otherwise simple, you just need the specific heats and heats of fusion, and a bit of algebra.
Check out my first post in this thread.
Yes, you’ve been doubtful the entire thread.
To be more blunt, what proof do you have to back up your assertion that oxygen can’t be solid?
Simple but possibly flawed logic on my part. ie
So far as I know elemental oxygen is typically in a gas form on the planet Earth. The only way I know that it can be “not a gas” is through super cooling it into a liquid LOX state and containing it under pressure or in a solid-semi metallic state at the center of gas giants like Jupiter. I don’t see (logically) how elemental oxygen, by itself, can be in a “solid” form on the Earth’s surface without being bound to or within some other (non-oxygen) medium or matrix. This is why I was asking nth what the heck he meant by “solid oxygen” and all I got was some polite handwaving. It was evident he didn’t know the answer to his own assertion so I let it drop.
But now, since you have picked up the “solid elemental oxygen on the Earth’s surface” baton, please, if you have some proof that elemental oxygen, by itself sans a binding medium or matrix, can exist as a “solid” on the earth’s surface place let me know how this can be because I am dying to know.
By that logic no solid can exist of any element commonly a gas on earth. We’re capable of making temperatures very near abolsute zero and pressures from very very high to almot complete vacuum.
http://dirac.ms.virginia.edu/~emb3t/o2/o2.html
http://www.aps.org/BAPSMAR98/abs/S1840002.html
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/scholar/elements/oxygen/structure.html
http://www.ucc.ie/ucc/depts/chem/dolchem/html/elem/elem008.html
I thought it was evident in my post and previous posts that I am talking about elemental oxygen, by itself, in a solid state on the earth’s surface at more or less standard atmospheric pressure and ambient temperatures. I have no doubt you can mimic super high pressure conditions in the lab to yield small amounts of “solid oxygen” such as you would find at the heart of a star or gas giant planet to use in experiments.
There is some evidence that solid oxygen exists in small amounts on Ganymede;
http://www.distant-star.com/issue4/aug_97_sci-tech.htm
probably bound into other icy materials
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/classes/ge131/notes/showman.pdf
if it occurs on Ganymede, it might occur in the Kuiper belt or Oort cloud where it is colder still;
unless it is being created on Ganymede by the action of sunlight on water ice, which means oxygen will be very difficult to find anywhere in solid form.
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html
I’m sure it could exist at atmospheric pressure; I’ll go try to find a phase diagram for oxygen at the university. It would just be super-“Dry Ice”.
Gas O2 (at STP) has a density of 0.001429 kg per liter. Liquid O2 has a density of 1.141 kg per liter.
Need answer very, very slow!
If we’re updating this thread, six new elements have been discovered:
It’s not really meaningful to speak of states of matter or of densities for such elements. They don’t even really belong on the periodic table. All of those are matters of chemistry, and such elements don’t live long enough to participate in any meaningful chemistry. You’re probably lucky if you can attach any electrons at all to the nuclei before they decay.
It was a joke - the thread is so old that 6 new elements were discovered between posts.
Within your point as a whole–“what chemistry is” is the second sentence here necessary and sufficient for your premise?
Because I read it so to understand this statement:
Which (not unusual for your posts) strikes my understanding of the periodic table quite hard.
[
In one day n two threads SD undermines my knowledge of the Standard Model and the periodic table. What’s next?]
Well, to the extent that the Periodic Table is just a list of the integers in order, of course you can keep adding more entries to the end. But the Periodic Table is more than just a list. It’s organized into a particular shape because that shape is meaningful for a number of different properties of the elements. Elements in the same column have similar properties, elements towards the top right corner tend to be gases, and so on. All of those properties ultimately derive from the arrangement of electrons around the nucleus, and so if you don’t have the electrons, the organization is meaningless.
For instance, if you go down one square from oxygen, you get sulfur. Sulfur is chemically very similar to oxygen, and if you take a molecule with oxygen in it, you can usually replace the oxygen with sulfur and get a very similar molecule. Likewise (to a somewhat lesser degree) for selenium, tellurium, or even polonium (the rest of the oxygen group). But you can’t replace an oxygen atom with a livermorium atom, because the livermorium atom won’t last long enough. Or, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon (the rightmost column) are all noble gases. Is oganesson? Well, no, because there have never been enough atoms of it to form a gas (or a liquid, or a solid).
This is not, of course, to say that these new nuclei aren’t interesting. They are. But what’s interesting about them all relates to the forces between protons and neutrons, not to the forces between electrons.