Dimethyl ether doesnt share this property of peroxide formation. @slooty
Extraction & van der Waals Force - #20 by anon86230761 The picture he linked said so.
ctrl-F peroxide
CO2 is O=C=O not H2C=O=CH2. Still linear. You high?
Damn i forget where i read that but looks like youāre right.
It says on the wikipedia the dimethyl resists oxidation relative to the other ethers
THANK YOU! I didnāt want to be the one to call it outā¦
Ethers will also knock your ass out. Used to be used as anesthetic. Until peopleās lungs caught on fire from sparksā¦ The 1800s were wack haha
Anyone tried dme for bulk hemp extraction of CBDa?
The research did make me want to make & sample some
Holy shitā¦ must have had DME on the brain before it was even mentioned! Thank you for finding that error! Sadly, I cannot go back to fix it, now. Yikes!
@Krative, or anyone, PLEASE feel free to point out any errors I have made as soon as you catch them! I prefer not to accidentally disseminate misinformation! I remember writing the correct formula diagram elsewhere in that post, but I erased it, and (incorrectly) rewrote it where it is now, then followed through with describing the (erroneous) DME molecule! Sleep dep makes me do some truly disturbing thingsā¦
@Photon_noir will do! Do you have any recommendations as to what temps and other conditions would make for a good extraction using dimethyl ether?
Haha well sorry have to point out one more thing then. What you posted wasnāt even dimethyl ether (or dimethoxy ethane) but an impossible tetravalent oxygen. 3 bonds is as far as Iām aware the max for oxygen.
Yee boi
THANK YOU! I wish I could like it twice.
I know, @slooty! Thatās why I said āā¦(erroneous) DME moleculeā¦ā! No worries pointing it out to me or others! I appreciate it! Doh!
Just so folks know, that paragraph should have read as follows:
Propane (and CO2) vs. Butane(s)
As you might surmise, propane has slightly less dispersive force, because it is smaller. It has only 3 carbons in CH3-CH2-CH3 configuration. Although they are single bonds and can therefore spin, there is not a lot of variation between \/ and /\ except possibly an extremely brief āā .
Carbon dioxide is O=C=O, which is a perfectly straight, stiff, short molecule. Double bonds cannot spin or flex (vibrate out of plane),
so CO2 is just stuck as āā.
So what about the forced configuration change co2 can undergo under extreme pressures? Is that just outside the scope of this post?
I think so? Co2 doesnāt have much for solvency properties until 600psi, and even then itās highly non-polar.
I believe youāre talking about an extrinsic configuration change rather than an intrinsic configuration change, @Krative, @tweedledew. The molecules of CO2 do not change shape when compressed, but they do āstackā differently. In fact, it is because they cannot change shape that they are able to do this, despite strongly repulsive forces between them. Rather than random toothpicks in a pile, the compression causes them to align staggered with one another, like toothpicks organized in a box, if that makes sense.
I was under the impression that the intense pressure allowed the co2 to stack itself with the other molecules present and stabilize/interact/solublize other carbonyl groups, alcohols, and other things with strong partial positives and negatives (did somebody say epoxides?) because of the quadrupole moment of CO2 that gives it a strong partial positives on itās carbon and strong partial negatives on itās oxygenās. I thought it was that these interactions only become prevalent at substantially increased pressures?
Iām pretty punchy from sleep dep at the moment, so please excuse my saying thisā¦ how do I put itā¦ yeah, something like that. You are basically saying the same thing I just said, but the irony of role reversal is not entirely lost on me. Youāre explaining the electromagnetic version of āthey stack like toothpicksā. I hope that doesnāt sound snippy! Iām actually glad you brought it up!