New RXN safety idea of RP

[menthol_man]

I was thinking... if we did a RP/I RXN to make
Meth using a sealed glass RXN vessel... could we
flood the RXN vessel with CO2 or another heavier than
air gas?  I was thinking we could displace all the
oxygen so a fire could never start inside the RXN vessel.
I couldnt think of a good way to get a vacume going with
just ordinary mason jars so I was thinking of heavier than
air inert gasses... What's everyones opinion on this?
Is it redundant since there will be a limited amount of
oxygen if there is a fire?
Gott Mit Uns!

[foxy2]

It will bee really fun when that jar explodes
Do Your Part To Win The War

[menthol_man]

I really dont see WHY the jar would become overpressurized.  It wouldnt bee compressed.
It is still only at normal atmospheric pressure 14 lbs per sq ft.  The use of a heavier than
air gas s to displace oxygen so that a fire could never start.  Would you care to elaborate
on your comments?  If you think you see a problem please be subjective and leave the
ad homynum (sp?)  arguments to another thread.
Gott Mit Uns!

[Rhodium]

The pressure inside a sealed reaction vessel will increase when the temperature is increased, or when gaseous products are evolved. Both happens in a RP/I2 reaction.

[Eeyoredonkey]

I think the pressure in a sealed reaction vessel could be substantial.  The balloon used in the one gram method gets pretty big - That's the combination of evolved gasses and heat expansion of existing gasses.

[kurupira]

how about just flushing the inert gas (no pressure)?

[abc123]

its not worth it.....swim never saw any p fires,,,,anyone having fires?.....why rid  the O2 just to fill the atm will allot of H2..doesnt have to be done...yes h2 is inert but could make a quick flash fire.....swim one time used a small RB and directly after the rxn didnt let the h2 do itsthing (sit for 20mins) and just directly poured the contents of the RB into another vessel and a flash fire (small one) occured...the rb was flung about 2 feet and a popping sound was heard with a firecracker looking sounding blast (small fire-cracker--salute)

swim would technique and safety are much more important than ineret gas...and save the inert for a reductive amination

your creating an inert gas and any put in would be driven out with the push
Dad made whisky and he made it well, cost two dollars....burned like hell......GD

[menthol_man]

See the idea was NOT to pressurize the container with inert gas.  Just to take out
the O2 and replace it with CO, N (nitrogen) nor some other inert AND non flammable gas
so there is NOT a vacum and there is no extra pressure.  UNDERSTAND PEOPLE  THE RXN
VESSEL WILL BE 14 Lbs oer sq ft just like the atmosphere around you RIGHT NOW IS!!!
OK!  There would NOT be any real pressure increases / decreases (Esp with Nitrogen .
Nitrogen makes 74% of the air we're breathing RIGHT NOW!)  But anyways Fuck it.
Gott Mit Uns!

[foxy2]

"sealed glass RXN vessel"

Why?
Do Your Part To Win The War

[abc123]

menthol man your right an inert gas such as argon would probally help reduce the risk of fire.....of course a pressurized vessel isnt wanted.....the inert would only be usefull at first because it will get driven out

it may not really be a bad idea especially if someone is having problems with fires in the first stage
Dad made whisky and he made it well, cost two dollars....burned like hell......GD