I seem to remember a machine that actually "cut" motor oil into shorter HC
chains to test motor oil longevity. Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale? How about pressing HCs through
rollers so precise that they would actually crush molecules to do the job?
The trouble I see would be that people would start disappearing into fuel
tanks, chubby people would be the first to go.

"Buerste" wrote in message
...
I seem to remember a machine that actually "cut" motor oil into shorter HC
chains to test motor oil longevity. Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale? How about pressing HCs through
rollers so precise that they would actually crush molecules to do the job?
The trouble I see would be that people would start disappearing into fuel
tanks, chubby people would be the first to go.


You probably could, but, like fusion, the issue would likely be: can you
control the resulting products?

This is actually a very inneresting notion, and, perhaps, uh, cuts to the
core of chemical reactivity/bonding.

To mechanically cut organic molecules *within the molecule* (as opposed to
say, fracturing a crystal lattice, as in steel, or undoing much simpler
hydrogen bonds/protein interactions such as in cutting wood) would actually
involve a net chemical reaction, which may be difficult to control after
mechanical breaking.

Cutting something also raises the almost as dicey concept of what it means
to just touch, or even move something. Think London forces.
But back to cutting:

If you were to actually "mechanically break" a hydrocarbon chain in half,
you would temporarily have two free-radical like carbons, highly reactive.
And the question would be, what would they then react with?

What you would want is a hydrogen atom replacing each half of the previous
C-C bond, but the now-unstable carbons might instead react with the cutter
itself, possibly something else, or likely just with each other, simply
recombining.

Reaction with the cutter itself would be very likely, because the "cutting"
is actually one set of molecular/atomic orbitals disrupting another set of
molecular orbitals. When orbitals become that intimate, interaction is
almost inevitable. Esp. when you visualize a "molecular press/roller"
situation.

This suggests that the "cutting" would have to occur on the surface of some
catalyst (think platinum, as what's in your car), and would involve some
very sophisticated solid-state chemistry.

The other way to mechanically cut a hydrocarbon chain would be to grab
(read: bond in some way) with the ends of the chain (like in a tug of war),
and just pull, until somewhere in the center breaks.

This then becomes its own conundrum, because then how would you reversibly
release the ends?
And, you would still have the reaction problem of an unstable middle.

The line between the mechanical and the chemical is always an inneresting
notion.
For example, in hydrocarbons, the transition from gas to liquids to solids
is a very nice mechanical continuum, from methane to asphalt, and arises
solely from the *length* of the hydrocarbon chain!

Methane is the way it is (a gas) because the chain is short -- just one
carbon; kerosene is about 8 carbons or so, forming a liquid; asphalt is
30-60 carbons, one chain literally knotted up with another (and maybe even
itself) like a a pile of strings, ie, a mess.
But, apparently a very useful mess.

Enzymes are what mother nature uses to "cut" molecules, and is akin to a
fixture on a BP, as opposed to a wielded ax:
Molecules are is held precisely (and reversibly) in place, as the orbital
surgery takes place, just as the fixture on a BP holds the material, and the
BP itself holds the fixture and the cutter.
Once the surgery is completed, the molecules are released -- like opening a
vise.
Pretty incredible, actually, yet so routine in living systems -- actually,
the foundation.

In this scenario, you even have the literal concept of "tolerance", just as
you would, say, in a punch and die set.
An enzyme's effectiveness in catalyzing reactions (cutting/stitching) is
directly proportional to how well substrates "fit", and chemical poisoning
often proceeds by creating unworkable tolerances, especially in
metallo-based enzymes (which use copper, zinc, iron, magnesium, selenium,
etc).

Cadmium is one very elegant example of this poisoning, as it is orbitally
similar enough to zinc (iirc) to replace it in the enzyme system, but
dissimilar enough to disrupt the dimensions/tolerances of the enzyme that
depends on zinc to function in its molecular cutting/stitching.

Apropos of the above oh-so elegant transition from chemistry to machining,
most here would find the notion of "molecular motors" beyond fascinating.
The biochem text by Voit and Voit shows pictures of some molecular motors
(eg, the rotating flagella of some bacteria), and your collective jaws will
hit the floor when you see nature's version of rotors, stators, bearings,
shafts, and the like.
It is *beyond uncanny* -- eerie, even -- and well worth a google search to
try and see these. Hard to imagine this not being on the web.

I doubt, however, if you will find a molecular IC engine, but who knows....
Bomb beetles come close, tho...

Btw, not saying the raw mechanical cutting molecules can't be done, just
that there are bevies of details to what would ostensibly seem a trivial
process.

--
DT

On Oct 12, 1:53*am, "Buerste" wrote:
I seem to remember a machine that actually "cut" motor oil into shorter HC
chains to test motor oil longevity. *Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale? *How about pressing HCs through
rollers so precise that they would actually crush molecules to do the job?
The trouble I see would be that people would start disappearing into fuel
tanks, chubby people would be the first to go.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanochemistry
Also google "mechanochemical + fuels", etc. I think that the field is
mostly R&D at present.

"DrollTroll" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...
I seem to remember a machine that actually "cut" motor oil into shorter HC
chains to test motor oil longevity. Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale? How about pressing HCs through
rollers so precise that they would actually crush molecules to do the job?
The trouble I see would be that people would start disappearing into fuel
tanks, chubby people would be the first to go.


You probably could, but, like fusion, the issue would likely be: can you
control the resulting products?

This is actually a very inneresting notion, and, perhaps, uh, cuts to the
core of chemical reactivity/bonding.

To mechanically cut organic molecules *within the molecule* (as opposed to
say, fracturing a crystal lattice, as in steel, or undoing much simpler
hydrogen bonds/protein interactions such as in cutting wood) would
actually involve a net chemical reaction, which may be difficult to
control after mechanical breaking.

Cutting something also raises the almost as dicey concept of what it means
to just touch, or even move something. Think London forces.
But back to cutting:

If you were to actually "mechanically break" a hydrocarbon chain in half,
you would temporarily have two free-radical like carbons, highly reactive.
And the question would be, what would they then react with?

What you would want is a hydrogen atom replacing each half of the previous
C-C bond, but the now-unstable carbons might instead react with the
cutter itself, possibly something else, or likely just with each other,
simply recombining.

Reaction with the cutter itself would be very likely, because the
"cutting" is actually one set of molecular/atomic orbitals disrupting
another set of molecular orbitals. When orbitals become that intimate,
interaction is almost inevitable. Esp. when you visualize a "molecular
press/roller" situation.

This suggests that the "cutting" would have to occur on the surface of
some catalyst (think platinum, as what's in your car), and would involve
some very sophisticated solid-state chemistry.

The other way to mechanically cut a hydrocarbon chain would be to grab
(read: bond in some way) with the ends of the chain (like in a tug of
war), and just pull, until somewhere in the center breaks.

This then becomes its own conundrum, because then how would you reversibly
release the ends?
And, you would still have the reaction problem of an unstable middle.

The line between the mechanical and the chemical is always an inneresting
notion.
For example, in hydrocarbons, the transition from gas to liquids to solids
is a very nice mechanical continuum, from methane to asphalt, and arises
solely from the *length* of the hydrocarbon chain!

Methane is the way it is (a gas) because the chain is short -- just one
carbon; kerosene is about 8 carbons or so, forming a liquid; asphalt is
30-60 carbons, one chain literally knotted up with another (and maybe even
itself) like a a pile of strings, ie, a mess.
But, apparently a very useful mess.

Enzymes are what mother nature uses to "cut" molecules, and is akin to a
fixture on a BP, as opposed to a wielded ax:
Molecules are is held precisely (and reversibly) in place, as the
orbital surgery takes place, just as the fixture on a BP holds the
material, and the BP itself holds the fixture and the cutter.
Once the surgery is completed, the molecules are released -- like opening
a vise.
Pretty incredible, actually, yet so routine in living systems -- actually,
the foundation.

In this scenario, you even have the literal concept of "tolerance", just
as you would, say, in a punch and die set.
An enzyme's effectiveness in catalyzing reactions (cutting/stitching) is
directly proportional to how well substrates "fit", and chemical poisoning
often proceeds by creating unworkable tolerances, especially in
metallo-based enzymes (which use copper, zinc, iron, magnesium, selenium,
etc).

Cadmium is one very elegant example of this poisoning, as it is orbitally
similar enough to zinc (iirc) to replace it in the enzyme system, but
dissimilar enough to disrupt the dimensions/tolerances of the enzyme that
depends on zinc to function in its molecular cutting/stitching.

Apropos of the above oh-so elegant transition from chemistry to machining,
most here would find the notion of "molecular motors" beyond
fascinating.
The biochem text by Voit and Voit shows pictures of some molecular motors
(eg, the rotating flagella of some bacteria), and your collective jaws
will hit the floor when you see nature's version of rotors, stators,
bearings, shafts, and the like.
It is *beyond uncanny* -- eerie, even -- and well worth a google search
to try and see these. Hard to imagine this not being on the web.

I doubt, however, if you will find a molecular IC engine, but who
knows.... Bomb beetles come close, tho...

Btw, not saying the raw mechanical cutting molecules can't be done, just
that there are bevies of details to what would ostensibly seem a trivial
process.

--
DT


Thanks for the wonderful chemistry lesson! I have this "Brain Candy" notion
that somebody will stumble on something stupid-simple that will solve huge,
complex problems...at least I hope!

On Oct 12, 11:47*am, "Buerste" wrote:
"DrollTroll" wrote in message

...







"Buerste" wrote in message
...
I seem to remember a machine that actually "cut" motor oil into shorter HC
chains to test motor oil longevity. *Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale? *How about pressing HCs through
rollers so precise that they would actually crush molecules to do the job?
The trouble I see would be that people would start disappearing into fuel
tanks, chubby people would be the first to go.

You probably could, but, like fusion, the issue would likely be: can you
control the resulting products?

This is actually a very inneresting notion, and, perhaps, uh, cuts to the
core of chemical reactivity/bonding.

To mechanically cut organic molecules *within the molecule* (as opposed to
say, fracturing a crystal lattice, as in steel, or undoing much simpler
hydrogen bonds/protein interactions such as in cutting wood) would
actually involve a net chemical reaction, which may be difficult to
control after mechanical breaking.

Cutting something also raises the almost as dicey concept of what it means
to just touch, or even move something. *Think London forces. *
But back to cutting:

If you were to actually "mechanically break" a hydrocarbon chain in half,
you would temporarily have two free-radical like carbons, highly reactive.
And the question would be, what would they then react with?

What you would want is a hydrogen atom replacing each half of the previous
C-C bond, but the now-unstable carbons might instead react with *the
cutter itself, possibly something else, or likely just with each other,
simply recombining.

Reaction with the cutter itself would be very likely, because the
"cutting" is actually one set of molecular/atomic orbitals disrupting
another set of molecular orbitals. *When orbitals become that intimate,
interaction is almost inevitable. Esp. when you visualize a "molecular
press/roller" situation.

This suggests that the "cutting" would have to occur on the surface of
some catalyst (think platinum, as what's in your car), and would involve
some very sophisticated solid-state chemistry.

The other way to mechanically cut a hydrocarbon chain would be to grab
(read: bond in some way) with the ends of the chain (like in a tug of
war), and just pull, until somewhere in the center breaks.

This then becomes its own conundrum, because then how would you reversibly
release the ends?
And, you would still have the reaction problem of an unstable middle.

The line between the mechanical and the chemical is always an inneresting
notion.
For example, in hydrocarbons, the transition from gas to liquids to solids
is a very nice mechanical continuum, from methane to asphalt, and arises
solely from the *length* of the hydrocarbon chain!

Methane is the way it is (a gas) because the chain is short -- just one
carbon; kerosene is about 8 carbons or so, forming a liquid; asphalt is
30-60 carbons, one chain literally knotted up with another (and maybe even
itself) like a a pile of strings, ie, a mess.
But, apparently a very useful mess.

Enzymes are what mother nature uses to "cut" molecules, and is akin to a
fixture on a BP, as opposed to a wielded ax:
* Molecules are is held precisely (and reversibly) in place, as the
orbital surgery takes place, just as the fixture on a BP holds the
material, and the BP itself holds the fixture and the cutter.
Once the surgery is completed, the molecules are released -- like opening
a vise.
Pretty incredible, actually, yet so routine in living systems -- actually,
the foundation.

In this scenario, you even have the literal concept of "tolerance", just
as you would, say, in a punch and die set.
An enzyme's effectiveness in catalyzing reactions (cutting/stitching) is
directly proportional to how well substrates "fit", and chemical poisoning
often proceeds by creating unworkable tolerances, especially in
metallo-based enzymes (which use copper, zinc, iron, magnesium, selenium,
etc).

Cadmium is one very elegant example of this poisoning, as it is orbitally
similar enough to zinc (iirc) to replace it in the enzyme system, but
dissimilar enough to disrupt the dimensions/tolerances of the enzyme that
depends on zinc to function in its molecular cutting/stitching.

Apropos of the above oh-so elegant transition from chemistry to machining,
most here would find the notion of *"molecular motors" *beyond
fascinating.
The biochem text by Voit and Voit shows pictures of some molecular motors
(eg, the rotating flagella of some bacteria), and your collective jaws
will hit the floor when you see nature's version of rotors, stators,
bearings, shafts, and the like.
It is *beyond uncanny* -- eerie, even -- *and well worth a google search
to try and see these. *Hard to imagine this not being on the web.

I doubt, however, if you will find a molecular IC engine, but who
knows.... Bomb beetles come close, tho...

Btw, not saying the raw mechanical cutting molecules can't be done, just
that there are bevies of details to what would ostensibly seem a trivial
process.

--
DT

Thanks for the wonderful chemistry lesson! *I have this "Brain Candy" notion
that somebody will stumble on something stupid-simple that will solve huge,
complex problems...at least I hope!-

What huge problem???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocracking

"Denis G." wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 1:53 am, "Buerste" wrote:
I seem to remember a machine that actually "cut" motor oil into shorter HC
chains to test motor oil longevity. Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale? How about pressing HCs through
rollers so precise that they would actually crush molecules to do the job?
The trouble I see would be that people would start disappearing into fuel
tanks, chubby people would be the first to go.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanochemistry
Also google "mechanochemical + fuels", etc. I think that the field is
mostly R&D at present.

Fascinating! Thanks.

"Buerste" wrote: (clip) Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale? How about pressing HCs through
rollers so precise that they would actually crush molecules to do the job?
(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Remember the term "cat-cracking?" Refineries reduce the molecular weight of
crude oil to produce gasoline by chemical means, aided by catalysts. The
clearances between mechanical surfaces, such as rollers, are far greater
than the size of any molecule. If you tried to crush molecules with
rollers, they would just slip through the clearance created by the
roughness. The viscosity of motor oil in an engine does decrease somewhat
as the oil is used, because it is being "rubbed" by the metal surfaces,
causing some of the molecules to break down into shorter lengths. However,
it is not controlled, and it is very slow compared to cat cracking.

Buerste writes:

Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale?

Yes, in fact, there was once a machine, which looked rather like an old
fashioned laundry wringer, which operated on this principle, and took in
grass clippings and used newsprint, and output gasoline and oxygen. Big
Oil bought up the patents, and it was never heard of again.

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"DrollTroll" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...
I seem to remember a machine that actually "cut" motor oil into shorter
HC chains to test motor oil longevity. Would it be possible to
mechanically crack HCs into fuel on a large scale? How about pressing
HCs through rollers so precise that they would actually crush molecules
to do the job? The trouble I see would be that people would start
disappearing into fuel tanks, chubby people would be the first to go.


You probably could, but, like fusion, the issue would likely be: can you
control the resulting products?

This is actually a very inneresting notion, and, perhaps, uh, cuts to the
core of chemical reactivity/bonding.

To mechanically cut organic molecules *within the molecule* (as opposed
to say, fracturing a crystal lattice, as in steel, or undoing much
simpler hydrogen bonds/protein interactions such as in cutting wood)
would actually involve a net chemical reaction, which may be difficult to
control after mechanical breaking.

Cutting something also raises the almost as dicey concept of what it
means to just touch, or even move something. Think London forces.
But back to cutting:

If you were to actually "mechanically break" a hydrocarbon chain in half,
you would temporarily have two free-radical like carbons, highly
reactive. And the question would be, what would they then react with?

What you would want is a hydrogen atom replacing each half of the
previous C-C bond, but the now-unstable carbons might instead react with
the cutter itself, possibly something else, or likely just with each
other, simply recombining.

Reaction with the cutter itself would be very likely, because the
"cutting" is actually one set of molecular/atomic orbitals disrupting
another set of molecular orbitals. When orbitals become that intimate,
interaction is almost inevitable. Esp. when you visualize a "molecular
press/roller" situation.

This suggests that the "cutting" would have to occur on the surface of
some catalyst (think platinum, as what's in your car), and would involve
some very sophisticated solid-state chemistry.

The other way to mechanically cut a hydrocarbon chain would be to grab
(read: bond in some way) with the ends of the chain (like in a tug of
war), and just pull, until somewhere in the center breaks.

This then becomes its own conundrum, because then how would you
reversibly release the ends?
And, you would still have the reaction problem of an unstable middle.

The line between the mechanical and the chemical is always an inneresting
notion.
For example, in hydrocarbons, the transition from gas to liquids to
solids is a very nice mechanical continuum, from methane to asphalt, and
arises solely from the *length* of the hydrocarbon chain!

Methane is the way it is (a gas) because the chain is short -- just one
carbon; kerosene is about 8 carbons or so, forming a liquid; asphalt is
30-60 carbons, one chain literally knotted up with another (and maybe
even itself) like a a pile of strings, ie, a mess.
But, apparently a very useful mess.

Enzymes are what mother nature uses to "cut" molecules, and is akin to a
fixture on a BP, as opposed to a wielded ax:
Molecules are is held precisely (and reversibly) in place, as the
orbital surgery takes place, just as the fixture on a BP holds the
material, and the BP itself holds the fixture and the cutter.
Once the surgery is completed, the molecules are released -- like opening
a vise.
Pretty incredible, actually, yet so routine in living systems --
actually, the foundation.

In this scenario, you even have the literal concept of "tolerance", just
as you would, say, in a punch and die set.
An enzyme's effectiveness in catalyzing reactions (cutting/stitching) is
directly proportional to how well substrates "fit", and chemical
poisoning often proceeds by creating unworkable tolerances, especially in
metallo-based enzymes (which use copper, zinc, iron, magnesium, selenium,
etc).

Cadmium is one very elegant example of this poisoning, as it is orbitally
similar enough to zinc (iirc) to replace it in the enzyme system, but
dissimilar enough to disrupt the dimensions/tolerances of the enzyme that
depends on zinc to function in its molecular cutting/stitching.

Apropos of the above oh-so elegant transition from chemistry to
machining, most here would find the notion of "molecular motors" beyond
fascinating.
The biochem text by Voit and Voit shows pictures of some molecular motors
(eg, the rotating flagella of some bacteria), and your collective jaws
will hit the floor when you see nature's version of rotors, stators,
bearings, shafts, and the like.
It is *beyond uncanny* -- eerie, even -- and well worth a google search
to try and see these. Hard to imagine this not being on the web.

I doubt, however, if you will find a molecular IC engine, but who
knows.... Bomb beetles come close, tho...

Btw, not saying the raw mechanical cutting molecules can't be done, just
that there are bevies of details to what would ostensibly seem a trivial
process.

--
DT


Thanks for the wonderful chemistry lesson! I have this "Brain Candy"
notion that somebody will stumble on something stupid-simple that will
solve huge, complex problems...at least I hope!

Stupid simple: I just wish I had thought of registering wines.com... $10
mil, fast. Woulda solved a lot of huge problems.

Cupla extree thoughts:

The roller idea is inneresting, but likely fundamentally unfeasible, because
of the inherent "roughness" of orbital geometry in molecules.

iirc, if the nucleus of an atom were the sun, the electron orbitals would
resemble the planets -- or some such thing.
And it is, of course, the electrons/orbitals which are doing the
interacting.

Bottom line, the smooth carbon-backbone chain, or DNA for that matter, that
you see in pitchers, is far from smooth.

A "molecular roller" that is "flattening/tearing" other molecules would be
like two sheets of 24 grit sandpaper sandwiching strands of hair, trying to
slicing them.

If you made the roller out of a really small atom, say lithium, beryllium,
or boron, you might have a shot at flattening/tearing other molecules
"mechanically", but even that would proly be remote, and not controllable.

There are example of molecules snapping, however. Two examples I can think
of off-hand, involving ring strain.

But first, note that in carbon chains, the zero strain configuration for
*closed rings* is a hexagon, ie 6 carbons, of which cyclohexane (a liquid)
and benzene (also a liquid), are two classic examples, but in distinctly
different ways, having to do with hybridization.
Glucose is a classic example of a the cyclohexane type, which is actually a
"puckered" hexagonal ring. Benzene is a flat ring.

Pentagonal configurations are also pretty stable (fructose is a great
example), square is substantially strained, and triangles are very rare and
super strained.

1. The fragrance of the chrysanthemum flower has what's known as an "epoxide
ring", which is a very very unusual molecule, in that the ring is triangular
( a C-O-C, iirc), which means extremely high bond strain.
What is even more remarkable is that this compound is *natural*. It will,
on very little provocation, pop open to a linear open chain.
IOW, it "breaks".
Which may provide the fragrance, altho I'm not sure.

2. Penicillin acts via a square ring, C-C-C-S, iirc, and also substantially
strained. Its antibacterial action occurs when the ring pops open (breaks),
and the very reactive sulfur now attacks the bacterial membrane. Or so I
vaguely remember.

But anyway, these are the best examples I can remember of molecules just
"breaking". In these cases, the stress is internal, and the molecule
eventually gives way, but nevertheless it does set a kind of precedence for
the notion of "mechanical breaking".

But, proly not through rollers.

One poster pointed out that the rubbing of cylinders is a factor in altering
the structure of oil.

This is probably not the case, as explained above.
It is likely simply pressure and temperature effects (and time), both of
which are important factors in making reactions go or not. And, the metals
in the engine could act as catalysts, as well.
Unlikely that mechanical rubbing has anything to do with it, other than as a
source of very high pressure by which to make a reaction go.

Evidence for this would be that in used oil, the products are not cleaved
hydrocarbon chains (which are already pretty short to begin with), but
rather cyclic, heterocyclic and polycyclic aromatic rings -- ie, derivatives
of benzene, often with nitrogen.

Which happen to carcinogenic, or so they say.
Not all benzene derivatives are carcinogenic, and in fact many are common
moeities in biological systems. Benzoic acid, phenylalanine, many others.

Inyway, it is really intriguing how the nitty-gritty of atomic and molecular
orbitals, and all the quantum mechanical mumbo jumbo therein, can be
distilled into simple notions of mechanical "strain".

You can buy molecular modeling sets, which have all the standard bio-atoms
in their various hybridized geometries, and you can actually put together
"angularly accurate" models of molecules and literally "feel" the strain in
them, ergo their instability and "breakability".

Iow, as you put these models together, cyclohexane/glucose/benzene go
together very easily, while epoxides and penicillins have to be wrestled
with, to assemble them.

--
DT

In article ,
Richard J Kinch wrote:

Buerste writes:

Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale?

Yes, in fact, there was once a machine, which looked rather like an old
fashioned laundry wringer, which operated on this principle, and took in
grass clippings and used newsprint, and output gasoline and oxygen. Big
Oil bought up the patents, and it was never heard of again.

Umm. What are the patent numbers?

Joe Gwinn

"DrollTroll" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"DrollTroll" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...
I seem to remember a machine that actually "cut" motor oil into shorter
HC chains to test motor oil longevity. Would it be possible to
mechanically crack HCs into fuel on a large scale? How about pressing
HCs through rollers so precise that they would actually crush molecules
to do the job? The trouble I see would be that people would start
disappearing into fuel tanks, chubby people would be the first to go.


You probably could, but, like fusion, the issue would likely be: can you
control the resulting products?

This is actually a very inneresting notion, and, perhaps, uh, cuts to
the core of chemical reactivity/bonding.

To mechanically cut organic molecules *within the molecule* (as opposed
to say, fracturing a crystal lattice, as in steel, or undoing much
simpler hydrogen bonds/protein interactions such as in cutting wood)
would actually involve a net chemical reaction, which may be difficult
to control after mechanical breaking.

Cutting something also raises the almost as dicey concept of what it
means to just touch, or even move something. Think London forces.
But back to cutting:

If you were to actually "mechanically break" a hydrocarbon chain in
half, you would temporarily have two free-radical like carbons, highly
reactive. And the question would be, what would they then react with?

What you would want is a hydrogen atom replacing each half of the
previous C-C bond, but the now-unstable carbons might instead react with
the cutter itself, possibly something else, or likely just with each
other, simply recombining.

Reaction with the cutter itself would be very likely, because the
"cutting" is actually one set of molecular/atomic orbitals disrupting
another set of molecular orbitals. When orbitals become that intimate,
interaction is almost inevitable. Esp. when you visualize a "molecular
press/roller" situation.

This suggests that the "cutting" would have to occur on the surface of
some catalyst (think platinum, as what's in your car), and would involve
some very sophisticated solid-state chemistry.

The other way to mechanically cut a hydrocarbon chain would be to grab
(read: bond in some way) with the ends of the chain (like in a tug of
war), and just pull, until somewhere in the center breaks.

This then becomes its own conundrum, because then how would you
reversibly release the ends?
And, you would still have the reaction problem of an unstable middle.

The line between the mechanical and the chemical is always an
inneresting notion.
For example, in hydrocarbons, the transition from gas to liquids to
solids is a very nice mechanical continuum, from methane to asphalt, and
arises solely from the *length* of the hydrocarbon chain!

Methane is the way it is (a gas) because the chain is short -- just one
carbon; kerosene is about 8 carbons or so, forming a liquid; asphalt is
30-60 carbons, one chain literally knotted up with another (and maybe
even itself) like a a pile of strings, ie, a mess.
But, apparently a very useful mess.

Enzymes are what mother nature uses to "cut" molecules, and is akin to a
fixture on a BP, as opposed to a wielded ax:
Molecules are is held precisely (and reversibly) in place, as the
orbital surgery takes place, just as the fixture on a BP holds the
material, and the BP itself holds the fixture and the cutter.
Once the surgery is completed, the molecules are released -- like
opening a vise.
Pretty incredible, actually, yet so routine in living systems --
actually, the foundation.

In this scenario, you even have the literal concept of "tolerance", just
as you would, say, in a punch and die set.
An enzyme's effectiveness in catalyzing reactions (cutting/stitching) is
directly proportional to how well substrates "fit", and chemical
poisoning often proceeds by creating unworkable tolerances, especially
in metallo-based enzymes (which use copper, zinc, iron, magnesium,
selenium, etc).

Cadmium is one very elegant example of this poisoning, as it is
orbitally similar enough to zinc (iirc) to replace it in the enzyme
system, but dissimilar enough to disrupt the dimensions/tolerances of
the enzyme that depends on zinc to function in its molecular
cutting/stitching.

Apropos of the above oh-so elegant transition from chemistry to
machining, most here would find the notion of "molecular motors"
beyond fascinating.
The biochem text by Voit and Voit shows pictures of some molecular
motors (eg, the rotating flagella of some bacteria), and your collective
jaws will hit the floor when you see nature's version of rotors,
stators, bearings, shafts, and the like.
It is *beyond uncanny* -- eerie, even -- and well worth a google search
to try and see these. Hard to imagine this not being on the web.

I doubt, however, if you will find a molecular IC engine, but who
knows.... Bomb beetles come close, tho...

Btw, not saying the raw mechanical cutting molecules can't be done, just
that there are bevies of details to what would ostensibly seem a trivial
process.

--
DT


Thanks for the wonderful chemistry lesson! I have this "Brain Candy"
notion that somebody will stumble on something stupid-simple that will
solve huge, complex problems...at least I hope!

Stupid simple: I just wish I had thought of registering wines.com... $10
mil, fast. Woulda solved a lot of huge problems.

Cupla extree thoughts:

The roller idea is inneresting, but likely fundamentally unfeasible,
because of the inherent "roughness" of orbital geometry in molecules.

iirc, if the nucleus of an atom were the sun, the electron orbitals would
resemble the planets -- or some such thing.
And it is, of course, the electrons/orbitals which are doing the
interacting.

Bottom line, the smooth carbon-backbone chain, or DNA for that matter,
that you see in pitchers, is far from smooth.

A "molecular roller" that is "flattening/tearing" other molecules would be
like two sheets of 24 grit sandpaper sandwiching strands of hair, trying
to slicing them.

If you made the roller out of a really small atom, say lithium, beryllium,
or boron, you might have a shot at flattening/tearing other molecules
"mechanically", but even that would proly be remote, and not controllable.

There are example of molecules snapping, however. Two examples I can
think of off-hand, involving ring strain.

But first, note that in carbon chains, the zero strain configuration for
*closed rings* is a hexagon, ie 6 carbons, of which cyclohexane (a liquid)
and benzene (also a liquid), are two classic examples, but in distinctly
different ways, having to do with hybridization.
Glucose is a classic example of a the cyclohexane type, which is actually
a "puckered" hexagonal ring. Benzene is a flat ring.

Pentagonal configurations are also pretty stable (fructose is a great
example), square is substantially strained, and triangles are very rare
and super strained.

1. The fragrance of the chrysanthemum flower has what's known as an
"epoxide ring", which is a very very unusual molecule, in that the ring is
triangular ( a C-O-C, iirc), which means extremely high bond strain.
What is even more remarkable is that this compound is *natural*. It will,
on very little provocation, pop open to a linear open chain.
IOW, it "breaks".
Which may provide the fragrance, altho I'm not sure.

2. Penicillin acts via a square ring, C-C-C-S, iirc, and also
substantially strained. Its antibacterial action occurs when the ring
pops open (breaks), and the very reactive sulfur now attacks the bacterial
membrane. Or so I vaguely remember.

But anyway, these are the best examples I can remember of molecules just
"breaking". In these cases, the stress is internal, and the molecule
eventually gives way, but nevertheless it does set a kind of precedence
for the notion of "mechanical breaking".

But, proly not through rollers.

One poster pointed out that the rubbing of cylinders is a factor in
altering the structure of oil.

This is probably not the case, as explained above.
It is likely simply pressure and temperature effects (and time), both of
which are important factors in making reactions go or not. And, the
metals in the engine could act as catalysts, as well.
Unlikely that mechanical rubbing has anything to do with it, other than as
a source of very high pressure by which to make a reaction go.

Evidence for this would be that in used oil, the products are not cleaved
hydrocarbon chains (which are already pretty short to begin with), but
rather cyclic, heterocyclic and polycyclic aromatic rings -- ie,
derivatives of benzene, often with nitrogen.

Which happen to carcinogenic, or so they say.
Not all benzene derivatives are carcinogenic, and in fact many are common
moeities in biological systems. Benzoic acid, phenylalanine, many others.

Inyway, it is really intriguing how the nitty-gritty of atomic and
molecular orbitals, and all the quantum mechanical mumbo jumbo therein,
can be distilled into simple notions of mechanical "strain".

You can buy molecular modeling sets, which have all the standard bio-atoms
in their various hybridized geometries, and you can actually put together
"angularly accurate" models of molecules and literally "feel" the strain
in them, ergo their instability and "breakability".

Iow, as you put these models together, cyclohexane/glucose/benzene go
together very easily, while epoxides and penicillins have to be wrestled
with, to assemble them.

--
DT


And here I was hoping for a mechanical device that one could put anything in
one end and strings would come out the other and fall into a bin. Now, if
they would only stay in our dimension.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:52:21 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

In article ,
Richard J Kinch wrote:

Buerste writes:

Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale?

Yes, in fact, there was once a machine, which looked rather like an old
fashioned laundry wringer, which operated on this principle, and took in
grass clippings and used newsprint, and output gasoline and oxygen. Big
Oil bought up the patents, and it was never heard of again.

Umm. What are the patent numbers?

Excellent question. I also want the patent number on the 200mpg carb
and several others.

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:52:21 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

In article ,
Richard J Kinch wrote:

Buerste writes:

Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale?

Yes, in fact, there was once a machine, which looked rather like an old
fashioned laundry wringer, which operated on this principle, and took in
grass clippings and used newsprint, and output gasoline and oxygen. Big
Oil bought up the patents, and it was never heard of again.

Umm. What are the patent numbers?

Excellent question. I also want the patent number on the 200mpg carb
and several others.

99% of patents are irrelevant, unworkable, impractical, useless, or outright
bogus. Most have never even been built.

The ONLY thing the USPTO won't issue a patent for is perpetual motion
machines. Hooray thermodynamics.....
The USPTO does not require working models, except for perpetual motions
machines.

Also, they are often not easy to understand, as they are written as
cryptically as possible.

However, there could be hidden gems in them thar stacks. I think we're up
to 7,000,000 patents, just in the USA.
Much of the modern patents is subtle electronic design stuff.

--
DT





--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

"DrollTroll" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:52:21 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

In article ,
Richard J Kinch wrote:

Buerste writes:

Would it be possible to mechanically
crack HCs into fuel on a large scale?

Yes, in fact, there was once a machine, which looked rather like an old
fashioned laundry wringer, which operated on this principle, and took
in
grass clippings and used newsprint, and output gasoline and oxygen.
Big
Oil bought up the patents, and it was never heard of again.

Umm. What are the patent numbers?

Excellent question. I also want the patent number on the 200mpg carb
and several others.

99% of patents are irrelevant, unworkable, impractical, useless, or
outright bogus. Most have never even been built.

The ONLY thing the USPTO won't issue a patent for is perpetual motion
machines. Hooray thermodynamics.....
The USPTO does not require working models, except for perpetual motions
machines.

Also, they are often not easy to understand, as they are written as
cryptically as possible.

However, there could be hidden gems in them thar stacks. I think we're up
to 7,000,000 patents, just in the USA.
Much of the modern patents is subtle electronic design stuff.

Oh yeah, not to mention, that patents are pretty much unenforcible, and
indefensible, unless you are IBM duking it out with HP et al.

Just the retainers for patent litigation start at about $50K -- kiss yer
dreamed-of profits goodbye, whilst you send sed attorney's kids to ivy
league school (private dorm, of course), and his gold-digging wife on yet
another cruise....

--
PV'd




--
DT





--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn