Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Create Compound With a Single Element
rocketman768 writes "An international team of researchers including scientists at the Carnegie Institution has discovered a new chemical compound that consists of a single element: boron. Chemical compounds are conventionally defined as substances consist of two or more elements, but the researchers found that at high pressure and temperature pure boron can assume two distinct forms that bond together to create a novel 'compound' called boron boride."
I think my head just exploded. Compound, of one element. What next transparent aluminum?
Why is this not an allotrope? I'm not a chemist so excuse me if the answer seems obvious to those with a better understanding.
Sorry, had to say it. :)
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
"Nobody does it like molten boron"
http://theinfosphere.org/images/thumb/7/78/Molten_Boron.jpg/200px-Molten_Boron.jpg
they're covalent, not ionic.
Whats the difference between that, and say, N2 or O2? Aren't those also compounds of a single element?
With oxygen and nitrogen the two atoms are identical for all intents and purposes. They share electrons evenly. In this case you have boron atoms that are giving up electrons and boron atoms that are accepting them to reach a stable state. So they're behaving differently, rather than the same.
Boron Boride, the nobleman? This discovery is an abomination, like the Boride of Frankenstein. And isn't Boron the cousin of the famous Ukranian trumpet player, Boris Boride? I know, my jokes are so bad you must think I'm a total stupid boron. What happens when you drill the surface of something? You boron it. What happens when the drill goes out of control and starts flopping all over the place and you're stuck on top? Boron bo-ride!
Ok I'll stop.
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
Frankly, the article is interesting enough without mangling it in the summary.
This is the first ionic crystal to consist of only one element. As a compound, by definition, contains two elements, it's not a compound. A boron ionic crystal is substantially different from, say, the multiple allotropes of carbon, though.
However, this is a solely theoretical crystal -- it hasn't been synthesized.
Finally out of Bad Karma hell, lets see how long THAT lasts.
You won't help the situation by joking around (no Karma for Funny), you need to bash Microsoft or something.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
Because boron boride is actually the cure for cancer. You'll see.
Because boron boride is actually the cure for cancer. You'll see.
Yes, first you need to pressurize the patient to 100,000 atmospheres. Tada! You're no longer going to die of cancer.
Not to say you are at all wrong, it is a good explanation, but the distinction between 'ionic' and 'covalent' bonds is really one of a matter of degree between 2 extremes.
At the one extreme we have single element compounds like H2 or O2 in which the electronegativity of the component atoms is (by definition) equal and thus have an even charge distribution and are entirely covalent. This is the simplest case.
At the other extreme we have substances like NaCl which are made up of atoms with extremely different electronegativities. However there is no such thing as a purely 'ionic' bond. Even in an extremely polar molecule like NaCl the charge distribution isn't ENTIRELY Na+1 and Cl-1. It very nearly is, but not quite.
MOST compounds are far less clear cut. Even H2O's bonds, which are fairly polar and is composed of 2 species with very different electronegativity the bond is generally characterized as having both an ionic and a covalent character.
So, our boron boride is also going to be a compound which is not going to be entirely clearly either ionic nor covalent.
The real problem is that these terms only signify useful generalizations about how chemical species behave. While chemistry CAN be reduced to physics in a reasonably straightforward way in principle, the reality is that most of the terms and most of the ways chemists ordinarily think about chemistry is a set of 'rules of thumb' which are based as much on observation and valued as much for their general utility as they are based on precise formulations of fundamental laws and processes. Even the notion of 'compound' is really to a certain extent a convenience and necessarily gets a bit fuzzy at the 'edges'.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
In the mid-1990s I studied with the book Chemistry in Context by Hill and Holman. The companion book of experiments and real-world applications had a chapter on anions of alkali metals, and it included a picture of the crystalline self-compound Na-Na+.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Reduced to physics? Reduced to physics!! Grr. If its being 'reduced' to physics, then is the rest of it unscientific alchemy?