« NChem Research Highlights: layering liquids, double metallocenes and fixing fingerprints | Main | Reactions - Andrew Wilson »

Oooh! Aaaah!

Yesterday was the 5th of November, which means thousands — nay millions — of people in the UK spent last night looking up at drizzly skies going 'Ooooh!' and 'Aaaah!' at successive fireworks. It's all thanks to a plot 400 years ago to blow up the Houses of Parliament (or is it?)

Now, hands up all the readers whose formative experiences as chemists involve burning things? Thought so — me too! One of my lecturers took this further than most, however, and used to bring home-made gunpowder into lecture theatres to compare to commercial bangers. There wasn't much sleeping in HIS lectures — or people sitting on the front row.

So, fire, bangs, colours - what more could one want? Think of all that chemistry that's going on... Thanks to a few excellent websites, I now know that strontium and lithium salts are responsible for red, calcium for orange, sodium for yellow, barium for green, copper for blue and iron is gold (eh?). The crackling showers of white sparks are created by titanium flakes: the noise is caused by the thin layer of oxide cracking as the metal inside melts. Thousands of years since they were first invented, gunpowder is still used to provide both the whizz of the flight and the bang of the subsequent explosion.

All this might seem pretty simple (C + S + KNO3) stuff, but I remember from Dr Ludman's course just how complicated the reactions were — and how hard to balance in the homework! And all those tightly packed solids give off [relatively] vast volumes of gases in a splurge of energy and entropy.

So the next time you see some fireworks — real or not — spare a thought for the creative chemists with some of the best jobs in the world.

Neil


Neil Withers (Associate Editor, Nature Chemistry)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6563

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the editors before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive. We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately, or notify you in case we decide not publish your comment. Email addresses will not be made public on the blog.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'thescepticalchymist at boston dot nature dot com '.

Subscribe

Subscribe to this blog's feeds:

[What is this?]

Recent Comments

Out of 1046 total comments,
the most recent were:
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2