Talk:Tetranitratoxycarbon

N-oxide, anybody?
Did they consider N-oxide of this structure as well? If not then I'm the first to suggest doing this. N-xide means an additional oxygen atom connected to the nitrogen atom, similarly to pirydine N-oxide. In this molecule there would be four addtional oxygen atoms, that is one for each notrogen atom. That the molecule is pretty much unstable in presence of water is of course obvious to everybody, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.130.8 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Misleading similarity with nitroglycerin
Please correct the statement "Tetranitratoxycarbon [...] a structure similar to that of nitroglycerin". This is completely utrue and misleading. One can easily compare the structure of a nitroglycerin and this hipotetical structure to find out the obvious difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.130.8 (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * The statement is referenced. Please provide a reference to the contrary. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
 * Actually something else is referenced, the article merely says "It contains the same combination of atoms as nitroglycerin" which is not correct because nitroglycerin also contains hydrogen atoms which are not present in tetranitratoxycarbon. Definitely nowhere a claim was made of molecular similarity of both the molecules. Is this enough or perhaps some more explanation is necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.53.135 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Structure
Okay, imagine a neopentane. C(CH3)4, or CMe4. Also called dimethylpropane.

Now, replace each of those methyl substituents with a trigonal bipyramid, -CO3N (the carbon bonding to three separate oxygens, which all bond to a single nitrogen). Voila, tetranitratoxycarbon: C(CO3N)4 (or C5O12N4 if you prefer).

An interesting structure, with some nice symmetry, but I'm a little dubious as to whether it's worth all this fuss. As for the structural similarity to nitroglycerin... yeah, I can see that. First, of course, nitroglycerin's structure can be described in terms of a propane moiety. Strip off the hydrogens from the terminal carbons and replace them with bonds to the oxygens in their respective nitro groups (!) -- methylnitro to tetranitroxy... Make the central carbon tertiary quaternary, add another tetranitroxy (!!!), convert the remaining nitro into a tetranitroxy... probably going through methylnitro first... you know, this could be an interesting synthetic puzzle. Nitroglycerin probably isn't the best starting material, though (!!!!!); I'm reminded of Derek Lowe's "Things I Won't Work With" column.

I somehow don't think this will actually get made (but then, isn't that what we all said about fullerenes before Kroto looked in candle soot?). DS (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability?
Just because a school-ager drew an unknown molecule does not seem to be very compelling case for notability. The structure type is so weird that professional chemists would not bother to even propose it as interesting. The fact that the weird hypothesis was published in a really crappy (i.e. low impact, specialized) journal supports the absence of notability.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Just asked some chemists about it and they agree this is NOT notable. The article could be clarified or just deleted. Caleb Stanford (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)