Can K2N2H2++ be produced through a first-principles approach?

[ProjectFringe]

Hi everyone! I would really like to know if there is any way possible, and what the steps would be, to make a compound which is similar to potassium amide.

The compound is K2N2H2++ .
I'm not sure if i wrote it correctly, but it is K H+ N=N H+ K. In other words , a double bond between the two nitrogen atoms with each nitrogen attached to a potassium and hydron atom.

I believe, according to electrons, the equation balances. And I know potassium amide (KNH2) is an existing, stable compound.

So is K2N2H2++ theoretically a stable compound, and what would be the reactants (or steps) to produce it?

I've been working on this for many years, but I'm not really sure that I'm any closer to understanding it. Unfortunately, I don't have a background in chemistry, but I've tried to teach myself as much as possible, so hopefully I can understand any responses. Thanks in advance for any feedback, it really means a lot to me!

 

[jim mcnamara]

I believe the correct formula for potassium amide is: KNH$_2$
Synthesis: K dissolved in ammonia + catalyst.

This has to be done in a fume hood. You will need PPE (personal protective equipment).

This is a reference for synthesis: doi:10.1002/047084289X.rp193

@Borek ,@chemisttree , and @TeethWhitener will likely have something more to say.

 

[ProjectFringe]

I believe the correct formula for potassium amide is: KNH$_2$
Synthesis: K dissolved in ammonia + catalyst.

This has to be done in a fume hood. You will need PPE (personal protective equipment).

This is a reference for synthesis: doi:10.1002/047084289X.rp193

@Borek ,@chemisttree , and @TeethWhitener will likely have something more to say.

Sorry if my question doesn't make sense or if I explained it incorrectly, but I want to make K2N2H2++ or 2(KNH+), not KNH$_2$. If my question still doesn't make sense let me know and I will try to reword it.

 

[TeethWhitener]

The compound in question is likely not possible because N₂H₂ with a double bond between the N’s is already a neutral stable(-ish) compound:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diimide
Adding a potassium ion would require addition of a counterion, and that ion pair would probably be more stable than a complex of a potassium ion and diimide, and it would almost certainly be more stable than two potassium ions and diimide.

 

[Borek]

Neutral molecule KHN=NHK looks like hydrazine with two hydrogens substituted with alkali metals, so at least on the level of the Lewis structures is viable, with nice octets everywhere.

Hydrazine and its derivatives are weak bases, they have lone pairs which can accept a proton, yielding still a potentially stable ion. So technically something like KH₂N=NH₂K²⁺ doesn't look like it it is completely off, although I doubt it can be stable. But ionizing the (already hypothetical) molecule by removing electrons is a completely different thing, one that goes against basic principles of what can be stable and exist.

 

[DrStupid]

Neutral molecule KHN=NHK looks like hydrazine with two hydrogens substituted with alkali metals

I think you mean KHN-NHK. What the OP ask for rather looks like a diimide analogy of a hydrazinediium ion (diimidediium?) with two protons replaced by K⁺. I would agree with TeethWhitener that something like that is not expected to be stable.

 

[Mayhem]

If you need a strong base, you could also look into NaHMDS, which is commonly used in organic laboratories. LDA is another.

 

[Borek]

I think you mean KHN-NHK.

Yes, my bad.

What the OP ask for rather looks like a

TBH, after reading other OP questions I am not sure what kind of answer they expect, and how to read their notation.

 

[ProjectFringe]

Thanks everyone for your replies! I was looking for a response similar to @TeethWhitener.

Basically, the problem is that I have in my possession a chemical formula of some kind, but it is not written in any type of standard format that I can tell. So for the last eight years I have tried to figure this thing out, but not having a background in chemistry has made it quite difficult.

Here is what I know. I know that the formula is describing the creation of a product, which is either a VERY strongly bounded compound, or an atom of a single heavier element which was the result of some type of nuclear fusion.

Here is my best interpretation of the formula:

HN⋅ KN: (H+K) = 1

I also know that, at this stage in the formula, there are basically 3 'reactants', HN (or H⁺N, I'm not sure which), KN and HK (or H⁺K, I'm not sure which). I also know that the HN and KN were original reactants that were added first, and after undergoing a reaction of some kind, the HK was introduced. I do not know if the HK was a by-product of the first reaction between whatever proceeded HN and KN (possibly larger compounds like H₂N and K₂N), or whether it was a completely new reactant added to the first two.

I believe that the dots after HN and KN are representing a valence electron and lone pair. If this is the case, then I believe this would make sense, lewis structure wise, if there is a double bond between the two nitrogen atoms in HN and KN and if HN is (H⁺N). Then adding a H⁺K to this equation would balance the H⁺N and KN, which is how I arrived at a final product of KH⁺N=NH⁺K.

I strongly suspect that if the final product is indeed a strongly bounded compound then it would look something similar to this, where both sides of the double bond are the same thing (e.g. H⁺KN). There is also a possibility that this compound is not the final product and that there are further reactions that take place after the compound is completely balanced. For example, maybe with additional energy in the form of heat or pressure this compound undergoes nuclear fusion of some kind.

So my original question was trying to figure out whether H⁺KN=NKH⁺ was a viable compound and if so what could be the original reactants used to create it.

I hope this helped explain my question further, but I think it may have just made it more confusing!

Anyway, thanks again for all your feedback!

 

[Mayhem]

Thanks everyone for your replies! I was looking for a response similar to @TeethWhitener.

Basically, the problem is that I have in my possession a chemical formula of some kind, but it is not written in any type of standard format that I can tell. So for the last eight years I have tried to figure this thing out, but not having a background in chemistry has made it quite difficult.

Here is what I know. I know that the formula is describing the creation of a product, which is either a VERY strongly bounded compound, or an atom of a single heavier element which was the result of some type of nuclear fusion.

Here is my best interpretation of the formula:

HN⋅ KN: (H+K) = 1

I also know that, at this stage in the formula, there are basically 3 'reactants', HN (or H⁺N, I'm not sure which), KN and HK (or H⁺K, I'm not sure which). I also know that the HN and KN were original reactants that were added first, and after undergoing a reaction of some kind, the HK was introduced. I do not know if the HK was a by-product of the first reaction between whatever proceeded HN and KN (possibly larger compounds like H₂N and K₂N), or whether it was a completely new reactant added to the first two.

I believe that the dots after HN and KN are representing a valence electron and lone pair. If this is the case, then I believe this would make sense, lewis structure wise, if there is a double bond between the two nitrogen atoms in HN and KN and if HN is (H⁺N). Then adding a H⁺K to this equation would balance the H⁺N and KN, which is how I arrived at a final product of KH⁺N=NH⁺K.

I strongly suspect that if the final product is indeed a strongly bounded compound then it would look something similar to this, where both sides of the double bond are the same thing (e.g. H⁺KN). There is also a possibility that this compound is not the final product and that there are further reactions that take place after the compound is completely balanced. For example, maybe with additional energy in the form of heat or pressure this compound undergoes nuclear fusion of some kind.

So my original question was trying to figure out whether H⁺KN=NKH⁺ was a viable compound and if so what could be the original reactants used to create it.

I hope this helped explain my question further, but I think it may have just made it more confusing!

Anyway, thanks again for all your feedback!

Probably should just learn a bunch of chemistry before you try to make anything.

 

[ProjectFringe]

@Mayhem Don't worry, even if it is possible to make, I'm not making anything without %100 assurance I know what I'm doing. And even after that probably not without supervision. If the explosion doesn't kill me, my wife will!

 

[TeethWhitener]

Thanks everyone for your replies! I was looking for a response similar to @TeethWhitener.

Basically, the problem is that I have in my possession a chemical formula of some kind, but it is not written in any type of standard format that I can tell. So for the last eight years I have tried to figure this thing out, but not having a background in chemistry has made it quite difficult.

Here is what I know. I know that the formula is describing the creation of a product, which is either a VERY strongly bounded compound, or an atom of a single heavier element which was the result of some type of nuclear fusion.

Here is my best interpretation of the formula:

HN⋅ KN: (H+K) = 1

I also know that, at this stage in the formula, there are basically 3 'reactants', HN (or H⁺N, I'm not sure which), KN and HK (or H⁺K, I'm not sure which). I also know that the HN and KN were original reactants that were added first, and after undergoing a reaction of some kind, the HK was introduced. I do not know if the HK was a by-product of the first reaction between whatever proceeded HN and KN (possibly larger compounds like H₂N and K₂N), or whether it was a completely new reactant added to the first two.

I believe that the dots after HN and KN are representing a valence electron and lone pair. If this is the case, then I believe this would make sense, lewis structure wise, if there is a double bond between the two nitrogen atoms in HN and KN and if HN is (H⁺N). Then adding a H⁺K to this equation would balance the H⁺N and KN, which is how I arrived at a final product of KH⁺N=NH⁺K.

I strongly suspect that if the final product is indeed a strongly bounded compound then it would look something similar to this, where both sides of the double bond are the same thing (e.g. H⁺KN). There is also a possibility that this compound is not the final product and that there are further reactions that take place after the compound is completely balanced. For example, maybe with additional energy in the form of heat or pressure this compound undergoes nuclear fusion of some kind.

So my original question was trying to figure out whether H⁺KN=NKH⁺ was a viable compound and if so what could be the original reactants used to create it.

I hope this helped explain my question further, but I think it may have just made it more confusing!

Anyway, thanks again for all your feedback!

None of this makes much sense, and it definitely doesn’t look like any chemistry I’ve ever seen. The only compound you’ve listed here that is long-lived at all under normal conditions is KH (potassium hydride). Nuclear reactions and chemical reactions are separated by 5 or so orders of magnitude in energy. If what you have is not written in any standard way, how can you be sure it’s a chemical formula?

 

[ProjectFringe]

None of this makes much sense, and it definitely doesn’t look like any chemistry I’ve ever seen. The only compound you’ve listed here that is long-lived at all under normal conditions is KH (potassium hydride). Nuclear reactions and chemical reactions are separated by 5 or so orders of magnitude in energy. If what you have is not written in any standard way, how can you be sure it’s a chemical formula?

It is not really a chemical formula in the traditional sense, but rather a representation of a chemical reaction. It was original given to me and is inscribed on the interior of a ring. Anyway, I wouldn't give it any more thought. The original formula was written numerically (except for the H+K part), and I had to 'convert' it, so there is a small possibility I got the elements wrong. Trying to solve it though has been a good way for me to learn a little about various scientific fields.

Unfortunately, even if I get the answer, I won't really know unless I fully understand it. This forum and your responses have been helpful because at least I can have some feedback on whether I balanced the compound and did the Lewis structures correctly. In order to fully understand it I also need to learn about electric / magnetic circuits and air gaps, which I know even less about than chemistry (is that's possible). So I will turn my focus to that next and come back to the chemistry part when I know more.

 

[DrStupid]

The original formula was written numerically (except for the H+K part)

Are you sure it's a chemical formula and not something else (e.g. a date and initials)?

 

[ProjectFringe]

Are you sure its a chemical formula and not something else (e.g. a date and initials)?

In short, yes. The ring itself has three diamonds, each representing one of the three main components in the 'formula', with the ring representing a unity between the three.

The 'formula' was given to me as a way for me to learn the sciences and ultimately be able to understand its significance. Therefore, I'm only given help or a nudge in the right direction when I truly get stuck.

I have been working on a simple mathematical way to predict all isotope of the elements (known and unknown). I'm not sure if this can already be done or not, but I can basically do it, with some 'margin of error'. The last 'nudge' I was given was that the margin of error I was experiencing was due to an 'air gap'. I tried to research 'air gap' and it appears to be related to magnetic circuits, drawing a comparison to the creation of the elements as a type of electric / magnetic circuit.

Therefore, I think once I better understand electric / magnetic circuits, I will be able to better understand the creation of the elements, and then finally be able to understand the 'formula'. Or at least that is my hope. It seems like the more I learn, the less I know!

 

[Mayhem]

In short, yes. The ring itself has three diamonds, each representing one of the three main components in the 'formula', with the ring representing a unity between the three.

The 'formula' was given to me as a way for me to learn the sciences and ultimately be able to understand its significance. Therefore, I'm only given help or a nudge in the right direction when I truly get stuck.

I have been working on a simple mathematical way to predict all isotope of the elements (known and unknown). I'm not sure if this can already be done or not, but I can basically do it, with some 'margin of error'. The last 'nudge' I was given was that the margin of error I was experiencing was due to an 'air gap'. I tried to research 'air gap' and it appears to be related to magnetic circuits, drawing a comparison to the creation of the elements as a type of electric / magnetic circuit.

Therefore, I think once I better understand electric / magnetic circuits, I will be able to better understand the creation of the elements, and then finally be able to understand the 'formula'. Or at least that is my hope. It seems like the more I learn, the less I know!

Synthetic chemistry is best practiced through heuristic means. I wouldn't try and approach synthesis with a first-principles approach when you are still having trouble with nomenclature.

 

[ProjectFringe]

Synthetic chemistry is best practiced through heuristic means. I wouldn't try and approach synthesis with a first-principles approach when you are still having trouble with nomenclature.

Unfortunately, I don't really have the means to do anything through trial and error or experimentation. I would definitely prefer to, but can't due to COVID, the fact that I live in a country where I don't speak the language, and the concern of making a mistake and blowing something up. Therefore, I'm pretty much confined to studying by myself on the computer, which is not fun