Talk:Tetrasulfur tetranitride

alright already about the explosive part! Its chemistry is rather well developed and it cant be that bad or chemists (me included) would not have worked with it for so many years. It is not really an 8-membered ring but consists of five membered rings, if you make a (long) bond between two pairs of S atoms. It is not helpful to call anything weird. Just give the reactions. The anions and cationic rings made from S4N4 are important and probably require some drawings. The best prep is in Inorg Syntheses, involving S(NMe2)2. I think that S4N4 was first prepared by Becke-Goering, a rare female prof in Germany.--Smokefoot 04:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Related hydrocarbon

The topologically related hydrocarbon is (CH₂)₄(CH)₄.

Does this refer to 1,5-cyclooctadiene? Cyclooctatetraene seems more similar, but neither of them really has the same shape as S₄N₄. —Keenan Pepper 19:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, its not cod or cot, which are simple rings. I need to check out the official name for the hydrocarbon species. It isnt adamantane either or dodecahedrane. As₄S₄ adopts the same structure.--Smokefoot 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a model of the cycloalkane in question: Image:(CH2)4(CH)4-3D-sticks.png. Couldn't get ChemDraw to give it a systematic name, though.

Ben 21:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Tetrasulfur tetranitride has failed, for the following reason(s):

I think some of the language is too technical. In the lead, Because nitrogen and sulfur have similar electronegativities one would expect that they would form covalently bonded structures - you might expect that if you were a chemist, but if you're not that's pretty baffling. Later on, S4N4 is air stable, though its heat of formation is positive is also not really comprehensible to a non-chemist. I wouldn't like to see it over-simplified, but if you could avoid, or explain, chemistry technical terms that would be great. Worldtraveller 09:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a misprint, ¹⁵N NMR,not ¹⁴N. ¹⁴N nuclei are invisible in NMR experiments.

¹⁴N NMR peaks can be observed, they are a little wide as ¹⁴N has a spin greater than 1/2 but ¹⁴N NMR is possible. ¹⁵N lines tend to be more narrow becuase this isotope has a spin of 1/2.Cadmium

In point of fact, given the (essentially) 100% abundence of ¹⁴N and the limited data often acquired with ¹⁵N, ¹⁴N NMR is a convenient, very fast way to gather information about nitrogen hybridization. Because of the large quadrapole moment for ¹⁴N, the lines tend to be quite wide, but this is often offset by the relatively large chemical shifts of the nucleus. Norm Reitzel (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Most article and others in WE-chem need general references - reviews by major scholars in the field, textbook-level discussion. Any idiot can plug in and cite (hyper)specialized references, obviously. Once an article reaches a certain level, such references do a disservice to WE chem because they distract from an overview we hope to convey. --Smokefoot 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Enthalpy of Formation

Which of the references provides the enthalpy of formation of +460kJ/mol? I can't find it.

Symmetry

This article says D2d, the German article says D4d, which is right? 5.254.141.243 (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We are: no C₄ element. End of story. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)