I think my favorite from the series is this one, about a high-nitrogen compound so wildly unstable that it detonated when the lab turned on the spectrometer:

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-wor...

There's a great video on producing and testing that substance: https://youtu.be/-Sz4d7RQB6Y

Interestingly, it's more stable than most online sources give it credit for

He doesn't address this, but some comments do: did he really get the pure molecule or was it some impure compound that made it less sensitive?

The large crystal size is a pretty sure bet it's pure. That recrystallization he showed was a thing of beauty.

There is a comment addressing this and mentioning that (as far as I understood) there could be excess hydrate that is part of the natural crystallization process. Also he could get the reaction wrong and it's large crystals of a different molecule.

I just find it hard to believe that a renown lab specialzing in highly explosive compounds had this stuff explode when turning on the spectrometer, but he could hit it with a hammer.

I don't assume malice on either part, so the best explanation for me is that they were testing different things.

Given that he did it using a different synthesis using public shop grade starting materials in his garage and having no equipment to really verify his intermidiates and final compound it also seems likely. Also this is not addressed in the video. The video is popular/humorous science and not research afterall.

I'm actually a bit baffled that this video is taken at face value as disproving the labs original publication. But I also can't put the 1.5 Joule part in relation and a spectrometer creates more force than a soft hit from a hammer?

He addresses the disproval part: he didn't disprove their paper. He stated that just because it's below their threshold for sensitively doesn't mean it's super ultra mega sensitive, it just means that it's highly sensitive. 1.5 Joules is more than you think: a hammer tap could easily be less than that (lift a 100g weight a 1.5 meters off the floor: that's 1.5J of potential energy), however, as he puts it, that's still "sensitive as dicks". As for it blowing up in the mass spectrometer, that can happen if it started to decompose over time, accidental friction, accidental x-ray activation, too much in one spot, etc. I'm sure if he worked with the substance more than once or twice it's possible he'd have a random detonation or two. The paper and this video easily exist cooperatively rather than adversarially, and I think he was more calling out the science popularizers which exaggerated claims about it. In fact, he does nothing but mention things from the paper as being accurate.

Thanks, that makes sense.

Selenophenol is also a good one: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-wor...

> The biggest stinker I have run across... Imagine 6 skunks wrapped in rubber innertubes and the whole thing is set ablaze. That might approach the metaphysical stench of this material.

I've not had personal experience with selenophenol but I wonder how it compares with thioacetone when it comes a human's ability to detect it.

Here's a stinky selenium anecdote from when I was a kid. In those days I used to build electronic projects out of parts from war surplus equipment. This was before the time when silicon diode rectifiers were cheap enough to buy on a kid's pocket money (especially so the high current variety), so the fallback was either vacuum tubes or selenium rectifiers.

Anyway, selenium rectifiers were cheap and plentiful except that I didn't have easy access to the high current variety. This led to the rectifiers often being overloaded and sometimes failing catastrophically. It turns out that in their death throes selenium rectifiers emit the most horrible pungent stink somewhat akin to hydrogen sulphide, however once one becomes familiar with the stench there's no mistaking it for H2S.

I've been known to stink the house out much to my mother's chagrin. Yes, even back then I was aware that these selenium fumes were toxic so I did exercise some care but it'd not have passed any of today's occupational health standards.

BTW, selenium rectifiers can be remarkably tolerant of overload and abuse, moreover they warn you when overstressed or they're about to fail as they begin to stink to high heaven.

Goddammit now I really want some of this, just to see how bad it is.

Knowing how "good" glass stink bombs were back when I was in high school, I have zero interest in anything more potent.

Was pretty good when Mark Rober tested his new “Fart Spray” on Macaulay Caulkin (the kid from Home Alone). Video here at 1m50s in https://youtu.be/a_TSR_v07m0#t=110

I'm surprised something so potent was never used as a chemical weapon. Sounds like it could easily clear out a trench or riot in the streets.

In the text it is mentioned that the chemical requires significant effort to crack or activate for the desired (or undesired) effect. Of which I assume is difficult to carry out under combat conditions.

Similar compounds have been used as chemical weapons before but eventually give way to more modern agents.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromoacetone

It lacks some desirable properties as chemical warfare agent. For one, it doesn't disperse easily and is even noticable at low concentrations. Meaning if you fill at trench with this, it is likely your own trench will notice it too and you won't be able to enter the field for a bit. And everything in the field will stink too for a while, so you can't take advantage of some resources there.

Reminds me of the Neal Stephenson novel Zodiac, where a similar agent was used in an offensive manner.

If I had any inclination and cause for terrorist attacks...