Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Boy killed in Sweden by homemade explosive

Boy killed in Sweden by homemade explosive

rikkitikkitavi - 22-2-2004 at 09:58

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=236561&am...

A major swedish newspaper reports that a 15 year old boy was killed instantly on the night between sat. and sunday when a homemade bomd exploded .

His three friends at the site where not physically injured but severly chocked.

Police and bomd squad later evacuated the apartment building in which the boy lived, to search the apartment for explosives.

/rickard

IgnorantlyIntelligent - 22-2-2004 at 12:59

I probably shouldnt have but I once did a batch of NG that had a projected yeild of 300g. I ended up with only 240 but thats still alot

. It is VERY hard to maintain the right temp with this much reacting and you cant take your sweet ass time adding he glycerin cause it would take 3 hours doing it drip by drip. Maybe he tried something stupid liek that. H eshoulda known only I am allowed to do stupid things.

I seriously doubt that it was a pipe bomb as I've done tests with plywood and pipe bombs. My pipe bombs were made from either DBSP or BP. Useing PVC or Steel. 4 bombs were tested none did ANY damage to the plywood from a distance of 3 feet. They each contained 100g of powder. This expensive test I did prooves movies are retarded and the dumb police taht describe the power of the colombine kids bombs dont know at all what theyre talking about. Unless he was giveing his pipe bomb a hug and kiss a doubt it could have killed him instantly. Brick of blasting gel...now thatll doit

It a bit unclear in my explanation above so: teh four bombs consisted of 1) PVC with BP 2)PVC with DBSP 3)steel with DBSP and 4)steel with BP

[Edited on 22-2-2004 by IgnorantlyIntelligent]

I am a fish - 22-2-2004 at 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by IgnorantlyIntelligent
I once did a batch of NG that had a projected yeild of 300g.

Jesus Fucking Christ!

Were you trying to kill yourself?

danny777 - 23-2-2004 at 04:58

Today they said it was triacetonetriperoxide, about 800 grams.

IgnorantlyIntelligent - 23-2-2004 at 06:13

I am a fish, now why would I be trying to kill myself. It is totaly NG is made by the gallon all the time by dynamite makers and it is safe if precautions are taken. I would never make AP in these quantities or anything as they are unstable and I don't use them anyways. The biggest thing you have to worry about during the nitration of glycerin is a runnaway whihc will yeild NO2 and some spitting flames. I have never read or heard of a mix ever exploding while be synthesised even at very high temps.
This is very sad what happend to that kid but it is no doubt from ANAP or something similar.800g WOW. Looks as though he was using peroxides as a main charge.... I wish organic peroxides didnt exist. I never use them and I have no problems with LS.
BP=black powder DBSP=double based smokeless powder.
I hate pip3 b0mbs and never use them but wanted to for that particular test.

BTW, Im suprised the news knows what TCAP even is. I thought it was an improvised and as I see it poor mans explosive that wasn't well known outside the internet explosives world. I wonder how many peices they found of him after two pounds of APAN. I bet he'd make good fish food. Anyone ever see that "red mist" explosive movie by AXT? http://geocities.com/roguemovies4/ its at the top of the list.
About me being off topic, the pipe boombs were about the news artical.

As for my "blasting gel" in an urban environment, what youve never heard of blasting gell bubble gum? Any explosives I have ever made was in a dream, never in real life cause it's illegal. No I'm not joking.

[Edited on 23-2-2004 by IgnorantlyIntelligent]

vulture - 23-2-2004 at 09:38

IgnorantlyIntelligent, considering your history of kg amount of blasting gel in urban environment I would shut up too.

Oh, really? And you're even making it worse by connecting it all with pictures, including his picture, his username and email address and more specific details like his posts on other forums!

How hypocritical!

[Edited on 23-2-2004 by vulture]

Respect hazardous materials!

Polverone - 23-2-2004 at 10:10

Quote:

I probably shouldnt have but I once did a batch of NG that had a projected yeild of 300g. I ended up with only 240 but thats still alot. It is VERY hard to maintain the right temp with this much reacting and you cant take your sweet ass time adding he glycerin cause it would take 3 hours doing it drip by drip. Maybe he tried something stupid liek that. H eshoulda known only I am allowed to do stupid things.

Everybody is allowed to do stupid things. Nobody is prepared to pay the price of stupidity, though. You could easily be the next maimed/blinded/dead victim of your own hubris. Your manner of speaking indicates that you don't really take the hazards seriously, as much as you claim that you are safe. Discussions of the practical applications of energetic materials are off-topic here, so I don't want to see you talking about what you've made and what you've blown up. The interpretation of dreams is also off-topic, so I don't want to see any more "dreams" recorded here either.

danny777 - 23-2-2004 at 10:41

yes, sorry for my posts, I have a real interest in explosives so sometimes I confuse my dreams with reality

Since most of my posts were off topic anyway I deleted them. Feels tragic reading those quotes..

[Edited on 23-2-2004 by danny777]

Nevermore - 23-2-2004 at 12:21

those things always happens..
car, gun, explosives..
people just keep thinking they are higlanders, they will never die, so do those things..
making so much AP is suicidal..
but nobody suspect that it will happen to them..

IgnorantlyIntelligent - 23-2-2004 at 16:58

Well it's not likely to happen to me as I am no longer making HE I am sad to say.

I know very well that anything is possible and it can happen to anyone.
I'm going to spend my remaining two years of freedom working on my cannon and mortar, and competing in Rifles only. That is if my dad doesn't kill me first(I might get caught for smoken du bud because of my retarded friend) Funny how "friends" always manage to bring you down with them.

risk taking

Magpie - 23-2-2004 at 19:52

I wonder if there could be derived a formula that expresses a person's risk tolerance (RT), such as:

RT = (thrill factor)(testosterone assay)(desire factor)/[(age)(number of dependents)(number of near misses)(1+10*number of missing digits)^4)]

[Edited on 24-2-2004 by Magpie]

Blackhawk - 24-2-2004 at 00:27

I'd calc my RT but what units and scale are the thrill factor, testosterone assay and desire factor

axehandle - 24-2-2004 at 02:32

I'd like to know the units and ranges myself to calculate mine. I suspect I'd get a rather high number due to my HUGE "near misses" record. I'm always wondering whether the next mistake / mind lapse will make me learn, maim me or kill me...

units

Magpie - 24-2-2004 at 18:40

Sorry, I don't have units for the parameters of thrill and desire. It would be preferable to be able to reduce them to MLT (mass/length/time) if possible. I'm currently taking a theological engineering course (TE 105) which expresses sin in McBeals, but I don't understand that unit either.

BromicAcid - 24-2-2004 at 19:11

In economics the units of happiness that a person gains from a product is measured in utils, the number of utils that a person gains from doing an act decreases with the number of times it is done, e.g., the first glass of chocolate milk is better then the second, is better then the third. But to measure this is difficult, involving locking the person in a box and making them choose between two different things e.g. food and water and measuring the trade off. A more calculable equation would be something like.

RT = (MPOL) X (FF) X (AOS) X (E) X (Some Constant)

Risk Taking = (Marginal propensity to obey the law [1(complete noncompliance) to 10 (total servitude] {average citizen = 7 anarchist = 1 etc.}) X (family factors [number of close family members (a) / number of times you've forgotten your parent's birthday or neglected to acknowledge it (b) if b = 0 family factors automatically = 1.5]) X (Availability of good substitute thrills [either yes = 1.25 or no = .75 think quantitative, like nuclear spins]) X (Exhilaration gained from taking a risk 1/risk [where risk = average amount of time after taking a major risk that your remain giddy and elated in hours])

The lower the number the higher the risk score. This formula could use some tweaking by other members but you might be able to get a number out of it, you can get infinitely close to zero but never touch it.

Mine would be:

RT = (5) X (5/0) X 1.25 X 1/2
FF (b) = O therefore FF = 1.5
RT = (5) X (1.5) X 1.25 X 1/2
RT = 4.68

I guess the scale is a bit sensitive but everyone can help to work out some bugs. I was thinking that this could work out the baseline, for the constant that could be a number depicting your will to live, e.g. if you are suicidal it equals zero so you are going to take a big risk soon or maybe it coule represent emotion, you're in a normal state of mind it equals one, you're excited it drops down there for increasing your risk taking chances.

[Edited on 2/25/2004 by BromicAcid]

Mr. Wizard - 24-2-2004 at 22:03

RT = (MPOL) X (FF) X (AOS) X (E) X (Some Constant)/DA
where DA is the ability to get a date with a cute girl
Nothing like good old love to get your mind back on the right evolutionary track.

Saerynide - 25-2-2004 at 02:53

"Marginal propensity to obey the law [1(complete noncompliance) to 10 (total servitude] {average citizen = 7 anarchist = 1 etc.}"

Rofl. Sounds like AP Econ... god I hate that class

"RT = (thrill factor)(testosterone assay)(desire factor)/[(age)(number of dependents)(number of near misses)(1+10*number of missing digits)^4)]"

Hrm, I dont think this equation applies to me

EDIT: Neither does this one: "RT = (MPOL) X (FF) X (AOS) X (E) X (Some Constant)/DA
where DA is the ability to get a date with a cute girl"

[Edited on 25-2-2004 by Saerynide]

axehandle - 25-2-2004 at 04:20

Quote:

"Marginal propensity to obey the law [1(complete noncompliance) to 10 (total servitude] {average citizen = 7 anarchist = 1 etc.}"

This is too general. E.g. I gladly break the law if

1) there is close to 0 chance of getting caught AND the action doesn't conflict with my own morality
2) the law is stupid AND ((0 chance of capture) OR (only a fine as result))
3) there is dire need (lives are at stake) (think excessive self-defense or jaywalking to help a traffic victim)

I could think of more, but..... this is interesting. Breaking it down more would also have to take into account psychopathic tendencies etc, involving psychology (which isn't even a science, much less an exact one).

The more I think of it, the more I feel I'm ranting. Better have my coffee before I go insane....... insane.....

vulture - 25-2-2004 at 11:32

lso have to take into account psychopathic tendencies etc, involving psychology

You rang my lord?

Hmmm...

I could have sworn...

axehandle - 25-2-2004 at 12:14

Well, I have a couple of anxiety disorders (agoraphobia and social phobia) for which I take antidepressants, but I'm not a psychopath, nor have I ever had any delusions or hallucinations.

It's nice to be called "lord", though

Axehandle The Twitchy,Duke of coffee creek, Defender of the Apprehensive, Fearful of the Fidgety, Earl of Edgy Canyon, Adjudicator of aggitation, Shakey Lord of Sweden

Hermes_Trismegistus - 25-2-2004 at 12:44

I think we've got a few candidates for a new title.....Dread(ing) Lord Axhandle.

So let's get this straight, The only circumstances you would break a law would be is in the dark, while asleep on the moon...

and even then only a misdemeanor and only if you had a pre-arranged alibi.

I think Bromic should include an axehandle factor in his calculations. :cool:

I am a fish - 25-2-2004 at 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by IgnorantlyIntelligent
I am a fish, now why would I be trying to kill myself. It is totaly NG is made by the gallon all the time by dynamite makers and it is safe if precautions are taken.

Nitroglycerin production is one of the most dangerous industrial processes. For example, it killed Alfred Nobel's brother. Although that was over a century ago, I expect the method he was using was more sophisticated than the method you used.

If you play Russian Roulette, you will most likely survive. However, you shouldn't regard your survival as evidence that what you did was safe.

BromicAcid - 25-2-2004 at 14:13

Revisions to my equation:

First, law, what I mean by law is not only how much you worry about getting caught but how much you care about what impact your actions might have on your neighbors, your worry in general about getting caught.

Law is now a 1 - 3 scale, 1 = anarchist w/o a care, 3 = perverbial boy scout

Family considers that your family might cause you to take more risks or less, it has been adjusted to account for this.

Thrill is accounts for previous incliment to commet crimes along with fun derived from dangerous acts.

Avalibility of substitutes is a yes or no still

This would compute a baseline compulsion to take abnormal risks and would be modified by mood or friends etc.

RT= (Law 1 - 3 pick any number between to signify best) X ( a/b)^n X (substitue yes = 1.25 no = .9) X (cm/45z)

Where a = number of close family members
b = number of family members you would willingly buy presents for if given a chance if b = 0 b becomes 1
n = do you like your family? yes = 1 no = -1
c = number of times you have broken the law and pre-meditated the act
m = the number of minutes after commiting a reckless act you feel elation for
z = the number of times you have spontaneously broken the law if z = 0 z becomes 1

For the law breaking only use whatever acts you can remember, if you can't remember them then they are not important. It needs a life an longevity factor that would take into account the number of times you have realized you cheated death and laughed about it afterwards.

My Rt now equals 2.9 this equation definately needs tweaking, maybe a parabola would help.

[Edited on 2/25/2004 by BromicAcid]

Magpie - 25-2-2004 at 20:43

Saerynide: Women also have some testosterone. And of course there is a wide range of risk takers in females also, but in general I believe that they are less inclined to take risks for thrills.

I was telling some friends about some risky whitewater activities I occaisionally indulge in. The wife looked at me like "...why would you do a stupid thing like that?" I have always enjoyed some risk - it definitely heightens my awareness and makes me feel more alive. I try not to take risks in the laboratory, however, although our hobby is inherently risky, maybe even as much as sky diving. But Marvin's advice about careful planing, research, MSDS reading, etc, is very good.

Saerynide - 26-2-2004 at 06:13

White water rafting is soooo fun

Yeah I know women also have testosterone, but its in very small quantities, so that would make the equation inaccurate

Nevermore - 26-2-2004 at 13:20

Quote:

Originally posted by IgnorantlyIntelligent
Nitroglycerin production is one of the most dangerous industrial processes. For example, it killed Alfred Nobel's brother. Although that was over a century ago, I expect the method he was using was more sophisticated than the method you used.

If you play Russian Roulette, you will most likely survive. However, you shouldn't regard your survival as evidence that what you did was safe.

i don't agree really, over other explosive productions NG production is the one less plagued by random accidents..beside that, i suppose nobel brother was making a big batch,,have you ever tried to do a temp control over a large batch?
Ng in humid form should be rather safe, is almost impossible to detonate..
well after is dry is sensitive of course, but i suppose that there are other stuffs much more dangerous than that...

Mr. Wizard - 26-2-2004 at 21:23

This seemed timely.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994718

IgnorantlyIntelligent - 28-2-2004 at 06:39

Nevermore, I dont know how you quoted something I never said, but I never said NG was dangerous in the production. I am the one that made 270ml and everyone else critisized me for it.
How did you quote what I didnt say?....interesting.

[Edited on 28-2-2004 by IgnorantlyIntelligent]

I am a fish - 28-2-2004 at 07:36

Nevermore quoted my post which in turn contained a quote from your post. He must have edited out your comment whilst accidently retaining your name, making it look like my comment came from you.

AP

TomThumb - 23-6-2004 at 12:41

I did a kilo of AP a while ago and went quite well.

chemoleo - 23-6-2004 at 12:58

Do that a few more times and you won't be there to write it again...

Hang-Man - 23-6-2004 at 14:57

Why does everyone think AP is the devil? I've made near kilogram amounts and had no problems. The only times I hear of something going wrong with AP is when the user does some stupid thing. (ie lighting off shitloads at a time, or *hammering* the cap into place)

It's stupid people that are dangerous, not AP.

(when tom says he 'did' a kilo of AP I assume he ment 'made' and not 'set off all at once like a dipshit' )

Yet another safety discussion

blazter - 23-6-2004 at 19:04

Safety when dealing with energetic materials is a subtle concept to grasp, so I suppose its understandable that many people still dont comprehend how the risks work even after reading about them many times. When dealig with unstable material such as AP, it all boils down to probability. The probability that it won't spontaneously detonateis one of concern, and the most understood, but its easy to forget that the margin of error with other respects makes the overall safety factor smaller. Now also, you must consider the worst case scenario when handling/synthesizing an unstable primary like AP, a full complete detonation occurring. I do recall at least one person on E&W claiming that they have had AP spontaneously detonate when dumping into bicarb solution to neutralize it. Now suppose this happened with say a kilo batch for instance. Remember I say that spontaneous detonation is not the only risk, take for instance Anthony's AP incident from E&W where the lamp he was using to dry a pile of AP fell onto the filter cake and destroyed the table it was sitting on. Again suppose that it was a kilo batch that had been drying, we would have never heard about the incident excecpt for possibly some vague details in a news report.

The risks involved with handing sensetive primaries like AP are very real, and can come from any number of factors, even ones you probably never thought about. These risks may also come from subtle mistakes that even "intelligent" people may make without realizing, like say modifying some procedure slightly. You claim that only "stupid" people are harmed by AP, but I would say that it is just as stupid to prepare kilogram quantities at a time.

Naturally everything within one's power to mitigate risk when dealing with consequences so severe should be taken, and one of the factors that would mitigate (not the same as eliminate) the most risk would be working with as small a batch size as possible. In the event some unforseen event should occur (which WILL happen eventually if done enough).

There was a thread on E&W about a similar topic, though it was much longer winded, it was in a thread called "cap sensetive AN mixes" IIRC, and may be good reference for someone who needs clairification here.

Remember, just because you were able to speed through a red light in a busy intersection once and not hit anything, does not mean its safe to do so!

[Edited on 24-6-2004 by blazter]

AP

MadHatter - 10-7-2004 at 02:16

It's ashame that kid in Sweden died as a result of making AP.
Personally, I've never heard of AP being used commercially.
Perhaps it's too unpredictable for those purposes. If I'm wrong
don't hesitate to correct me.

chemistr1 - 10-7-2004 at 08:47

All explosives have the ability to suddenly go wrong and spoil the party.
AP is unstable and requires respect. The same as NG or PETN or even the old and true BP.
The thing with big batches of what the uninformed masses sometimes refer as unstable explosives (all explosives are unstable by design) is that after a couple of these big batches the makers start to lose that respect and the beast bites them.
I have studied the hobby for almost 20 years and I still really respect the beast in it.
Its always there waiting to bite you.
I read some of the kids last posts and he had clearly lost the respect/fear of what he was handling.
I feel bloody terrible about what happened to him and it is instances like this that should make everyone in the hobby stop and think.
AP gets such a bad press because its so bloody simple to make and anyone can do it successfully once and then consider themselves as an expert on the subject.
I have survived intact for so long because I respect/fear and love the beast all in one.
Even though I know one day the beast will reach out and bite me.
As a great pyro once said:
there are old pyros
and there are bold pyros
but there are few old old and bold pyros

Marvin - 10-7-2004 at 19:00

"AP is unstable and requires respect. The same as NG or PETN or even the old and true BP."

PETN and BP particually do not belong in the same thought as AP and NG.

Calling all explosives 'unstable' and saying they require 'respect' is taking simplification too far. A pencil balenced on its point is unstable, diamond is unstable. George W Bush is unstable. None of these things deserve respect because they are unstable and nor does it help.

AP is prone to chemical decomposition (unsurprising, its an organic peroxide), its a very volatile solid and it is sensitive to mechanical shock.
NG is a bit better, its still shock sensitive, a liquid slightly volatile, but a lot less prone to chemical decomposition when properly neutralised/dried. Its only its use in dynamites though that makes this safe enough to be used as a commercial explosive.
PETN is not volatile, its stable chemically and its insensitive to fire and mechanical shock.
BP isnt a high explosive, if its not contained its almost just a fire hazard.
TNT to introduce another one is very stable to shock and fire - essentially to the extent you can ignore these. Its insensitive to degree of neutralisation and very stable chemically. The biggest problem here is that its toxic.

Its not about grouping all explosives together and saying 'Have respect', its about choosing something to work with based on the safest thing you can feasably make and learning how to reduce the chances of accidents for that specific explosive. For BP you use non sparking tools, exclude flames and hot surfaces and you can expect that in normal handling nothing bad will happen. You can drop heavy objects on BP, you can grind it, you can pound or press it into tubes. Ball milling dry BP will always be a risk however there is no reason handling BP itself has to be regarded as dangerous. AP will always be unpredictable. While if handled well the probability it will go off is low, this is the limit of the control. The only sensible way to proceed is to assume it will go off and limit the damage it can do when it does.

AP is bad news on a psycological level as well. The reaction that makes it isnt nasty like a nitration and doesnt involve friction. The chemicals that make it are farmiliar. Small amounts of AP dont detonate unless its confined, giving a false feeling of safety and last but not least its a fluffy white powder with little density when made. Probably the most damaging aspect is the general excuse 'I cant get the chemicals for anything safer'.

"All explosives have the ability to suddenly go wrong and spoil the party. "
No. While in physics its true everything has a non zero probability, in real terms, for both chemistry and enginering there are safe explosives and there are unsafe ones. Sometimes the difference depends heavily on the manufacture, often it doesnt. As examples ;-

AP, NG, Guncotton. Even well made these compounds tend to degrade over time and can go off without external cause. In the first case the problem is intrinsic, in the latter cases its residuals from the production stage that can start autocatalytic breakdown of the explosive.

Mercury fulminate on the other hand gets more stable over time, eventually becoming inert and provided reasonable manufacture will not go off without an external cause. This is an intrinsic problem.

PETN, Lead Azide, Picric Acid, Tetryl etc, if made acceptably will not detonate without external cause, they behave predictably and reliably during handling and long term storage. Picric acid has seperate issues for safe handling that make this more difficult.

TNT, ANFO, BP, Even if badly made these pose virtually no danger of going off unexpectadly or becoming dangerously sensitive. Deliberatly altering chemicals or methods is dangerous, but normal contaminants will not adversly affect these explosives.

Most of the secondaries commonly used will tolerate mistakes, a dropped hammer, a lighted match, spilled solvent or acid, swearing, insulting its precursors, none of these will normally cause detonation though some will burn quite merrily. Stupid or not humans will always make mistakes, its foolish to assume otherwise but isolated mistakes do not have to have an unaccaptably high risk of death. Bulk AP *is* dangerous and not just because it amplifies a mistake into a catastrophy. If a 1 gram charge of AP has a certain probability of going off by itself then a 1kg charge has at least 1000 times the probability it will go off, because each 1 gram has the same and they add. Add to that the problems of heat build up in the larger volume of material and the additional problems caused by properly neutralising and washing much larger batches and the sheer likleyhood a human mistake is to affect a much larger volume of material and you start to see the full AP problem with its 1000 times consequences. Most people dont fully comprehend that a larger batch is disproportionatly more likley to go off as well as being vastly more damaging if it does.

There are explosives you can call safe and stable, and those only fit to be called unsafe and unstable. Grouping all explosives into the unstable catagory and telling people they will live a long life if they have respect is not the way forward, it doesnt match peoples experience and it renders a whole branch of chemistry only suitable for parlour tricks. Education is the way forward and reading obituaries might scare more than the usual percentage of teenybombers into it.

chemoleo - 11-7-2004 at 15:58

Ah, I see.
G W Bush being unstable doesn't mean that he requires respect, while unstable AP does.
What a beautiful metaphor

Psychopatic - 9-8-2004 at 08:41

I should't make fun of this actually, it's very tragically. But a "joke" that appears on some swedish forums:

The guys name was Joel. And a couple of years ago there was a TV-show called "Joel-bitar". It was about a guy called Joel, which had Down's Syndrome. Nothing funny about that.

But "bitar" in Swedish means "pieces", so Joel-bitar = Joel-pieces...

fvcked - 9-8-2004 at 21:16

As to that article above: maybe the study shows that youth are more likely to engage in dangerous activities because there are less things that seem "dangerous" for adults to do! People seem to think that because of ones age they can do more things safely, which is patently untrue. Oh well, at least the moron in the start of this thread *the one who died* didnt bring anyone with him.

aikon - 11-8-2004 at 05:05

This swedish guy got warned by many members on RS.org not to make such big ass batches of AP. When dealing with energetic materials (and weapons) ignorance and exaggerated opinion of yourself is the way to disaster. Personally I think everyone gets what he/she deserves. When it comes to explosives it's the loss of limbs or life in the worst case.

Macgyver - 15-8-2004 at 05:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Psychopatic
I should't make fun of this actually, it's very tragically. But a "joke" that appears on some swedish forums:

The guys name was Joel. And a couple of years ago there was a TV-show called "Joel-bitar". It was about a guy called Joel, which had Down's Syndrome. Nothing funny about that.

But "bitar" in Swedish means "pieces", so Joel-bitar = Joel-pieces...

May he rest in pieces.....