Sciencemadness Discussion Board

TATP vs. MEKP

mbrown3391 - 8-9-2006 at 20:21

I have read that Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide is far more stable than Acetone Peroxide. Is this true? If so, why is TATP so much more popular that MEKP, when the chemicals required to synthesize both are readily available?

Also, I detonated about 3 grams of TATP today(although technically AP doesn't detonate) and was unimpressed. It went up in a fire ball, but that was about it. Should i have confined the powder, say by allowing it to dry under a heavy stone? Or, did i simply not have enough to produce an explosion. If this is the case, how much would be required to produce a small explosion?

Despite popular beleif, I feel that AP is perfectly safe in small quantities. Never having made TATP before, i was being extremely cautious, and still expected it to go off at any time. However, i couldn't even get it to explode by poking it with a stick. At what quantity does AP become dangerous, then?

Polverone - 8-9-2006 at 21:03

3 grams is certainly enough to leave you missing fingers, if not worse. This doesn't appear to be novel or very chemistry-oriented.

Marsh - 8-9-2006 at 21:26

Don't mess with either. They are both too dangerous for you.

The AP went up in a fireball because it was wet. If it was dry you would have probably set it off poking it with that stick and never wanted to play with it again. 3g's would be dangerous from a "stick-poking" proximity.

If you must, MEKP is safer and I recommend you steer clear of the AP.

mbrown3391 - 9-9-2006 at 05:15

That makes sense. The AP appeared dry, but when it exploded, wet powder splattered everywhere. I guess the inside of the mass of powder was still wet.

I actually made a mistake in my post. I didn't poke the full 3 grams of TATP, I was poking the tiny quantities that were left on the filter paper, which were completely dry. when i just tapped them, nothing happend. When touched them with a flame, i got a small fireball. But when i pressed down on them so they had pressure on top of them, i got a loud cracking noise similar to Nitrogen Triiodide.

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by mbrown3391]

quicksilver - 9-9-2006 at 06:50

Please consider using, testing smaller quantities. People playing with Peroxides are responsible for some VERY serious accidents. To even consider having a degree of safety it's imperitive that you read & study a bit more....The devil of it is, the material will APPEAR to be consistent and predictable time after time - until that one time when you least expect it.....and -=BANG=-, you have a very bloody paw. And that one time is enough. There are a shit-load of people who have lost fingers and eyes who can attest to the truth of this issue with that very material. One of the most significant reasons is that the hobbiest chemist may have difficulty controling all the environmental variables, unless his lab is setup to handle energetic materials specificly.
The fact of the matter is that the only Explosive Peroxide to even be considered for energetic material commercial useage (and it sure as Hell wasn't TATP) never came close to actual implmentation, due, not only to it's issues with corrostion, longevity, & sensitivity to temp variation but it's lack of predictablity in foundational usage (funtionality) as a detonator. Did it work; yes but not with the consistency nesessary for commercial production. There is a very interesting story here if you are interested in reaserch, material testing -via the old USBoM. The investigation into the use of Peroxides will provide a ground work to emulate when even thinking of working with energetic materials. They did their research with sub-gram units behind a blast shield and were very awair that conditions (dry, wet, warm, cold, etc) influenced results before they began. That's just standard scientific method stuff.
Let's say you want to test sensitivity. Poking something with a stick will not help you as no consistency is attached to that "test". Setting up an apperatus that consistenly, time after time, provides the same stimulus (impact, friction, heat, etc) is the key of course and can provide an interesting challenge as to method & design.
It's not a good idea to make an assumption from a single experience; we want you to keep all your fingers and eyes. :D



[Edited on 9-9-2006 by quicksilver]

mbrown3391 - 9-9-2006 at 07:44

Two Questions:

What smaller quantity would you recomend for testing? According to Wikipedia...
Quote:

TCAP generally burns when ignited, unconfined, in quantities less than about 2 grams. More than 2 grams will usually detonate when ignited; smaller quantities might detonate when even slightly confined. Completely dry TCAP is much more prone to detonation than the fresh product still wetted with water or acetone.


So is 3 grams really that much?


Also, how would you recomend detonating TATP? I did it by placing a crumpled paper towel on top of the still wet AP and lighting it when i though it was dry. However, this doesn't work very well because the paper towel gets wet and it doesn't allow me very much time to get away.

Nerro - 9-9-2006 at 08:14

3g of TATP sure was enough to impress me thoroughly enough never to make TATP again... When the AP is dry it won't even need more confinement than a little clingfilm to make it detonate completely.

The main disadvantage of MEKP appears to be the fact that it's a liquid and liquids are just that much more difficult to handle.

I suggest you stay away from TATP, MEKP and thair analogs. All are unstable and frankly quite powerful enough to mutilate you.

(btw how is this chemistry oriented?)

Polverone - 9-9-2006 at 10:35

Whoops, I failed to close this before.