| Pages:
1
2 |
holmes1880
dushbag
Posts: 194
Registered: 13-12-2010
Location: http://highexplosivesforum.forumotion.com/
Member Is Offline
Mood: Egregious
|
|
Detonation of Double Based Smokeless Propellants/Powder
We know that DBSP detonates. I've tested it, and seen videos. As little as 300 mg PETN base charge will detonate 70% of DBSP brands.
A Bullseye brand, one of the fastest burn times, has 40% NG and 50-60% NC. However, it has fairly low density. I assess it within 5000 m/s VOD, but
the density, I think makes its RE factor only around 0.8....like TATP. Agree, disagree?
Discuss, gentlemen.
[Edited on 11-2-2011 by holmes1880]
|
|
|
DougTheMapper
Hazard to Others
Posts: 145
Registered: 20-7-2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Energetic
|
|
The problem here is that DBSP comes in the form of grains. Just having grains in general obviously entrains quite a bit of air and significantly
reduces density, even with a bit of ramming.
Ideally, one would find a solvent for the fastest DBSP available and cast it into monolithic blocks for maximum density and thus VOD. Perhaps make it
into a gel with acetone, cast it into a mold, and then vibrate the crap out of it to get rid of air bubbles. This would definitely up the RE factor
per volume and the resulting block would probably closely resemble that of a fixed-shape polymer-bonded explosive.
Be that as it may, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26842885/VoD-of-Various-Energeti... says that the NC in DBSP has a VOD of around 4500m/s but fully nitrated NC can
push 7300m/s. Combined with NG's 7700m/s, the monolithic casting may end up somewhere around 6000m/s if you get lucky. Maybe not enough for a shaped
charge, but possibly an EFP and certainly an inexpensive and insensitive booster.
I've often thought about the use of loose DBSP in binary compositions as an inexpensive sensitizing agent. Has anyone tried AN/DBSP?
[Edited on 11-2-2011 by DougTheMapper]
Victor Grignard is a methylated spirit.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Due to the polymer in most all DBSP acetone would bring the material into a heavy or thin solution capable to re-hardening. At that juncture the
particulate would settle into a solid. (allow bubbles to become eliminated though settling obviously).
determining the % of many DBSP is sometimes a challenge. Most think that Bullseye has the highest with (approx 40%) but Hogden also has a 37%
(Titegroup), etc, etc. The level of NG doesn't necessarily determine the absolute level of energy however. The level of accessibility does. The higher
the level of polymer & other inerts in ratio to that of the energetic has some influence in the way it molds to a SC. That's one of the reasons
why a great deal of research was done on the design of plastiques, which can sustain a level of up to 30% inerts and shoot viably. There is a
difference between NG and RDX in the way it sustains it's response to inerts in a solid mass.
Polyester is not SBR or polybutene adjusted to a given solid energetic. The relationship of polyester to NG is not the same as SBR or polybutene to
RDX or PETN. There are factors outside of a simple "mold and shoot". To differing energetics and two differing interts give very different results.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
RE is TNT equivalency, given within reason charge density being equal,
RE is simply a weight for weight output comparison. The nature of the
target material of course matters also when practical equivalency is the
thing being estimated for "work done" by an explosive shattering a target.
Bulk strength is a different parameter entirely. If you were to fill a 1 liter
container with granulated TNT and compare the blast effect to a 1 liter
identical container of granulated DBSP having the same charge density,
then the weight for weight TNT equivalency of the DBSP would be likely
125% or more. Comparing apples with apples would be comparing granular
TNT with DBSP at equal charge density. Block TNT would have a more bulk strength which would skew the test, which would then be comparing apples and
oranges and would tend to make the TNT appear more powerful when weight for
weight is is actually much less powerful than either guncotton or nitroglycerine.
A better apples to apples comparison would be to compare blasting gelatine with block TNT ....both solids.....and then the "equivalency" issue would
be settled
by testing on the basis of weight for weight, with each material at "optimum"
or normally used charge density ....whatever that turns out to be.
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Ive seen many questions involving plasticizing DBSP or a single base IMR NC owderv and incorporating various energetics.
IIRC I even wondered about the efficacy of incorporating Mekp/DBSP while still plastic from the acetone.What the consistency of the result would be I
dont have a clue it was just a mental excercise.Others have suggested ETN,MHN etc etc.As has been suggested the stabilizers added to any SP would help
with stabilizing the composite.I would think an added bonus would be its water resistant- proof nature.Given some flexibility
in a wax paper covered block or cartridge form with double sided tape attached a crude plastique might be achieved with limited flexibility depending
on composition, a high VOD?Again dependent on composition.With the ability to be attached to whatever substances a double sided tape adheres
to?Armor,concrete,stone,debarked tree trunks,Mailboxes?Thats a potential fed charge as well however! (And sure fire attention getter) Your aware of
how well that behavior/megalomania served
Gotti!?Despite his forebears advice /experience.
PS as to ridding the plastic material of voids I wonder if vigorous
vibration similar to the way a concrete vibrator rids concrete of 'popcorn' voids.Just so happens I saved a set of vibrators from a lazyboy type chair
that really rock and roll.Original thought was the vibratory action bolted to the same plywood as a
hotplate would provide some stirring activity.Not so much! as it turned out!
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
It is an incorrect assumption and incorrect generalization that the stabilizer most commonly used for smokeless powder is also effective in
stabilizing other nitroesters either alone or being used in a blended composition. A different less basic stabilizer may be required for a blended
composition using ETN or other nitroesters. Stabilizer compatability schemes are very carefully worked out and there is no "universal stabilizer"
found in diphenylamine in particular. For MHN for example dicyandiamide is reportedly very effective as a stabilizer. MEKP does not seem like a
good prospect for mixing with DBSP because MEKP is somewhat unstable and more reactive, compared to AP.
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  | It is an incorrect assumption and incorrect generalization that the stabilizer most commonly used for smokeless powder is also effective in
stabilizing other nitroesters either alone or being used in a blended composition. A different less basic stabilizer may be required for a blended
composition using ETN or other nitroesters. Stabilizer compatability schemes are very carefully worked out and there is no "universal stabilizer"
found in diphenylamine in particular. For MHN for example dicyandiamide is reportedly very effective as a stabilizer. MEKP does not seem like a
good prospect for mixing with DBSP because MEKP is somewhat unstable and more reactive, compared to AP.
|
Id be reluctant to argue the point as I was simply repeating IIRC anothers post concerning the stabilizers in the commercial product aiding in
stabilizing a composition.Of course it would depend on the specific addition to be able to determine if Diphenlamine was useful.Regarding acidity
which could well be a lingering problem with ETN. As well as lingering Acidity in commercial NC/NG DBSP doesnt seem to be unheard of or the use of
diphenlamine in single base NC propellants or DBSP due directly to acidity and degradation of the product over time would be abandoned.You arent
suggesting the stabilizer diphenlamine is detrimental to the ETN/DBSP composite are you?Detrimental to DBSP/MHN?Or just not Ideal for the purpose?
Assuming the lab made ETN/MHN was as clean of acidic impurity as the commerciial DBSP counterpart what likely problems do you forsee?Can you
reccomend other energetic sensitizers that would be more suitable for our purposes given thier limited scope,limited availability of stabilizers? Im
not concerned with storing the DBSP-NC/ ETN-MHN other energetic sensitizer for the 60plus years that surplus ammunition propellant has been proven to
be stable for.
Most likely 6days,6wks,6months stability is more than enough at least for me.And should the composite become degraded some definite signs would be
noticed.Smell,fumes etc.
Will you kindly explain your last sentence in which you state..
"..MEKP is somewhat unstable and more reactive compared to AP." This seems contrary to every other post Ive seen on this /other forums as well as
scientific testing with friction ,impact etc as indicators?All due respect Roscoe,Ive read many of your posts often considering it a last word on the
subject but this has me confused.Not an abnormal state of affairs But.. W/in the scope of this discussion I dont see any glaring errors in my post?
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by grndpndr | | Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine | It is an incorrect assumption and incorrect generalization that the stabilizer most commonly used for smokeless powder is also effective in
stabilizing other nitroesters either alone or being used in a blended composition. A different less basic stabilizer may be required for a blended
composition using ETN or other nitroesters. Stabilizer compatability schemes are very carefully worked out and there is no "universal stabilizer"
found in diphenylamine in particular. For MHN for example dicyandiamide is reportedly very effective as a stabilizer. MEKP does not seem like a
good prospect for mixing with DBSP because MEKP is somewhat unstable and more reactive, compared to AP.
|
Id be reluctant to argue the point as I was simply repeating IIRC anothers post concerning the stabilizers in the commercial product aiding in
stabilizing a composition. |
What people assume may be logical does not necessarily prove to be true when tested by experiment. A common mistake I see in discussions thought to
be "scientific" is people lecturing about things they don't really know, but fail to use any qualifying language that would reveal they don't really
know for certain what they are "teaching" by descrbing as a fact....particularly when it really isn't a fact what they are saying at all.
| Quote: |
Of course it would depend on the specific addition to be able to determine if Diphenlamine was useful.Regarding acidity which could well be a
lingering problem with ETN. As well as lingering Acidity in commercial NC/NG DBSP doesnt seem to be unheard of or the use of diphenlamine in single
base NC propellants or DBSP due directly to acidity and degradation of the product over time would be abandoned.You arent suggesting the stabilizer
diphenlamine is detrimental to the ETN/DBSP composite are you? |
Right, I am not "suggesting" such a proposition at all, I am declaring it to be the case, at least so far as a couple of experiments done with melts
of ETN and DBSP composites, the stability is poor for such mixtures in combination, while the stability for the uncombined separate components is
excellent.
| Quote: |
Detrimental to DBSP/MHN?Or just not Ideal for the purpose? |
I have done no experiments on DBSP/MHN
composites so I am not certain, but I would expect the pH sensitivity of MHN to be similar to ETN, so I would expect a more nearly neutral pH
stabilizer would be indicated as more useful there as well as for ETN.
| Quote: |
Assuming the lab made ETN/MHN was as clean of acidic impurity as the commerciial DBSP counterpart what likely problems do you forsee?
|
The problem foreseeable with any contemplated stabilizer is that it may actually react with the thing
intended to be stabilized by its reactivity desired to be limited to neutralization of decomposition byproducts. A prerequisite is that the stabilizer
be unreactive towards the thing desired to be stabilized, and only react with the byproducts.
| Quote: |
Can you reccomend other energetic sensitizers that would be more suitable for our purposes given thier limited scope,limited availability of
stabilizers? |
It is unclear to me what is desired to be accomplished,
what is wished to be sensitized for what purpose.
| Quote: |
Im not concerned with storing the DBSP-NC/ ETN-MHN other energetic sensitizer for the 60plus years that surplus ammunition propellant has been proven
to be stable for.
Most likely 6days,6wks,6months stability is more than enough at least for me.And should the composite become degraded some definite signs would be
noticed.Smell,fumes etc. |
I am still not really understanding what composite for what purpose you are asking about.
| Quote: |
Will you kindly explain your last sentence in which you state..
"..MEKP is somewhat unstable and more reactive compared to AP." This seems contrary to every other post Ive seen on this /other forums as well as
scientific testing with friction ,impact etc as indicators?All due respect Roscoe,Ive read many of your posts often considering it a last word on the
subject but this has me confused.Not an abnormal state of affairs But.. W/in the scope of this discussion I dont see any glaring errors in my post?
|
It wasn't meant to be cryptic, and it was true what I said.
MEKP is more chemically reactive and thermally unstable than is AP (TCAP)....so even though you may get away with
making AP putty from acetone DBSP and AP ....that doesn't mean that MEKP will also work just because it is also a ketone peroxide. Plasticising DBSP
with MEKP isn't likely
to increase its sensitivity either .....so it isn't really clear
what is trying to be accomplished.
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Im often quilty of repeating what I had presumed to be fact once its been repeated enough,many others are as well.At some point believing
unsubstantiated assertions to be true.Im not denying thats a failure but there s more to this thread than misinformation.
There are also practical goals,whether there attainable or not Im not qualified to give a certain answer on way or another.
In my posts I qualified all my statements and I have simply posed some questions
based on previous experience w/MEKP-nitrates.An assumption but the idea of a composition of DBSP and MEKP,ETN or MHN is certainly not unique to me
and my interest is based on the results from the combination of MEKP/AN-other nitrates power and sensitivity.
The idea was of course to add to the power and sensitivity of DBSP whether using mekp or ETN etc. Along with increasing DBSPs density by plasticizing
the grains and molding into blocks or cartridges in all likely hood increasing DBSP's density and VOD.
"Mekp is more chemically reactive and thermally unstable than AP" But in fact AP is also
more sensitive to shock and friction than Mekp. I sense your making an assumtion, "plasticizing
DBSP with Mekp isnt likely to increase its sensitivity either" so you are in fact making an assumption based on? for which you roundly criticize
others.
"so it isnt really clear what is trying to be accomplished." It would have been had the thread been read.The Ideas may or may not be practicable but
its perfectly clear whats trying to be accomplished.Increased sensitivity/VOD from a DBSP-NC/ % nitroesters.Thats the Goal Rosco,if experimentation or
FACT comes to light in regards
the goal and it proves the concept to be impractical fine,no harm no foul.
[Edited on 12-2-2011 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by grndpndr | Im often quilty of repeating what I had presumed to be fact once its been repeated enough,many others are as well.At some point believing
unsubstantiated assertions to be true.Im not denying thats a failure but there s more to this thread than misinformation. There are also practical
goals,whether there attainable or not Im not qualified to give a certain answer on way or another. In my posts I qualified all my statements and I
have simply posed some questions
based on previous experience w/MEKP-nitrates.An assumption but the idea of a composition of DBSP and MEKP,ETN or MHN is certainly not unique to me
and my interest is based on the results from the combination of MEKP/AN-other nitrates power and sensitivity. |
You may think you are connecting the dots logically where you really aren't doing that. MEKP and inorganic nitrates
is a fuel oxidizer system that is very different from an MEKP and nitroester system. Nitrates are way more stable and less reactive than nitroesters.
Some chemical mixtures are okay and other chemical mixtures are not okay with regards to stability issues. Some explosives complement stability when
they are mixed and certain others will adversely affect stability in mixture. Just because you think you can physically mix different materials
doesn't make the idea a good one in practice if the chemistry and physical properties are not a good match.
| Quote: |
The idea was of course to add to the power and sensitivity of DBSP whether using mekp or ETN etc. Along with increasing DBSPs density by plasticizing
the grains and molding into blocks or cartridges in all likely hood increasing DBSP's density and VOD. |
There is no plausible theory to apply to the scenario of MEKP mixed with DBSP in hopes of adding to the power of DBSP. There is a plausible theory
how using a liquid nitroester like NG would do that, and what you would have is blasting gelatine. MEKP is not a substitute for NG. Want blocks?
well press the DBSP into a block. Moistened with a bit of acetone it will fuse nicely under pressure. But you will get something like a plastic
brick which will be hard to detonate. So blasting gelatine is really the way to go there. DBSP is what it is and MEKP is not likely to magically
transform it into blasting gelatine.
| Quote: |
"Mekp is more chemically reactive and thermally unstable than AP" But in fact AP is also
more sensitive to shock and friction than Mekp. I sense your making an assumtion, "plasticizing
DBSP with Mekp isnt likely to increase its sensitivity either" so you are in fact making an assumption based on? for which you roundly criticize
others. |
An educated guess as basis for a qualified statement is not an unfounded assumption at all. I
qualified the statement saying "isn't likely". The basis for the statement is that MEKP is a lower energy material than DBSP which would function as
a diluent, and the applicable generality is that diluent included plastiques are going to be harder to detonate than either of the components, so it
is a reasonable and qualified statement that I made, not really an assumption stated for fact. I will stand by that qualified statement as probable
fact.
| Quote: |
"so it isnt really clear what is trying to be accomplished." It would have been had the thread been read.The Ideas may or may not be practicable but
its perfectly clear whats trying to be accomplished. |
I did read the thread and it still isn't clear what is the purpose or the logic involving the materials being discussed.
If the purpose is to densify and sensitize DBSP then use
NG and make blasting gelatine which is stable and proven,
and incorporates a mixture of materials that makes sense.
| Quote: |
Increased sensitivity/VOD from a DBSP-NC/ % nitroesters.Thats the Goal Rosco,if experimentation or FACT comes to light in regards
the goal and it proves the concept to be impractical fine,no harm no foul.
[Edited on 12-2-2011 by grndpndr] |
There is no reason indicated to hope that MEKP is chemically
or energetically inclined to act in a way that complements
DBSP .....it doesn't make sense from a chemical or physical standpoint. Blasting gelatine is a known quantity.
The OP was asking and musing about the RE of DBSP as being .8 or so and comparable to TCAP and that is just wrong and way low. That's a FACT. MEKP
would be probably .4 RE and that wouldn't lift up DBSP that is RE 1.25 or better .....
it would only drag it down.
So the math there simply doesn't work, even before getting to the stability issue.
[Edited on 12-2-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
pjig
Hazard to Others
Posts: 179
Registered: 25-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: always learning
|
|
@ Rosco
What is your take on the old "nipolite " HE that was used as grenade?
It is like what you described above, dbsp wet and mixed with a petn or other HE, then pressed into a mold. The initiator can be threaded into the
hardened grenade. (No need for a shell" the explosive is the shell)...
I think that a earlier thread went into some depth on making SC's with a composite matrix of these energetics. Not sure if the petn would be the best
choice, but it seems much more stabilized than etn, or any other peroxide exp.
I think that dbsp bullseye is claimed to have a vod of 19,000fps- 25,000fps range on its own. I read it in a study done on detonating smokeless
powders.
* How much harder do you think detonating a "dried"block of wet and compressed dbsp will be in relation to the powder form... ( will it need a
booster, or would a composite cap be enough)?
[Edited on 12-2-2011 by pjig]
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
FWIW I recall seeing info that indicated wet blocks of NC(for safety) were detonated with the aid of a certain amount of dry NC and detonator.
If a forum search is done youll find a whole lot info concerning these very same topics regarding ETN etc posted by a Mr A./others Circa '03' on.
At that time his reccomendation was a melt cast - Accurate Arms #2-#5 DBSSP/ETN
"might be a good explosive""the suggestion for using sperical dbsp is because of high density and propogation considerations"
Axt qoute;its likely that molten ETN will also have some good colloiding w/NC.. ""..OB with about 5/1 ETN/NC and you should have a quick simple yet
potent plastique"
Unfortunately it seems ETN has no solvent type effect on NC/DBSSP.So for whatever reason melting ETN was considered a safe? Method? to make a melt
comp.Used or contemplated by Mr A,Axt and likely many others.
Who did the mysterious Mr A turn out to be?Ideas Roscoe?
Seems to me my post/OT was basically nothing that hasnt been talked about ad infinitum?So why the firestorm is above my paygrade.
[Edited on 13-2-2011 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
pjig
Hazard to Others
Posts: 179
Registered: 25-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: always learning
|
|
I would never feel comfortable melt-casting ETN into a dbsp.
Why wouldn't you just reduce the dbsp with acetone or NM, then add the ETN till a plastic is formed? Melt casting something that sensitive seems like
a death-wish IMO..
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That was my thinking .The melt cast ETN/DBSP concept is the product of others imagination/experimentation.
Do a forum search for ETN composites youll find whose Ideas
all these practices can be attributed to.Im not one advocating melting ETN.But youll find several pages of different compositions using ETN.Both as a
melt cast and as a acetone
DBSP/ETN mixture.Composites w/perchlorates etc .Including discussion of stabilizers such as diphenlamine,baking soda,urea etc.
[Edited on 13-2-2011 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
FYI
Melt casting ETN is not my novel idea or invention and several examples are described in PATR .
As for the Mr. Anonymous aka Rosco Bodine matter ....
what is the problem there I really don't know
But what is a problem here in this forum with "new topics"
that are really old discussions being reposted .....
along with various non chemistry topic postings
which boil down to substantively being requests that
amount to "First, know I am an expert on explosives, however, will somebody please spoon feed me basic instructions 1-2-3 and ABC on the easiest way a
non-technically educated person should proceed with basic manufacture" for whatever .....
and with that proposition I do have real problems and
this game I will not play
There seems to a lot of "kill the messenger bringing bad news" going on here just because I have said the MEKP and DBSP mixture is not a good idea.
Well isn't that just too damn bad .....no "firestorm" .....just a matter of fact explanation. I am really getting weary of this kind of
"manufactured controversy" that really seems personal rather than technical.
Nitroesters and other nitroesters would probably be a happy mix if the stabilizer is mutually compatable with the component nitroesters. By
experiment I found that the
diphenylamine doesn't fit that bill. If it makes you happy to think I have misidentified or lied about that .....then hell, believe what makes you
happy.
[Edited on 13-2-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Nipolite dobe in PATR2700 N27
PETN - NC- DEGDN - %c.
This from Google.com/books — do be most curious ....
http://tinyurl.com/4cgrfdy
djh
----
Organic Chemistry: The practice
of transmuting vile substances
into publications.
Anon.
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I apologize for whatever animosity my posts may have generated.It was not my intent
to intentionally aggravate/bait or anything of the sort, no matter what the perception might be.I greatly respect roscoes knowledge and
contributions.Maybe meaningless to some so FWIW once again my sincere apologys.I hope this can be the end of the matter as far as Is possible.
PS I would have PMed this sparing the rest of you but I was unable to U2U.
|
|
|
holmes1880
dushbag
Posts: 194
Registered: 13-12-2010
Location: http://highexplosivesforum.forumotion.com/
Member Is Offline
Mood: Egregious
|
|
Enough pointless arguing, gentlemen.
I still cannot figure out what to do with DBSP. I can't really press it inside the cap like ETN powder.....it presses in a bit, but then pushes back
out. 
Options:
1. Grind it down in a mortar for lower density.
2. Lightly dissolve it in acetone and poor it into a grain. ---I am uneasy about dissolving it, cause I don't know if it can disstabilize the NG from
diphenylamine coating
3. Do nothing, use "as is" just pack into a small confining capsule- it is a gamble, since even the volume/mass of DBPS is great(3-5grams), it may
actually be a less effective initiator than 300mg PETN that will be inside of it.
Uhhh.. stuck.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
The issue boarders on the "practical application" of energetic materials which is a Forum restriction; that would be one big reason why few would
venture from addressing the subject outside of a chemistry/science perspective.
There are several stabilizers in DBSP and depending upon the brand configuration. The binder material can vary from polyester to cellulose. There
really can't be one answer that fits because of the commercial nature of the product and it's variances. However the likelihood of stabilizer
separation is very unlikely unless the stabilizers are first placed in solution and separated from the binder. If there is no separation from the
solvent solution the product would remain is it had been - albeit there is possibility of layering as in geological formations depending on density
levels within a large level of solvent : this is very unlikely in instances where the material has not been reduced to a free-flowing liquid. Even in
that case there is little likelihood of contamination to make this a problem.
Separation is possible if desired but it must be accomplished as a goal in itself and the appropriate solvents must be used to achieve that objective.
Diphenylamine could be separated but not without a pointed effort. So could all the elements of DBSP or TBSP be separated; but reducing them via a
plasticizing of the polyester would not do so.
[Edited on 22-2-2011 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
simply RED
Hazard to Others
Posts: 209
Registered: 18-8-2005
Location: noitacoL
Member Is Offline
Mood: booM
|
|
DBSP or any kind of smokeless powder is absolutely impractical to use as a high explosive.
The only slightly practical solution of doing it is pour 10-20% pure nitroglycerine in it, mix extremely well, even if the powder does not dissolve
(it won't in most cases). Use 10-20 grams PETN booster and good enclosing for this mix.
Don't try to dissolve it or anything like that, this just ends up in a big mess and no results can be achieved.
[Edited on 23-2-2011 by simply RED]
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead...
|
|
|
holmes1880
dushbag
Posts: 194
Registered: 13-12-2010
Location: http://highexplosivesforum.forumotion.com/
Member Is Offline
Mood: Egregious
|
|
^^^^^
Oh boy, somebody didn't read my first post.
DBSP sensitivity is what makes it so attractive as a BOOSTER material. Of course, no one intends to use it as main charges-it's too expensive anyways!
As little as 0.2g lead azide (equivalent) will set off small quantities of DBSP. I don't even consider using more than 10g of DBSP in any application.
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
There is considerable documentation in Naoum: "Nitroglycerin and Nitroglycerin Explosives" on the German diversion of WWI surplus smokeless powder to
use in the mining industry. Repeated mention is made of the need for strong initiation to prevent blown out shots. Long story short, it CAN be used in
high explosives when strongly confined, but it isn't easy or economic unless you've got many tons that the treaty of Versailes prevents you using for
the original purpose... There's a good reason that BATFE allows the US general public to buy and ship personal use quantities of smokeless powders
without federal license and record keeping.
Look on YouTube under "videodemolitions" for a video Axt made years ago of lightly confined tests performed with several varieties of reloading powder
initiated by commercial #8 caps.
[Edited on 24-2-2011 by Bert]
[Edited on 24-2-2011 by Bert]
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Bert | | There is considerable documentation in Naoum: "Nitroglycerin and Nitroglycerin Explosives" on the German diversion of WWI surplus smokeless powder to
use in the mining industry. |
Indeed (pp 446, 450) Naoum makes a number of these issues very clear. His text is perhaps one of the definitive works of that period of history
regarding the subject. His Supplement also provide bibliographic information wherein more information on the subject is defined.
On an off topic note, Naoum is also one of the better sources for understanding the use and production of the Nitrometer, it's importance historically
& industrially.
These are some of the most significant reasons why both he & Davis should be read in depth.
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Smokeless powder is also difficult to ignite.
I have been working on a project to ignite it electrically.
I have one called "titegroup" from Hodgdon. It consists
of small flakes and the MSDS lists NC and NG. The ignition
temp is listed at 200C. I was happy to find that it is
graphite coated and conducts quite well. If I measure the
resistance with my ohm meter it comes out at about 3K for
a small pile.
To ignite it I tried using a 100uF cap charged to 300V, 4.5J of
energy. The powder did not ignite. Compare this to the
human body model for ESD testing 1500V @ 100pF or
around 1e-4J .
What seemed to happen was the current vaporized
the graphite forming a low impedance plasma. You could
hear it pop and see the fat spark passing right through
the powder. However the pulse seems to be so fast that
it does not heat the grains enough to ignite them.
I could zap the powder 2 or 3 times before it would stop
conducting. Later on I did succeed by placing a large
inductor in series to lengthen the pulse.
I think the grain shape is important. These grains appeared
to be made by flattening a ball powder. I suspect they
lack sharp edges which would be easy to heat to ignition.
[Edited on 26-2-2011 by gregxy]
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The old bullseye DBSP also has flattened grains and apears to have a low density compared to a sperical grained ball DBSP.Thats just an empirical
observation based on my own perception.
I could measure a repeatable volume of a variety of sp powders Including flake DBSP Bullseye,extruded grains of SP
IMR and DBSP ball powder.if that would alleviate any doubts?
Establish a sort of baseline?!
If the idea is to use the sp as a sort of electric squib Ive had good results softening the SP/DBSP with acetone as a solvent and applying 1/4gr or
so to the nicrome itself.Ignition is near instant and and quite viqourous. 
Adding a chlorate oxidizer and AL powder might make the squib quite energetic.
I recall that titegroup Pistol powder has almost the same content of NG as the old Hercules Bullseye pistol powder for all practical purposes ,37%NG
versus near 40% for the bullseye equivalent.It would be interesting to know the density of the respective SP's
[Edited on 26-2-2011 by grndpndr]
[Edited on 26-2-2011 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
