| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8
..
10 |
B(a)P
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 29-9-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Festive
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by pjig  | Any new findings for the threshold ddt amount for the NAP? 25mg seems a little high compared to other primaries like azides . Azides boast a .5~10 mg
ddt ability on their initiation qualities. Pretty low compared to most primaries on the market
[Edited on 26-5-2024 by pjig] |
When it is in the form of approximately 1 mm crystals it detonates in amounts starting from 5 to 10 mg in my experience.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 430
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by pjig | Any new findings for the threshold ddt amount for the NAP? 25mg seems a little high compared to other primaries like azides . Azides boast a .5~10 mg
ddt ability on their initiation qualities. Pretty low compared to most primaries on the market
[Edited on 26-5-2024 by pjig] |
For DDT, NAP detonates in single crystals, it certainly detonates in any range of higher masses. I think you mean standard minimum firings of
secondaries?
There are quite a few issues with the minimum mass firing measurements in literature. The configuration of firing device, the density of the
secondary, has a significant effect on detonation transfer when dealing with mg masses. These things typically aren't accounted for in literature, so
comparisons without firing configurations and densities, aren't apples to apples or straight forward at all. It can be misleading if you assume it's
all the same. For instance if detonating loose secondary, such as a loose pile of RDX, NAP can transfer detonation in minute quantities and there are
differences in minimum quantities of NAP for other secondaries such as ETN.
Then there are detonator configurations which are the more realistic test medium. Detonator designs are all over the place. Most commercial IP is
withheld so it just requires reproductions and comparisons. If a blasting cap has a compression cup, it reduces the minimum primary mass, sometimes by
half. If a secondary is pressed to max density, it increases the minimum mass of primary needed to initiate.
I read your post as to insinuate that somehow NAP is not as powerful at initiation as common azide. It's quite a bit more powerful than Pb(N3)2. I
dont know what to tell you, you should try both and see what your judgement is. Everyone I know that uses NAP, most of them are azide people, I'm an
azide enjoyer. NAP is obviously more powerful to anyone that has used both.
If you are talking about iNAP, you should know that iNAP is a different complex than NAP, it's not simply an arbitrary alcohol solvent, the isopropyl
is complexing in to form a new explosive. There are ways to drop out the isopropyl and the complex recomposes to NAP. It is also possible to make
standard NAP and not iNAP in IPA depending on how the reaction is run. It's a different primary explosive material. It has different behaviors and
requires larger masses for firing than NAP. uNAP is very similar in performance to Ag(NTz) and Pb(NATz)2, nearly indistinguishable. I have been able
to get one and two millimeter perforations in foil with Pb(NATz)2 but for uNAP the smallest holes I can achieve are perhaps 4 or 5 mm. We are talking
detonations of material masses the size of a grain or two of table salt.
In my testing of standard inefficient detonators, ie. a metal cap with a single high-density base charge (RDX or ETN) with an iNAP prime, I found <
25 mg gave erratic transfer of detonation, depending on the secondary density. NAP is different than iNAP and uNAP in performance. All of them can
transfer detonation at a few mg in low density secondaries.
Hopefully that answers the question. It's really a matter that has to be worked out by each user. I cant give a straight forward answer because the
issue is just too big.
|
|
|
pjig
Hazard to Others
Posts: 169
Registered: 25-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: always learning
|
|
That is a very good explanation. I guess I assumed its initiating ability to be less than azides. However it seems to have issues with density of
secondary and ddt. Azides seems to not be affected by secondary density.( Inap) is very amazing , but may show weakness on high density secondary.(
.2g of primary should have no prob getting det train going.
The I-nap was the material referring to in the question. It’s quantity and density as well as the densities of the secondary (2 densities to base,
1=max density ,and one 1/2 that density )with prime pressed less than that density. Ematch ignition.
What amounts of primary and pressure is needed for reliable ddt.? Not fun to find pellets of secondary after testing. .2 g primary in .5 base PE.
[Edited on 27-5-2024 by pjig]
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 430
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by pjig | That is a very good explanation. I guess I assumed its initiating ability to be less than azides. However it seems to have issues with density of
secondary and ddt. Azides seems to not be affected by secondary density.( Inap) is very amazing , but may show weakness on high density secondary.(
.2g of primary should have no prob getting det train going.
The I-nap was the material referring to in the question. It’s quantity and density as well as the densities of the secondary (2 densities to base,
1=max density ,and one 1/2 that density )with prime pressed less than that density. Ematch ignition.
What amounts of primary and pressure is needed for reliable ddt.? Not fun to find pellets of secondary after testing. .2 g primary in .5 base PE.
[Edited on 27-5-2024 by pjig] |
Ok I understand now. Just to be clear, .2 g is 200 mg. At 200 mg, all three materials are really powerful in detonation. There will be no problem
initiating anything at that quantity. For iNAP, at 25 mg, it has trouble in loose configuration on a 3.5 mm fuze spit, against ETN and RDX pressed to
near max densities. Ematch gives a much better firing than fuze, but I havent tested with .5 g base charge. I usually use around 800 mg for a base
charge. I stopped testing it after I realized that it wasnt possible to compare my findings to compararable literature because of the unknown
densities and configurations used. I have read about detonator designs using different densities for a base charge, but I didnt comprehend just how
insensitive the secondaries were at max densities. I can test the configuration you are asking about and let you know the result.
|
|
|
pjig
Hazard to Others
Posts: 169
Registered: 25-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: always learning
|
|
Excellent. Yes curious about density and design to maximize efficiency of a I-nap det sys
|
|
|
pjig
Hazard to Others
Posts: 169
Registered: 25-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: always learning
|
|
It seems that there may be something to the pressing pressures / densities….. it seems that PE can Be pressed to density that I-nap needs more
weight to ddt that secondary. As you said .2 gm should be way overkill to ddt lower density PE . 50% success with secondary pellet recovered isnt
good. Hand packed pressures get complete ddt. There is obviously something being overlooked or missed. Could moisture in secondary being not 100%
perfectly dry contribute to a sleepy base? Aluminum tube not enough confinement…?Azides never struggled to ddt standard densities for commercial
requirements .
[Edited on 29-5-2024 by pjig]
[Edited on 29-5-2024 by pjig]
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 430
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by pjig | It seems that there may be something to the pressing pressures / densities….. it seems that PE can Be pressed to density that I-nap needs more
weight to ddt that secondary. As you said .2 gm should be way overkill to ddt lower density PE . 50% success with secondary pellet recovered isnt
good. Hand packed pressures get complete ddt. There is obviously something being overlooked or missed. Could moisture in secondary being not 100%
perfectly dry contribute to a sleepy base? Aluminum tube not enough confinement…?Azides never struggled to ddt standard densities for commercial
requirements .
[Edited on 29-5-2024 by pjig] |
Which document are you referencing with these minimum firing claims? Technology of the Inorganic Azide has a reference section for minimum quantities
of DLA on standard secondaries. The minimum DLA is 30 mg. The firing configuration or density of secondary isn't listed. The minimum firing mass is
AgN3 on PETN at 5 mg. For RDX the lowest masses are PVA LA and AgN3 at 25 mg. So 25 mg for iNAP isn't bad, it's inline with silver azide in an unknown
condition test. My testing conditions are really basic, I'm not using a retainer cup at all or pressing primary explosive. It's just loose.
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 188
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Is it possible to prepare NAP from KClO4 in this way?:
NiSO4*6H2O+6NH3=>[Ni(NH3)6]SO4 (good soluble)
[Ni(NH3)6]SO4+2KClO4=>Ni(NH3)6(ClO4)2(bad soluble)+K2SO4
Ni(NH3)6(ClO4)2+2AGu*HClO4=>Ni(AGu)2(ClO4)2+2NH4ClO4+4NH3
[Edited on 2-6-2024 by Etanol]
|
|
|
B(a)P
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 29-9-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Festive
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Etanol | Is it possible to prepare NAP from KClO4 in this way?:
NiSO4*6H2O+6NH3=>[Ni(NH3)6]SO4 (good soluble)
[Ni(NH3)6]SO4+2KClO4=>Ni(NH3)6(ClO4)2(bad soluble)+K2SO4
Ni(NH3)6(ClO4)2+2AGu*HClO4=>Ni(AGu)2(ClO4)2+2NH4ClO4+4NH3
[Edited on 2-6-2024 by Etanol] |
For the last reaction, it would need to be done under conditions that remove the ammonia and favour the formation of the NAP complex without
destroying the NAP complex. I can't think what that would be.
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 871
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
During the usual synthesis of NAP, the solution is boiled for about 5 minnutes. This would drive off ammonia and push the equilibrium towards the
product side of things.
I added the nickel ions as the hexaammine nickel perchlorate complex when I first made NAP, though I didn't use KClO4 to make it.
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 188
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It does not work 
[Ni(NH3)6]SO4 and KClO4 mix settles.
[Ni(NH3)6]SO4+2NH4ClO4 - yes
[Edited on 9-6-2024 by Etanol]
|
|
|
Brightthermite
Hazard to Others
Posts: 133
Registered: 26-6-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
iNAP Notes
Shout out Dug for getting me interested. Wanted to share some finding.
1g of aminoguanidine bicarb
.43g Nickel Carb
.85g ammonium perchlorate
40 ish mL of IPA (99%, 70%, 91%)
Using 70% IPA produced a pretty awful yield. Lots of nickel left in the reaction vessel similar to using water (probably because its 30% water). The
NAP that formed was very sensitive and powerful, it formed small needle like crystals. The yield was almost non existent. I assume I would need to let
it crystalize out of solution for much longer just as if I was using water. Although I would say 70% was more or less a failure, might as well just
use water.
Using 99% produced no energetic material at all. It turned a hazy oily red. Nothing seemed to fully dissolve or disassociate. It also lacked the
initial release of gas that you see at the beginning of the other reactions. This leads me to believe some amount of water is needed. Again maybe it
should have ran for longer then 5 min but I didn't investigate further.
91% produced a product just as expected. There was what appeared to be some undissolved aminoguanidine in the final product though. May need to use
more solvent next time.
I was easily able to fire .75g of TACP pressed in .25g steps with around 6mg of iNAP using a 3D printed reinforcing cap. I need to run more test to
see if this amount and outcome is consistent but I believe it will be. This material easily detonates with just a bit of confinement.
|
|
|
pjig
Hazard to Others
Posts: 169
Registered: 25-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: always learning
|
|
Brightthermite:
That is an interesting find. Just shifting the %of alcohol in the solution changes the outcome dramatically. It does seem for some reason that the 70%
ipa is low yielding . While high concentrations lack enough water to kick the reaction. The standard process w/o ipa yields nice red long needles.
Strangely you have found the sweet spot of the reaction, using 90% . This is very interesting. Did you give the reacted materials a longer cool down
process? How was your procedures done?
|
|
|
ManyInterests
National Hazard
Posts: 930
Registered: 19-5-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Brightthermite | Shout out Dug for getting me interested. Wanted to share some finding.
1g of aminoguanidine bicarb
.43g Nickel Carb
.85g ammonium perchlorate
40 ish mL of IPA (99%, 70%, 91%)
Using 70% IPA produced a pretty awful yield. Lots of nickel left in the reaction vessel similar to using water (probably because its 30% water). The
NAP that formed was very sensitive and powerful, it formed small needle like crystals. The yield was almost non existent. I assume I would need to let
it crystalize out of solution for much longer just as if I was using water. Although I would say 70% was more or less a failure, might as well just
use water.
Using 99% produced no energetic material at all. It turned a hazy oily red. Nothing seemed to fully dissolve or disassociate. It also lacked the
initial release of gas that you see at the beginning of the other reactions. This leads me to believe some amount of water is needed. Again maybe it
should have ran for longer then 5 min but I didn't investigate further.
91% produced a product just as expected. There was what appeared to be some undissolved aminoguanidine in the final product though. May need to use
more solvent next time.
I was easily able to fire .75g of TACP pressed in .25g steps with around 6mg of iNAP using a 3D printed reinforcing cap. I need to run more test to
see if this amount and outcome is consistent but I believe it will be. This material easily detonates with just a bit of confinement.
|
Thank you for mentioning the lack of effectiveness of the 99% IPA. I don't know if 91% is available in my area, but 99% and 70% are everywhere.
Since 91% won't be super easy to find, I can just add a little water to the 99% to bring it down to 91% ish.
Also I will be very interested in looking at uNAP.
I am looking at uNAP and iNAP right now due to some difficulties that I am having with NHN going full detonation in non-steel containers. My questions
are concerning its long-term stability and safety in hand loading.
The way I make my detonators, and I made a lot of them thus far, is to load the secondary first with as much pressure as I can do by hand (I don't
have an arbor press or any mechanical means of loading my caps), followed by topping it with the primary and only very gently tamping it without any
hard pressing (I sometimes tap on the sides of the cap to help the material get more compacted before gently tamping everything down.
I assume this is a safe process for doing it with uNAP or iNAP?
|
|
|
pjig
Hazard to Others
Posts: 169
Registered: 25-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: always learning
|
|
As per loading caps , it may be wise to not tamp , or even tap container to consolidate your primary. (Secondary maybe) …one could build his own
wedge style press out of a hinge and some 2x4 lumber and with plywood.
Loading should be done methodically and consistent in speed , pressures etc . Fast or aggressive loading may result in a pop. Proper ppe and a blast
shield are wanted
|
|
|
ManyInterests
National Hazard
Posts: 930
Registered: 19-5-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
I have loaded many, many caps by hand. For my last test run I loaded around 20. When loading the primary (nhn) I used to press mildly, but now I
don't, instead just tamping very gently. There is no danger of detonation with such light force placed.
I know that iNAP and uNAP are more sensitive to impact than NHN, but they aren't lead azide or HMTD levels sensitive. I am just looking for a
comparison if one is available.
BTW I assume you got your inspiration for a loading press from the improvised munitions handbook?
|
|
|
pjig
Hazard to Others
Posts: 169
Registered: 25-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: always learning
|
|
That’s where I saw a wood version of the press. But an arbor press with the shield will be a better option. Neat idea for Improvised set up .
How is the performance of NHN compared to the NAP? It appears a little moody if confinement is minimal from your description. Mixing a intermediate
prime secondary isn’t helping step the det train either?
Is your ignition electrical or fuse? Sometimes a crimping or heavy glues needed to achieve confinement of the top side . If not steel tubes ,
aluminum? Is it alloyed, or soft al and your base plug ?(may be an issue). Just a couple things that can cause confinement issues.
[Edited on 16-10-2024 by pjig]
|
|
|
ManyInterests
National Hazard
Posts: 930
Registered: 19-5-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | [Quote]That’s where I saw a wood version of the press. But an arbor press with the shield will be a better option. Neat idea for Improvised set up .
|
Yeah the arbor press is good and strong, but the Improvised Munitions Handbook was all about making things out of commonly available stuff. I still
load by hand since I find the end result still good... and I don't have an arbor press...
[Quote]How is the performance of NHN compared to the NAP? |
That's my question. I have no experience with NAP. With NHN the thing I noticed is that it needs more confinement than I thought to detonate, and when
it comes to detonating ETN or PETN you need stronger confinement than an aluminum or plastic case.
NAP, however, is different than NHN since NHN simply deflagerates at incredible speed when unconfirmed, but it does not detonate unconfined.
NAP appears to be one of those energetics that detonate unconfined from flame alone. This is why I am thinking of transitioning to it since I think it
is the superior initiating agent. My main concern is the safety when loading.
| Quote: | It appears a little moody if confinement is minimal from your description. Mixing a intermediate prime secondary isn’t helping step the det train
either?
Is your ignition electrical or fuse? Sometimes a crimping or heavy glues needed to achieve confinement of the top side . If not steel tubes ,
aluminum? Is it alloyed, or soft al and your base plug ?(may be an issue). Just a couple things that can cause confinement issues.
|
I did do a 1:1 mix of melt-cast ETN with the NHN, and while it still worked well with the detonation, I am not sure if it had an overall improved
effect, but it is still effective. Maybe I will continue using it. I think I should do a comparison of straight NHN to the 1:1 mix. Also the mixture
failed to fully detonate either the brass casings or the aluminum casings. The aluminum was an alloy (Aliexpress said 6063 alloy). I am not sure if it
is the same thing as the aluminum used in most commercial or military detonators, however. The steel caps where 304 stainless steel with 8x7x50mm.
The base plug was 0.5mm or thereabouts, as I was advised, but the ones that were entirely bottomless and simply had some electrical tape at the bottom
(to waterproof and prevent anything from falling out) actually performed much better, so I will do that going forward. No bottoms. Just one layer of
tape followed by a wrap around it to secure that tape.
The confinement at the top is sufficient. I know this because when I used plastic bodies the epoxy at the top almost always survives unscathed while
the rest of the body is obliterated.
Perhaps... perhaps I need to make a detonator out of hardened epoxy? That might be crazy enough to work.
I've used both fuses and e-matches. Both work fine and have the same overall result.
[Edited on 16-10-2024 by ManyInterests]
[Edited on 16-10-2024 by ManyInterests]
|
|
|
pjig
Hazard to Others
Posts: 169
Registered: 25-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: always learning
|
|
I like LL’s pressed foil base idea in the det base . Aircraft Al is good.
Nap seems to be very good and safe to load if it is the unap or Inap version of the nap family. Due to the crystal morphology.
I’m assuming you’re pressing 3 layers to your caps: base, 1-1mix, and a topping of nhn primary on top. That should work. Maybe try the foil base
in cap body or was that what your describing in the .5mm vs tape only?
Maybe try a harbor freight (cheap arbor press), if $ is tight.
Obviously the whole goal to the trade is keeping costs low, and performance repeatable .so finding cheap tools and materials / methods to make final
product is desirable.
[Edited on 17-10-2024 by pjig]
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 871
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
NAP (the unaltered form) can be had as a powder simply by stirring the mix as it precipitates. This disrupts the formation of the beautiful large
crystals and gives a less lustrous powder. In this form it is less sensitive than ETN to both impact and friction, and far more reliable primary than
NHN.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 430
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
To more clearly explain the differences in the NAP forms-
NAP, large crystal, or small crystal:
Sensitive to impact
Sensitive to friction
Minimal detonation perforations in foil >~10mm
iNAP
this is a different material. It is a different complex than NAP, it has at least one or two isopropyl groups within the complex. It is possible to
make standard NAP in IPA solvent, depending on process. It is also possible to decompose iNAP complex with solvents and then reform large red crystal
standard NAP from the iNAP complex.
This material is a pink powder form, similar in consistency to flour.
Less sensitive to impact than NAP (~3 or 4x less)
Insensitive to friction
minimum perforations in foil >~10mm
uNAP
This is a crystal modification technique. It gives a different performance product than NAP similar to AgNTz.
Equal impact sensitivity to standard crystal NAP
Less friction sensitive than standard NAP
minimum perforations in foil <10mm, as low as 5mm
I have found that stirring standard crystal NAP does make a small crystal but it is the same practical sensitivity and performance as large crystal.
The standard crystal forms of NAP detonate as single crystals, but are probably more of a deflagration because they wont puncture foil as single
crystals. iNAP and NAP require confinement when used in small quantities (~5mg). uNAP detonates and perforates unconfined in microgram quantities.
iNAP and uNAP can be further desensitized by screen mixing them with 5-10% PTFE powder.
IMO all three are more sensitive to impact than ETN, iNAP is less friction sensitive than any primary I've used. NAP in any form (IMO) is superior to
other primaries when all factors are considered. It is simpler to produce than peroxides. NAP is certainly detonating over 8 km/s. iNAP and uNAP
detonate secondaries directly. uNAP caps with only around a gram can detonate ANNM directly, similarly to other high strength caps with PETN or RDX.
There also appear to be factors that affect uNAP depending on beaker diameter, size of batch and power of sonication. Small powder uNAP can be made in
scaled up quantities but the transmission of sonication seems to limit the creation of actual uNAP. The way to tell if uNAP has been made correctly is
to heat it to detonation on foil in microgram quantities, like the size of a large grain of table salt. If it perforates the foil, it is correct, if
it poofs without perforating the foil, it is not achieving the small size of proper uNAP. I have most success with 1-4 g batches but have had lower
performance batches when I increase batch size, likely due to the limitations of the ultrasonicator used.
The darker red material is uNAP 1500x
lighter material is iNAP 1500x
 
[Edited on 17-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 871
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have a couple of questions:
What do you mean when you state "Minimal detonation perforations in foil >~10mm"?
Also, on what do you base the assertion that iNAP contains isopropanol as a ligand?
Regardless, I have tested the fine grained NAP on my oblique impact apparatus using 180 grit sandpaper between steel hammer on steel anvil. In this
test it is less sensitive than PETN, and since PETN is, AFAIK, not as sensitive as ETN, I must conclude that NAP prepared in this way is not as
sensitive as ETN.
Hairsplitting aside, I agree that NAP is a superior primary. The only downsides that I can find are the instability in liquid water (not water vapour,
so not a big deal) and the possible health hazards of the detonation products (potential Ni(CO)4 formation). The health concerns may be a non-issue
but since I can't test it, I will err on the side of caution for indoor experiments.
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 188
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The first photo is NAP. The second photo is not NAP, but a mixture with a small NAP content.
Maybe white is NH4ClO4, grey-green is NiCO3.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 430
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Microtek | I have a couple of questions:
What do you mean when you state "Minimal detonation perforations in foil >~10mm"?
Also, on what do you base the assertion that iNAP contains isopropanol as a ligand?
Regardless, I have tested the fine grained NAP on my oblique impact apparatus using 180 grit sandpaper between steel hammer on steel anvil. In this
test it is less sensitive than PETN, and since PETN is, AFAIK, not as sensitive as ETN, I must conclude that NAP prepared in this way is not as
sensitive as ETN.
Hairsplitting aside, I agree that NAP is a superior primary. The only downsides that I can find are the instability in liquid water (not water vapour,
so not a big deal) and the possible health hazards of the detonation products (potential Ni(CO)4 formation). The health concerns may be a non-issue
but since I can't test it, I will err on the side of caution for indoor experiments. |
For the sonicated crystal, it is much smaller than other crystal morphologies, it punctures foil in 4 or 5 mm diameters. This is typically from
microgram quantities. Standard forms of NAP in order to detonate unconfined, require masses that result in somewhere around 10 to 15mm diameter
perforations. This higher power and the change in sensitivity is why it is differentiated as uNAP. In efforts to scale up, some people have made giant
runs of uNAP, or attempted to do so, but the result is a mixed product. There appears to be limitation of the sonic transmission in bench sonicators.
My claim on the sensitivity of the various NAP is based on hammer testing with a 4 lb hammer, which isn't very precise, but I've tested such a huge
volume of explosives this way that I can attain a relative repeatable comparison between samples. NAP and the analogues, I have impact and friction
detonated quite a lot. In my testing, NAP, uNAP and NAP crystallized under 250 rpm stirring, all detonate with less force than what is required to
detonate ETN, in my testing with the samples I've used, it this is observable unambiguously. iNAP seems fairly approximate to ETN in impact, and I
haven't been able to detonate iNAP from friction at all.
I believe iNAP is complexing in isopropanol groups because of the different physical characteristics, the fact that it is possible to use IPA to
produce standard NAP alone, and that it is possible to "drop out" whatever iNAP is, and revert it to NAP. For instance, in some solvents, iNAP will
dissolve then reform as large red NAP crystals. Of course it could be some sort of co-crystal, or something else, I dont know. I would assume it is a
complex including isopropyl groups, or at least one. NAP is very sensitive to reactant equilibrium and goes through radically different forms that
seem likely to be different complexes with different materials like glycols, MEA etc.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 430
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Etanol |
The first photo is NAP. The second photo is not NAP, but a mixture with a small NAP content.
Maybe white is NH4ClO4, grey-green is NiCO3. |
This is iNAP made with NH4ClO4 and NiCO3, there is probably some unreacted AGuHCO3 also. There are always unreacted solids in this method. I think you
should probably just investigate iNAP yourself if you want to get to the bottom of what is going on. The differentiations are necessary because they
are so different in behavior. uNAP, NAP and iNAP are all different from one another in performance and sensitivity. Some of the differences are
radical, like sensitivity or minimum firing masses. uNAP for instance can detonate low density PETN unconfined in quantities less than a mg. It is my
personal opinion, or theory regarding the complexation of the isopropyl group. It may or may not be the case, I have simply assumed this is the case
because of the possibility of producing both NAP and iNAP in IPA solvent. I suppose the photo is a bit low res, IMO the crystals of iNAP appear
distinct from NAP. Anyone is welcome to correct me on this, but until then, this is my best guess.
[Edited on 19-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8
..
10 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
