| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7 |
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 405
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thinking about it now, if one didn't accept an ionic interaction of the IPA, it would require explanation of why iNAP is a product under certain IPA
ratio and heating conditions, but NAP is a product at other ratios. There is such a distinct difference between iNAP and NAP that I cant imagine IPA
isn't adding to the complex.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 405
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
These are some pictures of a few hundred μg of uNAP detonating low density PETN. This isn't possible with standard NAP.
  
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 854
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Judging from the first picture of the uNAP, I would guess that your scales are playing tricks on you (some electronic scales have difficulty measuring
amounts very close to zero, and will just round off digitally). That certainly looks more like ca. 5 mg than just a few hundred ug. By the way, the
substance you term uNAP in these pictures look exactly like what I get with my version of the stirred precipitation method.
Many materials show markedly different properties based on the morphology and particle size. Some so much so that they appear to be completely
different materials. The NAP that I make is also perfectly able to initiate PETN in amounts like these.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 405
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
In the photo, it may look like a lot of material because that particular test had sprinkled material over a wide surface area. If the amount of
material were consolidated, it appears very small. It broke apart when transferring with tweezers and powderized on the foil. I calibrate and level
this scale. To the best of my knowledge, it accurately discerns 1 mg weights. Of course in sub milligram masses, it is difficult to accurately work,
so I reference the perforation diameters in Al foil for comparison measurements. I've found it is difficult to achieve small diameter perforations in
foil with other forms. There are limitations in the minimal diameters that can be achieved with NAP versus uNAP. I have also made batches of NAP with
stirring as you suggested and in my judgement, these are different performance materials. I have stirred at 250 rpm during precipitation but the
crystal size is still much larger and different in performance than ultrasonicated precipitation.
I will attempt to take some more images to hopefully better demonstrate scale. It would really be best to simply replicate it on your end to witness
any difference observed first hand.
I think all three of these materials, NAP, iNAP and uNAP are distinct enough in performance and character to justify differentiation. Similarly to
service lead azide, dextrinated and PVC azide. I think these NAP materials differentiate in quality even more than azide modification techniques,
however.
It is my opinion that iNAP likely has complex interaction with isopropyl groups, beyond simply modifying the crystal in precipitation. That's my
honest judgement to my own limitations of measurement and creative testing. I'm not married to that conclusion. It's just my best hypothesis. Anyone
is welcomed to examine these materials and disprove these opinions or demonstrate any other conclusion.
There have been quite a few reproductions of these materials even outside of science madness, and they are consistently differentiated in performance
across different users, using different processes, in different locations across the world. When the ideas are challenged without any measurements or
proofs, it makes it difficult to take the criticism seriously. If you were experimenting with these materials, I believe it would likely influence
your conclusion. It did mine.
[Edited on 19-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 405
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
uNAP Common Minimum Foil Perforation Diameter Example 1
  
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 405
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
uNAP Common Minimum Foil Perforation Diameter Example 2
  
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 405
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
These masses are certainly less than 1 mg. If someone can detonate PETN with less than a mg of NAP or perforate a 5mm hole in Al foil, then I will
reconsider my opinion on the significance of uNAP designation. iNAP will have to be analyzed by more capable chemists to determine what is going on
exactly. Regardless, all three materials are different in performance and sensitivity necessitating separate designations.
  
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 854
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
When the ideas are challenged without any measurements or proofs, it makes it difficult to take the criticism seriously. |
I am not trying to attack you or your work, I'm simply asking questions and putting forward my counterhypothesis to explain the results. I haven't
been following this thread closely for the past year, but if you would reiterate your method for producing uNAP I would be happy to see if I can
reproduce your results. I have tried using the search function, but the earliest mention of uNAP the engine turned up did not contain much more
information than just the use of ultrasonication.
When using stirring to modify crystal size, the RPM obviously makes a large difference (the faster you go, the smaller the crystals will be). I was
using somewhat more than 250 RPM (400-500 IIRC), so that may be the reason.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
