Sciencemadness Discussion Board - HMTD Decomposition Rate and Recrystallization

HMTD Decomposition Rate and Recrystallization

freedompyro - 13-1-2012 at 01:44

I have been searching around and I cannot find this information anywhere. Since it was once considered for commercial use it must be at least somewhat storage stable when refrigerated.

Has anyone tested the decomposition rates of Citric Acid synthesized HMTD? What solvents are suitable for recrystallization of HMTD?

Pulverulescent - 13-1-2012 at 01:49

Quote:

Has anyone tested the decomposition rates of Citric Acid synthesized HMTD? What solvents are suitable for recrystallization of HMTD?

I've never heard of HMTD being recrystallised . . . it certainly isn't soluble in any of the ordinary solvents!

P

Adas - 13-1-2012 at 05:31

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

Quote:

Has anyone tested the decomposition rates of Citric Acid synthesized HMTD? What solvents are suitable for recrystallization of HMTD?

I've never heard of HMTD being recrystallised . . . it certainly isn't soluble in any of the ordinary solvents!

P

My friend used to recrystallize HMTD. I think it was ethanol or methanol.

Pulverulescent - 13-1-2012 at 06:24

He's winding you up!

P

freedompyro - 13-1-2012 at 17:13

LoL... Hilarious... I know Adas from elsewhere.

Adas - 14-1-2012 at 01:38

Quote: Originally posted by freedompyro

LoL... Hilarious... I know Adas from elsewhere.

You mean HE forum?

niertap - 24-2-2012 at 15:07

I don't think you can really recrystallize it, but as long as you started with fairly pure compounds it should be fine. It essentially recrystallizes from the reaction, so further recrystallization probably would be futile.

As for decomposition: light, heat, and transition metals would speed it up. Peroxides decompose by homolysis of the o-o bond, creating two radicals. These then go attack everything else. Adding an antioxidant like vitamin C or citric acid would probably increase shelf life significantly. The free radicals make a chain reaction so the earlier you stop it, the more effective it would be.

NitricSynth - 26-2-2012 at 14:34

After through testing I have found that the synthesis temperature controls the HMTD sensitivity and brisance. Temperature controls the reaction rate which then effects particle size and crystal structure.

I have discovered that HMTD synthesized at room temperature with zero stirring acts more like a secondary and needs to be initiated by flash or inside heavy confinement to detonate. Even inside two layers of Al foil and hammered to compaction. The HMTD will not detonate when hit by a torch. The HMTD shows absolutely no signs of crystal faces of any type under a magnifying glass. No glints of light or anything.

HMTD synthesized at 0C-5C shows extreme brisance and will readily detonate in one layer of Al foil in 25 and 50mg amounts. Crystal faces are visible even without a magnifying glass with this form of HMTD.

I would therefore recommend that that HMTD be synthesized at 18C with the HCl synthesis with a reaction time of under 20 minutes. This will product when initiated by heat will not detonate in small amounts even compacted with 2 layer aluminum foil confinement but can readily be detonated via Flash.

Summary... The colder the synthesis is done the more friction/impact/etc sensitive the HMTD is. It may be possible to synthesize HMTD with zero agitation at -15 to -5C that is more sensitive than TATP... Be careful with cold synthesized HMTD!

[Edited on 26-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

Rosco Bodine - 26-2-2012 at 15:03

You recommend a synthesis under conditions which will produce none of the desired product. Why?

Bot0nist - 26-2-2012 at 15:07

Agree. I think your "secondary" HTMD is just infact highly contaminated with products of side reactions. Follow the proven procedures to get quality, reproducible product.

[Edited on 26-2-2012 by Bot0nist]

NitricSynth - 26-2-2012 at 15:09

Botonist, with the temperature used and the extremely short reaction time it is impossible that a breakdown of the HMTD has occurred. I have run HMTD upto runaway reaction temperatures a few times and I always synthesize a long ways below that. It has been stored for upto two months with no measurable change in properties.

Futuremore either product in a HMTD/AN 17:83 composition produces exactly IDENTICAL plate dents.

If you want to get anywhere in business, science, etc... You have to be a entrepreneur and experiment and do what has not be done before. You'll get nowhere and end up a bum trying to follow in others tracks.

A product that does not detonate in small amounts with light confinement is much safer to work with than a product which detonates with zero confinement when compacted.

I don't like primary HE's as they raise my hair on end. The ability to desensitize HMTD to a near primary and farther desensitize it by making a HMTD/AN 30/70 composition which initiates only under the confinement of 6mm plastic coated Al tubing via Flash has converted a dangerous primary into something nearly at safe as a NPED.

[Edited on 26-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

Rosco Bodine - 26-2-2012 at 15:19

If your interest in primary explosives is based upon comparisons of other more practical materials to peroxides then that will provide a distorted perspective.

There is no magic about HMTD, except it is piss stupid easy to make for a quick and dirty improvised use which will follow in the near term of days not weeks or months. Other than that limited and qualified way it really has no interest and is not a practical material for anything else AFAIK.

[Edited on 26-2-2012 by Rosco Bodine]

NitricSynth - 26-2-2012 at 15:23

Well, the point is that nobody knows how to change HMTD sensitivity via differing crystal size and I figured out an easy way to do it with the HCl synthesis. I'm done experimenting with it and off to mess with AgC2.AgNO3 when I get more free time.

I think that the salts static issues can easily be solved with graphite, but I'm not sure it's compatible with it. Also, the off color amateur synthesis issues nobody has seemed to track down a solution for yet.

I already solved how to make reliable thermal shock NPED's in 6mm detonator tubing with MHN and ETN... At this rate I'm going to run out of stuff to work on and get bored and go back to pyrotechnics and rockets.

[Edited on 26-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

Rosco Bodine - 26-2-2012 at 15:33

There are patented devices which operate on the "NPED" principle and are called "safety detonators". They are not as reliable as compound detonators, but definitely are possible. That does not mean they are superior in principle or performance or safety in practical terms.. Cartridges for firearms have been invented which are electrically fired. That doesn't mean cartridges fired by a conventional firing pin are unsafe or inferior. The same applies for detonators.

NitricSynth - 26-2-2012 at 15:37

For the amateur with limited safety equipment NPED's reduce the risk of the common accidents tenfold or more.

It's not like you have to do the HMTD synthesis as warm as I do. At merely 10C with or without agitation you have a far less sensitive product than 0C. I may do farther testing to satisfy you guys. I have not tested 10-20C synthesis's with agitation. It's likely that 15C with heavy agitation produces a product without any visible crystals under a magnifying glass too.

[Edited on 26-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

Rosco Bodine - 26-2-2012 at 15:38

Here we go again .......are you holmes1880 back for more?

NitricSynth - 26-2-2012 at 15:41

No, holmes is too chicken to even touch primaries. The closest thing he ever used to a primary was black powder mixed with ETN. Funniest part was that actually worked with confinement...

Edit: I mean pyrodex. He wasn't using real BP.

[Edited on 26-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

Rosco Bodine - 26-2-2012 at 15:50

Okay ....consider the "reliability" aspect with regards to misfires, and they will happen with amateur made "safety detonators", and even happen with commercial made safety detonators. The types of secondary explosives that would be most adaptable to the configuration are themselves as dangerous or more dangerous than any of several primary explosives, excluding of course the peroxides. There are primary explosives which are useful in compound detonators having a PETN base charge where the primary is more stable and less sensitive than the PETN. So a safety detonator can be a solution in search of a problem that doesn't really exist, if you follow the logic. It comes down to what is your choices of components .....not a general issue that primaries are "bad" . NG is the original NPED and is probably a bit more predictable in that regard than ETN. NG was used as an NPED even before the invention of dynamite and the blasting cap. Those inventions were successful because the safety and reliability was improved over the NPED configuration which came first. This you can confirm. So the idea of NPED is nothing new.

[Edited on 27-2-2012 by Rosco Bodine]

NitricSynth - 26-2-2012 at 15:58

LoL... Roscoe... Have you ever even synthesized or worked with secondary explosives? The way you talk about them tells me you have zero field, military, or industrial experience in working with them.

Go out in the field and tell me how comfortable you are inserting a AgC2.AgNO3 cap into a block of PETN/ETN plastique and do the same with a non primary device and tell me your comfort levels.

I have not discovered a design of NPED that uses NG that works within 6mm tubing. I have some ideas but nothing tested yet. Perhaps a mixture of needle ETN, NG, and a touch of DBSP will yield a non flowing shock sensitive composition that can be initiated via Flash.

Even 1.5 Micron Aluminum 70/30 Flash cannot initiate MHN recrystallized any way you can think of at any density tested in 6mm Tubing. ETN... Don't bother! It's only 1/4th more sensitive than PETN.

[Edited on 27-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

Bot0nist - 26-2-2012 at 16:01

Oh boy. Here it goes again. Call him a "dush" bag now. He loves that. Have you not read his semi-optimized TNP from ASA write up?

[Edited on 27-2-2012 by Bot0nist]

NitricSynth - 26-2-2012 at 16:07

Nah... I just think he's an idiot for considering crystalline HMTD with visible crystals safe... The Davis synthesis yields a product which can be improved by highly decreased sensitivity via smaller crystal size with a mere 10C increase in temperature. It has and equivalent performance with flash initiation.

Perhaps the synthesis could be improved without temperature change by the addition of micro-crystalline cellulose or dextrin.(If it's compatible.)

[Edited on 27-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

Rosco Bodine - 26-2-2012 at 16:13

Same crap ....different user name .....just as predicted by the head honcho

must have been prophecy .....divine inspiration

SB15 - 26-2-2012 at 16:34

My experience with HMTD suggests that when the reagents and proportions from COPAE are used, the synthesis temperature doesn't significantly affect the sensitivity of the final product to various stimuli, or its ability to DDT in light confinement. Pure, dry HMTD is a very sensitive compound regardless of its crystal structure.

NitricSynth's experimental results have little value, mostly because the composition of each sample in question is not known. I suspect that a high temperature reaction using a strong mineral acid like HCl as the catalyst may decompose the product and/or react with intermediates, resulting in a contaminated sample with different burning characteristics.

Just my opinion.

Edit: Also, it should be known that NitricSynth is not dawson01912/holmes1880. They have similar writing styles and share a strong disdain for theoretical chemistry, but they are not the same person.

[Edited on 2-27-2012 by SB15]

Bot0nist - 26-2-2012 at 16:39

This is my theory as well. Pure HTMD will detonate easily when confined. Even in the 50mg quantity. Not following the established procedure results in a contaminated product, if any product at all, I would imagine. To think of HTMD (even if mixed with a lot of inert fillers) as a secondary is laughable, IMHO. Have fun whilst excepting your Darwin's Award. Post mortem that is...

Be safe NitricSynth.

[Edited on 27-2-2012 by Bot0nist]

NitricSynth - 26-2-2012 at 18:04

Yea right... The only thing I synthesize lots of is Nitroglycerin which is completely safe with my equipment.

NG is amazing. Did you know you can make self hardening rock fuel compositions combining Composition + NG 25 parts + NC 15 parts and it only hardens after staying at 40C for a number of hours? So much easier to work with than APCP...

I did the HMTD testing for a friend. I only use NPED's for charges.

Theoretical Chemistry is for nerds. Me and dawson are chemical engineers.

[Edited on 27-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

Bot0nist - 26-2-2012 at 19:30

Quote: Originally posted by NitricSynth

Me and dawson are chemical engineers.

[Edited on 27-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

No, you are irresponsible teeny bombers who practice a total disregard for established procedures and have little knowledge of chemistry and a lack of desire to gain it. This can and will lead to disasters. I do hope that in practice you have less of a cavalier attitude about the experiments you conduct than you do in your posts. I know you are aware that these things your playing with have a great capacity for causing lots of misery and remorse. Not trying to flame you NitricSynth. Just expressing a concern.

In my opinion you, Dawson, and Holmes are all the same.

Could you prepare and post a well thought out experimental model comparing your "warm synth" HTMD to some made according to Davis? Maybe establish a control and use a series of tests like weight drop on anvil, heating from below, flame contact, etc. Strive to keep all the variables the same except for the ones your testing. If you provided this it would help us see some validity in your claims. Also, I wonder how much the "warm HTMD's" VOD is affected along with its supposed reduced sensitivity.

Bot0nist - 26-2-2012 at 20:48

Quote: Originally posted by SB15

Edit: Also, it should be known that NitricSynth is not dawson01912/holmes1880. They have similar writing styles and share a strong disdain for theoretical chemistry, but they are not the same person.

[Edited on 2-27-2012 by SB15]

And the same spelling quirks, again. They both misspell Rosco the same. The writing style is identical. Why do you declare they are different. Different IPs only says proxy to me.

Whether they are one or three, they/he should move beyond peroxides, as it seems he is. Also, the obsession with NPED? interesting concept, but primaries are so reliable. As Rosco says, look at bullets. Each one has a primary in it, and there are a lot of bullets on earth. IMO, an explosive train initiated by a contemporary, commercially/militarily tested primary is the most reliable way to work with high explosives.

Quote: Originally posted by NitricSynth

LoL... Roscoe... Have you ever even synthesized or worked with secondary explosives? The way you talk about them tells me you have zero field, military, or industrial experience in working with them.

Go out in the field and tell me how comfortable you are inserting a AgC2.AgNO3 cap into a block of PETN/ETN plastique and do the same with a non primary device and tell me your comfort levels.

I have not discovered a design of NPED that uses NG that works within 6mm tubing. I have some ideas but nothing tested yet. Perhaps a mixture of needle ETN, NG, and a touch of DBSP will yield a non flowing shock sensitive composition that can be initiated via Flash.

Even 1.5 Micron Aluminum 70/30 Flash cannot initiate MHN recrystallized any way you can think of at any density tested in 6mm Tubing. ETN... Don't bother! It's only 1/4th more sensitive than PETN.

[Edited on 27-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

Quote: Originally posted by holmes1880

I call some BS into question on that document. Those are some very old recordings........most data is missing.

Plus, we don't even know if it is recrystallized or not, I remember never getting DDT from ETN once recrystallized, but if you just get a bit lazy and not bother recrystallizing, ETN can be set off in a confinement with black powder. And it was consistent, to about 85%. NG is far more sensitive than ETN when it comes to impact, that's not to be disputed.

Roscoe, what is so dangerous about mixing ETN......just don't go crazy with it(like using drill mixer for 1 hour) and check the temperature to stay below 30C and nothing will ever happen. Mixing is good for preventing hot spots.......the temperature can be 25C on the thermometer, but on a surface you have a bugger that is 40C+ and then it starts....

[Edited on 14-12-2010 by holmes1880]

Quote: Originally posted by dawson01912

However, you are forgetting that explosives are not meant to be studied in the lab! They are to be used in doing work, whether it is digging a canal, demolitions, or killing innocent Iraqis

. When you are doing something, you have to keep an objective in mind of why you are doing something. I have an objective, I want to have fun and do it with 100% feeling that I am safe and if anyone is around, that they are safe too. I also want to give kids out there a device that they can safely use without having to make AP or HMTD.

I have set out to create an ultimate NPED device that a 15 year old Phone could have made safely and still had fun... Kids are desperately jumping to AP and HMTD because they want the thrill and are young enough to ignore dangers of those chemical, while not having the resources and knowledge to make a more complex, stable primaries.

I am at the last testing stage of this device. For 18 months I've came up with bunch of flawed methods and now I got it. As long it passes the effective initiation of kinepack mixtures, I'm giving out for the kids to use. Kids who are already making AP/HMTD/MEKP will have a safe option. And kids who are too young definitely won't be able to make it.......it's not like flash powder "bang". And the ill-intentioned won't be able to employ it because it can't be set off remotely/fuse in any way shape or form nor can it pass metal detection in any public place.

I have looked for an effective method for someone to make explosives truly safe and accessible and was disappointed. What exactly can you contribute by calculating energy release of some formula? Squat, that's what.

Me, I'll actually save people's lives because I did not do chemistry with blinders on and looked for a problem solution.

[Edited on 27-2-2012 by Bot0nist]

Pulverulescent - 27-2-2012 at 02:16

Quote:

Everyone here is a bunch of nerds.

You flatter us . . . (

)

P

Rosco Bodine - 27-2-2012 at 03:06

Nerds rule.

recrystallization HMTD

Etanol - 27-2-2012 at 04:17

HMTD can be recrystallized from DMSO.
20C 0.5g HMTD/100g DMSO
90C 1g HMTD/100g DMSO
The solution was then diluted with water or ethanol

HMTD is a very fine powder.
Absolutely no odor.

Pulverulescent - 27-2-2012 at 05:50

If there's a fishy odour it hasn't been fully washed . . .
Recrystallising isn't necessary!

P

NitricSynth - 27-2-2012 at 13:35

I was just trying to get finer powder and stability.

Has anyone ever fully tested to see if HMTD reacts with aluminum and how fast? I spilled like 2mg on some zinc anodized blasting cap crimpers and left it on there for a while accidentally... Stripped the 0.18mm zinc coating off within hours making little dots.

I'm going to mix a half a gram 75/25 with aluminum, dark and atomized superfine and test it every couple weeks and see if it's properties and appearance change.

Pulverulescent - 27-2-2012 at 13:50

HMTD is a peroxide!
Al is quickly passivated by contact.

P

Rosco Bodine - 27-2-2012 at 13:55

Check these links which arise from a search parameter Callery
Also get and look at the patents listed in the link

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/search.php?token=&src...

There is some useful reading in the archived E&W forum also

With regards to reactive targets. The liquid energetic AP/MEKP which appears reasonably stable was tested by Axt as a sensitizing liquid added to NH4NO3 and the composition was reactive to bullet impact and video was posted.

Reactive target compositions are commercially sold legally as a binary dry mix combined for activation just prior to use.

Either one of those mixtures are likely more stable than any mixture including HMTD. There is an inherent chemical instability and chemical reactivity about HMTD, which is rate affected and aggravated by ordinarily warm, meaning normal room temperature alone, and aggravated further by impurities. That decomposition may progress quietly or
suddenly and violently without complete predictability as to which.

[Edited on 27-2-2012 by Rosco Bodine]

NitricSynth - 27-2-2012 at 17:24

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

HMTD is a peroxide!
Al is quickly passivated by contact.

P

You mean it's even more passivated than air can do? And what of the breakdown products as the oxygen attacks the Al? Hmmm...

[Edited on 28-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

Rosco Bodine - 28-2-2012 at 02:40

Trimethylamine is a principal decomposition product of HMTD and it is basic, corrosive, hygroscopic and stinks like fish. Attached is an article which is pertinent.

Attachment: Oxley_ThermochimActa_2002.pdf (155kB)
This file has been downloaded 635 times

Pulverulescent - 28-2-2012 at 03:34

Thanks for that Rosco, a quick glance suggests that Jimmie Oxley (an attractive female, BTW) finds TATP more stable, less sensitive and more brisant than HMTD!
Interesting . . .

P

NitricSynth - 28-2-2012 at 23:29

I have been testing these two and am starting to think TATP is best. However... It has to be physically stabilized.

For physical stabilization I think a more flexible plastic is best to prevent physical stress. TATP is mixed 50/50 with 80/20 NG/DBSP with just enough acetone as solvent. Not too much or the TATP won't stay properly suspended. It is then sucked into a syringe and dropped by the droplet into plastic straw molds. The straws are pre-cut down their length with a razor knife so they will come apart. These 75-100mg amounts of composition are removed from their plastic molds safely once dry with two sets of needle nose pliers and then loaded. To initiate the composition Flash is used.

The reason for using 50% NG/DBSP with TATP is that there will be little to no crystal to crystal friction. This should sufficiently prevent the TATP from subliming away too...

When it comes to TATP this is the best technique I can think of. :/

It may actually be better just to use 93/7 NG/NC mixed with TATP 50:50 in 100mg amounts on a small piece of Al foil. The TATP should be held properly in suspension. The composition is then picked up with needle nose pliers with it's 2x2cm piece of Al foil and crumpled and pressed into the detonator. Following that is pressed in a 1mm Al plug which is pressed to compact the composition and Al foil to density behind a blast shield. Initiation is via flash. Anyone want to try this one? I'm going to laugh if flash powder can't initiate this stuff through a 1mm Aluminum plug...

Question, does TATP stored underneath ethanol change it's crystal structure?

Going to test compacted HMTD storage in contact with Al foil. I am kinda skeptical it's going to oxidize it any more... An alternative is just to place the HMTD inside a piece of Al tape before loading. The adhesive coating provides a good enough barrier provided it doesn't react with the crap...

This is just curiosity testing as I only use thermal shock/runup NPEDs to initiate anything more than a few grams.

[Edited on 29-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

Adas - 29-2-2012 at 08:34

Quote: Originally posted by NitricSynth

Question, does TATP stored underneath ethanol change it's crystal structure?
[Edited on 29-2-2012 by NitricSynth]

I think TATP is soluble in ethanol and when it recrystallizes it makes bigger crystals, naturally.

The best method to store TATP is to store it as saturated solution in toluene - This won't explode using #8 blasting cap.
Source: One paper I have read in the past. You can find it on Google.

ScienceSquirrel - 29-2-2012 at 12:59

We are a science society.
Let us keep the discussion civilised.

Rosco Bodine - 29-2-2012 at 14:00

Quote: Originally posted by EatsKewls

I do have a question for Rosco about those extremely stable primaries that surpass the shock and impact stability of PETN. They surely cannot transition into detonation without a significant column length and very heavy confinement?

For some of them that is the case yes. Ideally what
is desirable for the properties of a primary depends on the application and the intended "trigger" stimulus. What works best for fuse ignition but is not responsive to other trigger stimuli would have safety advantages if the application is a fuse cap. It is generally a compromise of properties which is involved in commercial designs.

Quote:

I would assume the ignition is quite easy and that would really be the only advantage of these compounds over a secondary like PETN. It would be a disadvantage at the same time since it would present the static danger.

Any firing train has elements which have specific function enabling sequencing of the tandem elements in a reaction progressing and accellerating to the high order output. There is a lower limiting critical diameter and a "critical mass" at that diameter. The critical diameter practical for one ignition scheme is not necessarily the same critical diameter for another ignition scheme. The trend is towards larger diameters and larger devices when the "soft start" and DDT scenarios are implemented, and depending on the materials chosen, the device can become impractically large. You have made it very clear that you think an NPED design is superior because what you value as the criteria for what is superior is safety to the exclusion of all other considerations. By that logic a baseball bat is a "superior" weapon to a glock because a baseball bat is less susceptible to accidental discharge.

EatsKewls - 29-2-2012 at 15:06

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

Any firing train has elements which have specific function enabling sequencing of the tandem elements in a reaction progressing and accellerating to the high order output. There is a lower limiting critical diameter and a \"critical mass\" at that diameter. The critical diameter practical for one ignition scheme is not necessarily the same critical diameter for another ignition scheme. The trend is towards larger diameters and larger devices when the \"soft start\" and DDT scenarios are implemented, and depending on the materials chosen, the device can become impractically large. You have made it very clear that you think an NPED design is superior because what you value as the criteria for what is superior is safety to the exclusion of all other considerations. By that logic a baseball bat is a \"superior\" weapon to a glock because a baseball bat is less susceptible to accidental discharge.

Yes, very true about ignition methods. Now, which considerations are we talking about here? I have met most size and delay requirements. Two successful designs I\'ve tested in excess of 50 times, have an electrical delay of maybe 500ms, tops. Yeah, it\'s a bit more than 20-30ms delay of a traditional detonator, but there are plenty of applications of a cap with such a small delay. So regarding safety, I made very few sacrifices. It used to be requirement of steel embodiment, but I\'ve circumnavigated that little problem just recently.

I am not convinced of the analogy of primers in bullets and those in blasting caps. I think the quantity makes the comparison obsolete.

Rosco Bodine - 29-2-2012 at 16:08

Artillery rounds or even some .50 cal or 20mm projectiles do contain primary explosives in the projectile itself, not just in the primer. The setback shock from firing is enormous but the projectiles do not "just go off" in the gun barrel from
the shock of firing. That should tell you something. It is a very application specific firing train which is useful and reliable depending on the configuration. All those G's don't set off a "sensitive primary" until the precise stimuli intended to cause the initiation occurs. You seem to have an idea that the reality that exists and has existed for more than a hundred years is subject to your interpretation. Generalities which you are making don't really show a depth of understanding. Mishandling of gasoline can result in accidents, but that doesn't mean that diesel is in all ways superior. With regards to NPED's it seems like you are obsessing about a non-issue, but you believe it's an issue. What you think doesn't necessarily square with what is. So you are not understanding the materials which you are then mischaracterizing based upon what you think because your thinking is based upon some over generalizing about some highly specific scenarios. Firing trains are engineered like key in lock to fit the application. There are different ways these devices can be made. NPED is not necessarily "the best" configuration except that for you,... you "think" it is "the best". You think it is the best so what do you think is more likely, that for more than a hundred years ordnance designers are all dullards and if only you had been there to tell them how to do their jobs properly then the whole world of industrial use of explosives would be different and safer now? Simple economics may be governing what choice is "the best" for a rock quarrying application, while a different configuration may be "the best" for underwater demolition. If what you are really getting at is what is the best way of making IEDS, do not expect that I will be going there with this discussion.

EatsKewls - 29-2-2012 at 17:02

To be fair, anything you make at home is pretty much an IED. I do think there are economical insentives to eliminate primaries out of the caps. I am not familiar with the industry, but I'd imagine facilities working with primary explosives pay higher premiums on insurance and have additional regulations that add to fixed costs.

Whatever my reality is, it is a fact that primary explosives are generally less stable than secondary explosives and allow less room for error. And considering that eliminating primary explosives without sacrificing performance and related characteristics is very much possible and not very difficult to accomplish, there is no reason to not use them in the field. I mean, Nonel NPEDs have taken quite the market share, dispite some of their drawbacks. Europeans like them some non primary caps, and there was even something as ridiculous as RED detonator. Atrocious design, but there was apparently enough to demand to warrant its production.

As far as making IEDs, which everyone has, there is very little debate that cutting out primary explosives would make for a much safer amateur experimentation. I am not intending to share 'how to's" with anyone here, as there is in fact no real danger with using primary explosives. Here is an inert design for your viewing pleasure:
http://oi40.tinypic.com/16h6mj8.jpg . I've had a pic of electrical one, but can't seem to find it.

[Edited on 1-3-2012 by EatsKewls]

Rosco Bodine - 29-2-2012 at 17:48

For most primary explosives your generalization would hold true. But you make it sound like an unavoidable rule which has no exceptions while it has several. Something like cyanoguanidine or perhaps betaine stabilized nitromannite
could probably be initiated with any of several basic lead picrate or basic lead picrate complex salts. I haven't tried this with experiments to confirm but it should work. I suppose there are different levels of sophistication for what is "improvised" depending on the tooling and skill of persons doing the improvising. Many of us have experience loading and reloading ammunition and the result of what may be improvised may be not very far removed and may even be superior quality and output to a commercially manufactured similar item. A bit of knoweldge and skill and tooling is required and it is not childs play at all, but is not terribly difficult either.

One thing that you need to confirm about any DDT configuration is that you are in fact getting a high order detonation and not a low order detonation. Witness plate evidence of brisance and field tests successfully initiating a relatively insensitive secondary like urea nitrate would be confirming high order output.

EatsKewls - 29-2-2012 at 19:12

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

One thing that you need to confirm about any DDT configuration is that you are in fact getting a high order detonation and not a low order detonation. Witness plate evidence of brisance and field tests successfully initiating a relatively insensitive secondary like urea nitrate would be confirming high order output.

Of course, I don't make that amateur mistake of testing BCs alone. Small 10-20g 'confirmation charge' taped to the base of the cap is used. Most, if not all, tests are performed underwater, because if there is a flaw in a design it is most likely to fail when submerged. Hence, the improvised Bickford-style fuse.

One could go to the lengths of making caps on par with commercial with with those reloading tools available, but the costs would run up. I may invest one time into jacket swaging setup to create close end tubing, but as of now, cheaper improvised means have been sufficient.

P.S. Interesting that you site lead picrate as the preferable primary. SB and I have debated whether this fellow who had accident with nitrotetrazole, don't know if you heard full story on it, was simply reckless or just very unlucky. SB keeps mentioning that he was a just very unlucky and that there were trace amounts of contaminants during synthesis, which caused spontaneous detonation. I don't know the details of the synthesis he was working off, but I would still argue he was just reckless. Could there be such a scenario where just trace amounts of contaminants during that synthesis cause such an accident, or was that kid just reckless? Or perhaps both.

[Edited on 1-3-2012 by EatsKewls]

Rosco Bodine - 1-3-2012 at 01:54

You are incorrectly reading beyond what I actually said. I did not cite lead picrate as being the preferable primary. Neither did I specify that it would have to be a loose charge or in tandem with a segment of mixture with the nitromannite as an intermediate increment capable of making the runup to high order detonation of the nitromannite base increment. And I didn't cite lead picrate but basic lead picrate or basic lead picrate complexes, meaning the basic salt as opposed to the neutral salt. The clathrate complexes which have included azide would do well in such a configuration. A low compression damp loaded dextrin or similar bindered pellet of a coprecipitated or even mixed lead azide and lead styphnate composite should work fine and require no loose igniter charge. This kind of configuration could even be in a plastic housing like a disposable syringe body or plastic test tube or an empty marker pen. Any even minimal housing should work fine. I am not advocating that anyone should do this, but simply saying that it is technically possible to do.

quicksilver - 1-3-2012 at 15:31

To underline what Roscoe had said lead styphnate is a high flame sensitive material and has been used in strata or as a mix to sensitize to flame spit or hot wire initiation. Tetrazene had also been experimented with as a high flame sensitive material but tetrazene had other qualities that made it less desirable in that capacity.
I have looked at the lead clathrate (patent examples) and the "Roscoe clathrate" latices with some fairly decent microscopes and the "Roscoe" design has a more clearly defined crystal make-up.
Of the "azide sensitivity" to initiation to PETN there is quite a bit of material and very small weights (compressed) will initiate. Of the clathrates a bit heavier composition (approx 0.125gr) has a empirical ability to initiate. However considering the uniquely low weight of lead/silver azide, this means very little overall. I have little data as to a clathrate's ststaic sensitivity and would treat it as the same range as an azide. Unfortunately it does not respond as well to "dextrination" as do the common azides. The crystals are well defined and this MAY be one reason why the clathrates have not be a common commercial primary material.

I QUOTE Roscoe here from a prior post:

"My theory is that the way in which the host complex is made and the conditions under which the azide is subsequently added to the host complex has a bearing upon increasing the upper limit of how many moles of entrapped lead azide it may contain, and the saturation limit can vary also according to the particular host compound, 16 moles of included lead azide may be possible from indications in some of my experiments with host compounds mentioned but not specifically detailed in the patent US3431156 as experimental examples. This is what I meant by saying that "A similar process can be used to provide enrichment to the properties of the compound in example 4 of US3293091."

To my thinking the patent US3431156 is a "goldmine" of data as a technical disclosure itself, as well as suggesting further general experiments or refinements related to the example compounds it discloses. It really surprises me there are no subsequent patents having been published since 1969 regarding further work on the same general type of compounds. Perhaps Remington Arms and DuPont have done further experiments but kept the research confidential for business reasons. There was an earlier mention of the formation of complexes of this sort in a 1922 patent GB180605, by the German chemist Dr. Walter Friedrich, (see line 98 page two), however there were no detailed examples. It seems likely that some of the early references to "mixed salts" may have in fact been clathrates, but many years would pass before the details would be described extensively for the first time as an advanced art in US3431156.

Described below are the synthesis details for my experiment with a slightly enhanced variation of the general type of compound described in US3431156, example 5. It is interesting when when a synthesis produces quantitative yields, for several reasons. It is a rare result, and many times the stability of a product from a quantitative yield synthesis is excellent. The resulting product has formed from a synergy of reactions which went to completion without side reactions and byproducts, and efficiently formed the target compound as the single "most probable" result, excluding other possible products. The intended product of a high yield synthesis will often prove to be very stable and high purity compound. The inherent quality control involved is desirable for materials to be used as explosives. A synthesis of 4 (basic lead picrate, lead nitrate, lead azide) 12 (lead azide) molecular weight 9603.08

NOTE: In my opinion the proportional formula designation for clathrates is somewhat arbitrary, but the ratios are correct. For example the theoretical minimum molecular weight might be only one fourth of 9603.08, or the actual molecular weight could be any one of several multiples of that number. Its a damn mystery, so I shall leave the true structural determination to others who have the instruments required and the interest to pursue such questions. Crystallographers are sure to enjoy pondering the actual structure of this energetic "Buckyball" sort of molecular matrix".

Below is a rather old commentary, copy of the Kenny patent, & assorted comparisons with the aspects of use of BASIC Lead Picrate
Please Note - - IF you SEARCH, you can find some wonderful material on the Forum.....

Attachment: azo-clathrates.pdf (1.7MB)
This file has been downloaded 677 times

[Edited on 1-3-2012 by quicksilver]