| Pages:
1
2 |
underground
National Hazard
Posts: 702
Registered: 10-10-2013
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
|
|
Have you ever try to make RDX from that FNA?
|
|
|
wessonsmith
Hazard to Others
Posts: 203
Registered: 15-2-2018
Location: elsewhere
Member Is Offline
|
|
No. I don’t have any need for RDX, PETN since my compositions take advantage of ETN’s positive oxygen balance.
Take my Thermobaric composition. I can use 55% ETN and no Ammonium Perchlorate. If I were to use RDX, I would need 10% AP, so my composition would be
less potent as compared to ETN.
My plastic also takes advantage of the synergy between the excess oxygen of ETN and the fuel richness of the HTPB binder. The first 15% of the HTPB
binder is converted to energy using ETN. RDX's power is watered down immediately. So the power of two plastics both using a 12% binder one based on
ETN the other on the more powerful RDX are the same due to the synergy between ETN and the fuel. Remember, RDX's power is realized at higher
densities, and since plastic explosive hover around 1.55-1.62 g/cm^3, RDX's power advantage is nullified.
Considering ETN in detonators, nothing is more straightforward and easy to replicate as a melt-cast secondary.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by wessonsmith]
|
|
|
underground
National Hazard
Posts: 702
Registered: 10-10-2013
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
|
|
It is not everything about oxygen balance. For example you can see that PETN and RDX do perform better than ETN despite their negative OB. Very
impoetant is density. C4 with12+% inerts and even worse OB from RDX itself still perform better than pure ETN.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by underground]
|
|
|
wessonsmith
Hazard to Others
Posts: 203
Registered: 15-2-2018
Location: elsewhere
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by underground  | It is not everything about oxygen balance. For example you can see tha PETN and RDX do perform better than ETN despite their negative OP. Very
impoetant is density. C4 with12+% inerts and even worse OP still perform better than pure ETN itself.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by underground] |
We are talking about a marginal difference. When you factor in the cost of precursors and difficulty of manufacture as compared to ETN, there is no
contest for me. My Therombaic, however, is more potent than an RDX based version.
Here is an example of the effect that my ETN based plastic has on cold-rolled steel 6.4mm thick. I was using 5g of my plastic and one of my #8 power
detonators.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BZrbD1aTIWdly4TyZZgO...
FYI. C4 only has a density advantage when in block form. Once you start to kneed it, the density drops down to approx 1.55 g/cm³.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by wessonsmith]
|
|
|
underground
National Hazard
Posts: 702
Registered: 10-10-2013
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
|
|
As you wish
|
|
|
wessonsmith
Hazard to Others
Posts: 203
Registered: 15-2-2018
Location: elsewhere
Member Is Offline
|
|
It comes down to each his own. I am not in any way negating the general importance of either RDX, PETN just stating that they are of no interest to
me based on the reasons provided.
|
|
|
underground
National Hazard
Posts: 702
Registered: 10-10-2013
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
|
|
If i where you, i should made them both, even HMX too and try them out. After you could decide more wisely. I was thinking the same as you for PETN
but when i tried it out, i changed my mind.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by underground]
|
|
|
wessonsmith
Hazard to Others
Posts: 203
Registered: 15-2-2018
Location: elsewhere
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by underground | If i where you, i should made them both, even HMX too and try them out. After you could decide more wisely. I was thinking the same as you for PETN,
but when I tried it out, I changed my mind.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by underground] |
You make a fair point. If I were to synthesize RDX or HMX, it would be for personal edification only. In the US, buying large quantities of the
precursor, Pentaerythritol will get you put on a list. I can buy 25KG of Erythritol off Amazon without any issue. When I consider the cost of the
precursors and the cost manufacture and the quantity I like to play with, ETN is the only choice for me.
I will, however, stand by my assertion that my Thermobaric mixture is more powerful using ETN than using HMX or RDX. 22% more high explosive is a lot
more high explosive. When you consider the power difference between the two at the densities, the Thermobaric mixture is pressed too, ETN wins hands
down.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by wessonsmith]
|
|
|
underground
National Hazard
Posts: 702
Registered: 10-10-2013
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by wessonsmith | | Quote: Originally posted by underground | If i where you, i should made them both, even HMX too and try them out. After you could decide more wisely. I was thinking the same as you for PETN,
but when I tried it out, I changed my mind.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by underground] |
You make a fair point. If I were to synthesize RDX or HMX, it would be for personal edification only. In the US, buying large quantities of the
precursor, Pentaerythritol will get you put on a list. I can buy 25KG of Erythritol off Amazon without any issue. When I consider the cost of the
precursors and the cost manufacture and the quantity I like to play with, ETN is the only choice for me.
I will, however, stand by my assertion that my Thermobaric mixture is more powerful using ETN than using HMX or RDX. 22% more high explosive is a lot
more high explosive. When you consider the power difference between the two at the densities, the Thermobaric mixture is pressed too, ETN wins hands
down.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by wessonsmith] |
We or you have to test it out. I really doubt if you can actually exceed HMX with such mixture. In general AL may increase the temp of explosion but
also decrease the VoD, dont trick you the sound. It is generally accepted that Al drop the performance of ETN. You have to try them all, same amount,
same steel plate same detonator e.t.c. to have a clear answere.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by underground]
|
|
|
wessonsmith
Hazard to Others
Posts: 203
Registered: 15-2-2018
Location: elsewhere
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by underground | | Quote: Originally posted by wessonsmith | | Quote: Originally posted by underground | If i where you, i should made them both, even HMX too and try them out. After you could decide more wisely. I was thinking the same as you for PETN,
but when I tried it out, I changed my mind.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by underground] |
You make a fair point. If I were to synthesize RDX or HMX, it would be for personal edification only. In the US, buying large quantities of the
precursor, Pentaerythritol will get you put on a list. I can buy 25KG of Erythritol off Amazon without any issue. When I consider the cost of the
precursors and the cost manufacture and the quantity I like to play with, ETN is the only choice for me.
I will, however, stand by my assertion that my Thermobaric mixture is more powerful using ETN than using HMX or RDX. 22% more high explosive is a lot
more high explosive. When you consider the power difference between the two at the densities, the Thermobaric mixture is pressed too, ETN wins hands
down.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by wessonsmith] |
We or you have to test it out. I really doubt if you can actually exceed HMX with such mixture. In general AL may increase the temp of explosion but
also decrease the VoD, dont trick you the sound. It is generally accepted that Al drop the performance of ETN. You have to try them all, same amount,
same steel plate same detonator e.t.c. to have a clear answere.
[Edited on 6-7-2019 by underground] |
I would agree if it were equal amounts of HMX and ETN, that the HMX would be more powerful. However, the ETN version has 22% more high explosive, so
the math says that the ETN version will be more powerful.
VOD is not a paramount issue for thermobaric's. 7,000 m/s is more than adequate for that type of explosive composition.
|
|
|
twelti
Hazard to Others
Posts: 217
Registered: 20-2-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
Since we are talking about ETN, I'm wondering if you guys' product is sensitive to impact? Mine is very insensitive, to the point that I thought it
was not ETN when I fist made it. I find it almost impossible to detonate it wrapped in foil with hammer (steel on steel). I know it is a secondary,
but descriptions I have read in literature would suggest it should be more sensitive. I'm thinking maybe it is the small crystal size I'm getting.
Under a microscope, I don'e even really see any crystals. Looks kind of amorphous or maybe the crystals are just very small.
Wrapped in foil, it detonates just fine. 1 mg is quite loud. Looks very pure (reX at least once). PH tests neutral, no odor etc.
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1004
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Wesson. What is your thermobaric comp? Also. I am not sure I agree with your math, the 22 percent more explosive, maybe I am just not thinking
right...
|
|
|
wessonsmith
Hazard to Others
Posts: 203
Registered: 15-2-2018
Location: elsewhere
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by MineMan | | Wesson. What is your thermobaric comp? Also. I am not sure I agree with your math, the 22 percent more explosive, maybe I am just not thinking
right... |
Here is a link to an interactive spreadsheet. At the bottom you choose the amount of the Thermobaric composition you want, the sheet will populate
with the appropriate amounts of the other ingredients.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UgFokDX_ikGcVIjsvubl...
FYI here are the two papers from which I got the basic formula. In the documents, they test 14 different variations settling on TBE-3, which is what
I modified.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ALAn-co9H3OugWTx45Yj...
[Edited on 7-7-2019 by wessonsmith]
|
|
|
wessonsmith
Hazard to Others
Posts: 203
Registered: 15-2-2018
Location: elsewhere
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by twelti | Since we are talking about ETN, I'm wondering if you guys' product is sensitive to impact? Mine is very insensitive, to the point that I thought it
was not ETN when I fist made it. I find it almost impossible to detonate it wrapped in foil with hammer (steel on steel). I know it is a secondary,
but descriptions I have read in literature would suggest it should be more sensitive. I'm thinking maybe it is the small crystal size I'm getting.
Under a microscope, I don'e even really see any crystals. Looks kind of amorphous or maybe the crystals are just very small.
Wrapped in foil, it detonates just fine. 1 mg is quite loud. Looks very pure (reX at least once). PH tests neutral, no odor etc.
|
Dried ETN is very easy to detonate with a wack of a hammer against steel. If ETN is slightly damp it is very difficult to detonate with a hammer
blow.
|
|
|
twelti
Hazard to Others
Posts: 217
Registered: 20-2-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by wessonsmith | | Quote: Originally posted by twelti | Since we are talking about ETN, I'm wondering if you guys' product is sensitive to impact? Mine is very insensitive, to the point that I thought it
was not ETN when I fist made it. I find it almost impossible to detonate it wrapped in foil with hammer (steel on steel). I know it is a secondary,
but descriptions I have read in literature would suggest it should be more sensitive. I'm thinking maybe it is the small crystal size I'm getting.
Under a microscope, I don'e even really see any crystals. Looks kind of amorphous or maybe the crystals are just very small.
Wrapped in foil, it detonates just fine. 1 mg is quite loud. Looks very pure (reX at least once). PH tests neutral, no odor etc.
|
Dried ETN is very easy to detonate with a wack of a hammer against steel. If ETN is slightly damp it is very difficult to detonate with a hammer
blow. |
Mine is dry I assure you. Either I need a bigger hammer, or it is possibly the crystal size. I'm going to try recrystallizing using slow cooling to
try to get larger crystals, just as a test.
|
|
|
wessonsmith
Hazard to Others
Posts: 203
Registered: 15-2-2018
Location: elsewhere
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by twelti | | Quote: Originally posted by wessonsmith | | Quote: Originally posted by twelti | Since we are talking about ETN, I'm wondering if you guys' product is sensitive to impact? Mine is very insensitive, to the point that I thought it
was not ETN when I fist made it. I find it almost impossible to detonate it wrapped in foil with hammer (steel on steel). I know it is a secondary,
but descriptions I have read in literature would suggest it should be more sensitive. I'm thinking maybe it is the small crystal size I'm getting.
Under a microscope, I don'e even really see any crystals. Looks kind of amorphous or maybe the crystals are just very small.
Wrapped in foil, it detonates just fine. 1 mg is quite loud. Looks very pure (reX at least once). PH tests neutral, no odor etc.
|
Dried ETN is very easy to detonate with a wack of a hammer against steel. If ETN is slightly damp it is very difficult to detonate with a hammer
blow. |
Mine is dry I assure you. Either I need a bigger hammer, or it is possibly the crystal size. I'm going to try recrystallizing using slow cooling to
try to get larger crystals, just as a test. |
I can tell you with absolute certainty that large or small crystals will behave the same from a hammer blow. I have both, and they both act very
similarly. Here is a paper showing the difference between melt-cast and powered ETN, and you will see that the sensitivity difference between the two
is minimal. Powdered ETN of different crystal size , the difference will be even smaller.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gqDvdSuiXI6F-smxKIHlQlELWHH...
[Edited on 7-7-2019 by wessonsmith]
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 869
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The test for impact sensitivity using aluminum foil to contain the explosive and then hitting it with a hammer is flawed. I used it myself for a long
time, but discovered that it gives a false impression of insensitivity for many substances. This tendency can to some extent be negated by using a
larger amount of explosive.
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Brown fumes observed around 30 degrees aswell using mixed acid (70%).
23 seems indeed a safe spot.
The spirit of adventure was upon me. Having nitric acid and copper, I had only to learn what the words 'act upon' meant. - Ira Remsen
|
|
|
wessonsmith
Hazard to Others
Posts: 203
Registered: 15-2-2018
Location: elsewhere
Member Is Offline
|
|
I use fuming nitric and 98% Sulfuric. No fumes and 55C reaction temp.
|
|
|
twelti
Hazard to Others
Posts: 217
Registered: 20-2-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Microtek | | The test for impact sensitivity using aluminum foil to contain the explosive and then hitting it with a hammer is flawed. I used it myself for a long
time, but discovered that it gives a false impression of insensitivity for many substances. This tendency can to some extent be negated by using a
larger amount of explosive. |
Yes, I had wondered about that. I think the amounts I am using, a few mg, are too small for that test. Will try 20 or 50, with hearing protection.
|
|
|
twelti
Hazard to Others
Posts: 217
Registered: 20-2-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by wessonsmith |
I can tell you with absolute certainty that large or small crystals will behave the same from a hammer blow. I have both, and they both act very
similarly. Here is a paper showing the difference between melt-cast and powered ETN, and you will see that the sensitivity difference between the two
is minimal. Powdered ETN of different crystal size , the difference will be even smaller.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gqDvdSuiXI6F-smxKIHlQlELWHH...
[Edited on 7-7-2019 by wessonsmith] |
If from that paper you make a blanket assumption that the form doesn't have much effect on sensitivity, then ok. They didn't actually test small
crystals though (did you see the size of the crystals they did use ?! Huge). I'm not sure you can equate extremely small crystals to a cast solid.
I'm gonna grow some large crystals and check. Slow cooling in saturated EtOH?
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
