Sciencemadness Discussion Board - The WORST BOOKS Ever Written

The WORST BOOKS Ever Written

quicksilver - 9-10-2005 at 16:57

I wonder if the individuals who contribute to the postings on Energetic Materials would contribute their selection for "The WORST BOOK EVER WRITTEN" about energetic materials or related subject matter.
What I mean by this is not a personally boring publication ("Phase Stabilization in the Manufacturing of Porus Prills" or "The American Journal of Guar Gum"

but rather, downright dangerous and fallacious crap books (The Teenybomber's Anthology of Amputation Technology). I believe that such a pointed reference list would be a great help to anyone EVER thinking that something in print (or on the Internet) makes for truth and safety. For that matter there are fairly interesting books that have a great deal of typos in them making them a prescription for disaster.
For example: The Prepretory Manual of Explosives, J. Ledgard, while being a very interesting and well thought out text has an enormous amount of typos in it. While I certainly don't think it's a poor work by any means, there are omissions in it that are very serious. One very serious issue therein is in Chapter 20 where the preperation for ammonium chlorate is listed. NO WHERE in there is any caution listed for the sensitivity and unique issues entailed in production of AC. Unfortunatly (including the amount of typos) spoiling a potentially good work.
What do YOU think are some of the worst books ever written on this subject (& why)?

chloric1 - 9-10-2005 at 18:11

Well, also in his book he list the preparation of silver perchlorate as from silver oxide and sodium hypochlorite! I have yet to see a peer reviewed article about using this method for ANY perchlorate. None the less, it is still a good read to have while on the crapper.

Axt - 9-10-2005 at 19:10

So I presume " The Preparatory Manual of Explosives" isn't referenced? That really bugs me as you dont know if its copied correctly, an interpretation, an analogous reaction or even derived from a reputable source.

What happens to the sodium in NaOCl?? I cant see any feasable way to prevent AgCl from precipitating, AgClO4 is extremely soluble.

Anyway heres the chlorate. See, if hes just assumed an analogous reaction with NaOCl as Cl donor, or misread "chlorate" as "perchlorate" theres no way of knowing without a reference.

PATR2700, 2, C197.
AgClO3 was prepd in 1802 by R.Chenevix(See in Ref 2), by passing chlorine gas into w in which silver oxide was suspended.
2) Mellor 2 (1922)

quicksilver - 10-10-2005 at 07:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Axt
So I presume " The Preparatory Manual of Explosives" isn't referenced? That really bugs me as you dont know if its copied correctly, an interpretation, an analogous reaction or even derived from a reputable source.

What little I can tell you about that book in particular is that MANY patents he referred to I could not find under any circumstances. Perhaps they were typos; I don't know.
He lists a section at the end of the book but it simply contains a vast compendioum of sources; none of them specific to the individual items.

Sickman - 10-10-2005 at 17:53

I've prepared a few of the step-by-step synthesis methods in The Preparatory Manual of Explosives (which was the first book about explosives I ever perchased) I say that most of the procedures in the book if carried out to the letter usually results in run-away reactions and low yields depending on the procedure. It is obvious to me that this Jared Ledgard did not carry out any of the procedures in the book to see if they were safe before sending it to the press. For example in the second edition, pages 312 and 313 describes a "Lead Picrate Initiating mixture" which is claimed to be a legitimate replacement for mercury fulminate and lead azide. Well anyway I tried the procedure and couln't get it to detonate dry picric acid even in gram amounts up to 15 grams. I don't think the author just made this stuff up. I think he was reading quickly through a patent for bullet primers and came across this mixture which makes a great primer for bullets, but cannot compare to mercury fulminate or lead azide for initiating a high explosive. Over all I'd say I'm glad I own the book because it stimulates my thinking about just how many different useful explosives there are. When I find one I'm interested in I go to the patents and the tried and true references like Davis, PATR, Urbanski,ect.

Anyway I'd definitly tell anyone that the anarchist cookbook is total crap. So are books by uncle Fester and other idiots who don't use there real name to publish a book that is supposed to contain accurate info. Books that have any kind of title like "the poor man's" this or that and titles that talk about "kitchen chemistry" titles that use the word "improvised" are also a big no no.

Basically I'm interested in books and works written by experts in there feild like military scientists and historical figures like Alfred Nobel.

Swany - 10-10-2005 at 19:50

Some of the improvised, kitchen, etc. titles are decent if all you want to do is blast stuff. If you are looking deeper into chemistry then they are essentially worthless. Maybe to be used at totse, but here they would be prohibited, in theory.

chromium - 11-10-2005 at 00:12

I do not know much about explosive books but another book by J. Ledgard "Kings Chemistry Survival Guide" contains also syntheses that probably will not work as described. For example there is process for geting rather pure ethyl acetate by distilling mix of 6% vinegar and 80 proof vodka and some drops of battery acid. No distillation columns are mentioned.

It had been very interesting if autor had tested this with proper analysis of product but there is no analysis whatsoever just claim that product after drying with small amount of MgSO4 and second distillation will be of 99% purity.

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by chromium]

quicksilver - 16-11-2005 at 06:50

I would like to report on two books I receintly read. The first "Lamont Du Pont & The Amercian Explosives Industry" Norman Wilkinson, Univ of Virgina Press is a historical piece. Slow, ploding but has some interesting issues (Du Pont was a Civil War draft dodger). I don't think this fits into a science milieu but as a critque of style it could have been really powerful. Instead it was slugish and missed a chance to underscore why "cocca powder" was unique addition to the propellant industry in that time period. It touches on some mfg. issues.
Another book "Powder & Propellants, Energetic Materials at Indianhead Maryland" was a great read. It fused both history and science in a great style. Published by Univ of N. Texas Press in 2002, it does a good job of presenting the American explosives industry's challenges in the context of the military / Industrial complex. This one may be worth your time. It does a fair job of presenting science and history in a very readable fashion and although does not go into great depth on many science-related issues - it does present the challenges of the energetic materials industry in the period of transition from 1890-2001; great stuff for a person with a love for history & science.

Indianhead

MadHatter - 17-11-2005 at 02:04

I'll have to find that book ! Several of my relatives are life-long members of the Indianhead
community. I want to know if any of them were involved in any of those "tests".

a_bab - 17-11-2005 at 03:04

quicksilver, this thread is about the WORST books. The books you mentioned are good ones.

quicksilver - 17-11-2005 at 06:14

Quote:

Originally posted by a_bab
quicksilver, this thread is about the WORST books. The books you mentioned are good ones.

The Du Pont book would put a speed-freak to sleep. Unbelievably slow, ploding and pedantic. It also was rather fawning on Du Pont, the man - raising his stature inappropriatly. It had subject matter and material to be a great work and just was a total failure. The incidental issues were that it DID have facts like Du Pont's draft dodging were to underscore how it could have presented the reader with something but was just a let down - I mentioned the other book as a good one because I just happened to finish it at that moment and was drinkling a lot of coffee while typing this......the Indianhead, MD book was pretty good. I figued it's easier to mention a good book in this thread once in a while then to start a whole new thread.....no?

[Edited on 17-11-2005 by quicksilver]

franklyn - 18-9-2006 at 03:04

Online texts providing formulation preparations and little chemistry, much
disdained by many here , are nontheless often the first source of practical
know how aquired by entrepid novice experimenters. It's not so much that
they may contain errors , scholarly texts have errata , but rather a lack of
safety protocals. But then not even here has anyone ever made the point
that static electric charge can unknowingly initiate many explosives during
handling. The books alone , wether scholarly or practical do not ensure
safety. No one I'm sure would want to have brain surgery from someone
who only read on how to perform such proceedures.

For want of another place to post these , I submit for your disapproval
a selection of classics authored under U.S. government sponsorship.

Improvised Munitons Handbook
http://www.textfiles.com/anarchy/imh1.txt

http://www.elitehackers.info/files/txt/archive/Blackbook.TXT

Kitchen Improvised Explosives
http://www.flashback.se/arkiv/98/2/KIPE2.txt

Kithchen Imp Blasting Caps
http://www.flashback.se/archive/KIBC.TXT

Explosives How To site
http://www.freewebs.com/lpumsun/index.html

.

Boomer - 18-9-2006 at 03:48

You forgot the terrorist shitbook and the anarshit crapbook.

Oh and about the kitchen series, I took the time to point out some (!) errors:

Errors in KIPE 1

page / Error

2 .. .lecithin acts to prevent the formation of large crystals of RDX ... NOT GROUND BEFORE?
3 ... it should be very cap sensitive ... a booster will be a good choice ... WTF?
4 ... (RDX) is manufactured by nitration of hexamin with strong RED 100% nitric acid ... RED?
4 ... (nitric distillation) ... place 32g sulfuric acid and add 68g potassium nitrate ... YOU NEED >66g ACID!
4 ... heated until no more collects in the neck of the retort ... DECOMPOSITION! STOP EARLY!
4 ... (RDX) ... will detonate ... density of 1.55 g/cc at ... 8550 m/s ... AT 1.8, not 1.55!
5 ... TABLE IS INVERTED!
5 ... substituting ... for part of them percentage of wax ...
6 ... HTH (calcium hypo-chlorate ...
6 ... when the formation is no longer formed ...
7 ... if potassium chlorate were used instead of the sodium chloride ... POTASSIUM CHLORIDE!
9 ... this red gas nitrogern trioxide ... NITROGEN DIOXIDE!
9 ... (NG) is still the most powerfull explosive available ... PURE NG AVAILABLE?
9 ... (BG) which is propperly called collidon COLLODION!
9 ... the detonation of velocity ... DUH
10 ... in that it is easier to collidon the smokeless powder DUH
10 ... Glycerine and glycol ... both form a trinitro compound TRI + DI, AND THEY ARE ESTERS!
11 ... because the slightes bump could possibly explode ... THE BUMP OR THE NITRO?

Errors in KIPE 2

page / Error

2 ... (C4) based on the amount of acetone used ... ACETONE IN C4?
6 ... This plastique is a water gel ... and is hygroscopic ... WTF?
6 ... heat the liquid to 4045 degreesC WTF?
12 ... Mannitol Octanitrate ... HEXA!
13 ... polyisobutalene and etylhexy sebecate ... DUH!
14 ... friction could cause the premature explosive ...
14 ... exposure is limited to dermititus ...
14 ... Place 1000g of sulfuric acid or equivalent. To this add ... PLACE IT WHERE?
14 .. The temperature is raised to 40 degrees and stirred for 30 minutes TEMP STIRRED?

Errors in KIBC

page / Error

4 ... tendency of nitromethane to collidanize nitrocellulose ... DUH
8 ... MHN listed as a primary!
9 ... (HMTD) due to the extreme excess of oxygen ... OB IS NEGATIVE!
10 ... picric acid is more powerfull than TNT. It is prepared by diazoization of picramic ... HE MEANS DDNP!
15 ... When the silver dissolves (gentle heating ... to get all the mercury to dissolve) MERCURY OR SILVER?
17 ... 32 grams sulfuric ... add 68 grams nitrate SEE ABOVE!
17 ... nitrogene trioxide ... SEE ABOVE!
17 ... till no more collects SEE ABOVE!
20 ... (TeNN) rapid heating will cause detonation IT RATHER BURNS!
20 ... (TeNN) cast prior to loading the primary ... DAVIS: NO DET AT 30mm DIA WITH 20g FULMINATE!

HE OBVIOSLY NEVER TRIED, BUT COMPILED THINGS HE READ WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING CHEMISTRY (NITROGEN TRIOXIDE!!!)

quicksilver - 18-9-2006 at 07:02

Book Review:
The Preparatory Manual of Black Powder & Pyrotechnics
author: Jared Ledgard
1st edition 2006

Mr. Ledgard, who wrote The Preparatory Manual of Explosives and The Preparatory Manual of Chemical Weapons as well as King's Chemisty Survival Guide, added another large volume to his collection in mid-2006. The book is only available in a limited printing through Lulu's Books (a private printer and publisher). Where as his other books had been picked up and printed by a firm independant of him, I believe that this latest one had trouble being picked up and he let Lulu's print them as they were sold. Perhaps due to the nature of his past works and the troubled times we live in, Ledgard's latest work hadn't found a home with a permanent publisher. If you want one you need to contact Lulu's and have one printed for you! Thus there may be some collector's value here....
At 600+ pages this is his largest work to date. It looks more like a phonebook in fact. Source material for this work is much more accurate than the The Preparatory Manual of Explosives, which was VERY poorly documented. That does not mean that this work is without problems however. The book preports to discuss 1187 indiviual compositions and once again we see that Mr ledgard is in love with a very well equipped lab. Some of the compositions would only be available to those with access to restricted chemicals (List I & II) as well as some rather esoteric items that I can't find in a Spectrum or Fisher catlogue.At very least an undergrad level of equipment is referenced several times in the context of teflon coated mixing apperatus.. A large amount of comps make use of red & white P. And Once more he uses ammonium chlorate liberally in some compositions (albiet with a one word warning: dangerous). A large amount of comps make use of teflon coated SS mixing balls (expensive) and even though he relates this to Ball Milling (constantly), his stuff is done with a damn fine lab, certainly equipped with a variable vacume source, etc.
A serious fault I found for myself in his book is the difficult way he develops page layout. It is very difficult to follow some of his resipes (...make no mistake this IS a resipe book) as they flow from one colum to another page in a colum in a similar position. It is not written in the manner of a full page but colum to colum which is even difficult to discribe. It is annoying to read as well. As to the substance of the text; there are some very unique rocket compostions that may well be worth the price of the book. It is certainly a book for those with an enjoyment of chemistry and moderate lab knowlege. this is not a "pyro cook book". Some moderate lab technique is nesessary for most of the compositions. As well as motorized strirring devices and common lab equipment. It's not a low tech composition compilation. A background in energetic materials is valuable as Mr Ledgard does make use of common primary and secondary explosives in some of his presentaions and compostions. The Black Powder section in the beginning is noteworthy and interesting as well. But note well that this is a huge compendium of material. It would do well as bathroom reading rather than the easy chair.
All in all it's a heck of a sight better than the other Preparatory Manuals he put out over the past few years. As soon as I received the book I researched his source material and found many of them. In The Preparatory Manual of Explosives one could find next to nothing of the source he sited !!!
-> Worth buying....it's available for download on a number of FTP sites as a fast scan someone did. So you can get the idea if it's for you. The second time you brouse through it you see that he really enjoyed writting it. I found it worth buying. He seems to enjoy his writing and gets better over time. I honestly hope he continues as I believe he is a hobbiest at heart (albiet very well educated) and a good one.

franklyn - 18-9-2006 at 17:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Boomer
You forgot the terrorist shitbook and the anarshit crapbook.

Oh and about the kitchen series, I took the time to point out some (!) errors:

You missed your calling as a proof reader Boomer. It's much more fun to read it out loud
and record it, then play the recording backwards to hear the demonic phrases.

Their's is evidently a different culture and use a peculiar nomenclature.
In that website I gave , it's always best to start first with the
" Chemistry Definations Dictionary " link.
For example,
did you know that metal peroxides contain the peroxide ion, O22 - , I kid you not.
and, that Phenol is a hydrocarbon derivative containing an [OH] group bound to
an aromatic _raing. Who new ?
Protons are also found in " thew " nuclei of atoms. Gosh and golly gee wiz.
oh and,
Radioactive Dating is a method of dating ancient objects by determining
the ratio of amounts of mother and daughter nuclides present in an object and
relating the ratio to the object?s age via half-life calculations.
I guess that means she's too old for me huh.

[Edited on 19-9-2006 by franklyn]

Mr_X - 20-9-2006 at 08:55

Quote:

So are books by uncle Fester and other idiots who don't use there real name to publish a book that is supposed to contain accurate info.

IMHO, Seymour Leckers and Ragnar Bansons books suck much more than Home Workshop Explosives by Uncle Fester. Instruction are pretty detailed in that book.

Quote:

For want of another place to post these , I submit for your disapproval
a selection of classics authored under U.S. government sponsorship.

Improvised Munitons Handbook
http://www.textfiles.com/anarchy/imh1.txt

http://www.elitehackers.info/files/txt/archive/Blackbook.TXT

Kitchen Improvised Explosives
http://www.flashback.se/arkiv/98/2/KIPE2.txt

Kithchen Imp Blasting Caps
http://www.flashback.se/archive/KIBC.TXT

Explosives How To site
http://www.freewebs.com/lpumsun/index.html

AFAIK, only those "black books" are sponsored by US government. Others are simply works of amateurs. Speaking about that how to site, look here: http://www.freewebs.com/lpumsun/leadazide.html . A booster charge from lead azide... Heh, should i say anything more?

Quince - 1-10-2006 at 01:45

Can't get much worse than this one:

nitro-genes - 1-10-2006 at 03:35

You really need some professional help my friend...

But he...negative attention is also attention, right? Daddy never wanted to play catch with you?

Quince - 1-10-2006 at 03:38

Help for what? Like the great physicist Steven Weinberg said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Waffles - 2-10-2006 at 13:39

At least the Anarchist Cookbook and the like only have serious potential to injure those dumb enough to want to make C4 in their own kitchen…the Bible (and other religious texts, lets not discriminate

) has been the sole cause of the suffering and deaths of millions upon millions of people who wanted nothing except to live their lives in peace.

The Bible, et al, win 'Worst books ever written' by such orders of magnitude that we shouldn't even bother discussing that side of things.

daeron - 3-10-2006 at 02:30

agreed i dont want to discriminate against the religious wuns,but cmon if one is educated and really into science dont those quite simple and dogmatic answers that start and end with GOD sound a bit too simple and retarder for a person versed in the scientific method.

S.C. Wack - 3-10-2006 at 04:00

Uh oh with that one... not me (I agree) but others here.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I don't think that the Lutherans believe that they are God's chosen people or have been given title by God to some piece of land in perpetuity. Not even the Catholics or evangelical Baptists can find anything specific in there about killing the infidels who refuse to be baptized.

It seems obvious that the Bible should not be brought up outside of Whimsy, and that it was only a matter of time before Quince did what he did, given the thread title.

franklyn - 3-10-2006 at 21:30

The faiult if there is one , is that " civilization " is a few thousand years more
advanced technologically than it is ethically. Religion has not progressed from
the time when peasantry was all there was. Books in of themselves are nothing
it's what one does that matters. Religious tomes or even something as basic
as the American constitution , are subject to the prevailing fashion. How can
the Bill of Rights which is a list of personal liberties guaranteed to individuals
specifically the right to bear arms , be interpreted in recent times as the
collective right of the state ? It takes a lawyer to reason in this way , if you want
to change the law , no need to do so , you just change the meaning of the words
so that it is not what it meant when it was written. I'm sure that the " gay ninety's "
did not invoke the same meaning in 1906 as it does today.

[Edited on 4-10-2006 by franklyn]

not_important - 3-10-2006 at 23:53

Quote:

Originally posted by franklyn... I'm sure that the " gay ninety's " did not invoke the same meaning in 1906 as it does today.

[Edited on 4-10-2006 by franklyn]

It did to a fairly small subset of the population, except that 'gay' has starting to take on a new meaning in the last few years.

But you have a good point, franklyn; the meaning of words change over time, even a century can be enough. Homely once meant attractive, slut once was a kitchen maid, earlier untidy woman, and still earlier could be applied to a man.

Mr_X - 4-10-2006 at 06:35

I thought we was talking about explosives related books...

quicksilver - 4-10-2006 at 06:50

If you are lucky enough to ever find it:

NOTES on MILITARY EXPLOSIVES, Written by Erasmus Weaver (1909!) One of the 1st books published by Wiley (& Sons, Inc.) 382 pp Extremely well made, was text book from Military Collage in Southern US.

Obtained was a 4th edition from 1918. dates of past editions were '09, '12', '17. All are beatifully bound in the old style of book binders fom the past.
The book is a compendium of what was used as the military standard at the turn of the century and how they weere manufactured. Most of the primary explos material is devoted to mercury fulminate but the techniques described are fantastic ("fulmination concepts")! Some of the little details are worth every penny of the price of this collector's book. (It's available only through rare book dealers). There is a great deal of space devoted to nitric esters and most of the materials are "garden variety" - HOWEVER, this is a well thought out volume with enough detail in manufacturing in it to please a jaded reader. That is not to say it is not somewhat introductory but it has enough information on hand to make it more that an "intro" type work.
What is most interesting is this is the period of histroy that words started to change in the sciences. One quickly notices the mixing of "nitre of Barium" and related descriptions. Background on manufacturing is good, details on applied use of energetics (i.e. Blaster's Manual" type material) is also well done. All in all it's damn interesting fom a historical perspective and there are tid-bits of good info available. ---- (Rare Book) special order via Albris or Chatham Book Sellers.

quicksilver - 16-11-2006 at 07:21

I just got a copy of "The PENTAERYTHRITOLS" American Chemical Society Monograph Series, by Berlow, Barth, & Snow. 1958 Rienhold Publishing. - - This was a tough one to get. Hard bound well preserved book that is nearly 50 yrs old. Very old library copy in fair condition. (Don't ask what it cost...I collect this stuff

).
Chapters deal with Preperation, physical properties, anayysis, oxidation, reduction, pyrolysis, reaction with inorganic reagents. Chapter on nitrates, amines, halides, ethers, acetals, esters, etc. 17 in all. 300+ pages.
This is a older monograph series and containes most if not all of what someone would want to know regarding the compound if you plan on working outside the given perameters of documentation. It -=IS=- almost 50 yrs old and is quite generalist in approach. but if one has little background (like me) in solid alcohols this is wonderful. What I like the best is that the sighting at the close of each chapter gives patent references. What I liked the least is that the notation is in a style typical of the 1950's.
If one has a yearning to know most all the uses of pentaerythritol in industry and the wonderful way it could be used in the future, this will be a quick read. As a society the west uses possibly hunderds of tons of pentaerythritol a year (extrapolated from 1950's usage). There are various grades of this material and it's availablity is enormous. Worth the time to hunt it down? Yes for a collector. Not a casual glance. Moderatly rare I believe.

tito-o-mac - 3-7-2007 at 01:00

No point scavenging for books. Just download an ebook with any P2P software i think this is illegal, though, and not reliable

Boomer - 3-7-2007 at 04:00

If all people were like you there would be no ebooks! :mad:

And good luck finding Paul W. Cooper "Explosive Engineering", Malvin E. Cook "The Science of High Explosives" or Per-Anders Persson "Rock Blasting and Explosive Engineering" online. All I know is that Cooper's "Introduction..." has been scanned lately.

These are all in print, with editions from the last years, and can be ordered from your local book shop. Cooper cost me 20 bucks LESS than from the ISEE site this way (IIRC 130$).

The biggest fun is getting old/rare books, e.g I have the complete Escales series sans "Black Powder". Want a PDF? It's the original German version sorry!

phj - 3-7-2007 at 04:29

Quote:

Origineel gepost door daeron
agreed i dont want to discriminate against the religious wuns,but cmon if one is educated and really into science dont those quite simple and dogmatic answers that start and end with GOD sound a bit too simple and retarder for a person versed in the scientific method.

Isn't there a religion versus science topic on Sciencemadness?

Personally I think the contents of the Bible are true.
But I see myself as a scientist too.
That's because science and religion, in my opinion, don't have to interfere with each other.

Have you read the entire Bible already?
If not: may I ask you what your opinion is based upon?

I would like to discuss about this, but maybe we have to start a new thread.

[bewerken aan 3-7-2007 door phj]

woelen - 3-7-2007 at 04:51

Phj, that post of daeron (and also Quince, who started this) is too retarded to spend your time on. Some people never go beyond infancy.

nitro-genes - 3-7-2007 at 05:12

Experience tells me it is very difficult to discuss religion for the simple reason that you are a believer or not. It would be an equally pointless discussion when it comes to which colour people like better. That is why these discussions usually end in a quarrel without any meaningful comments. I'm quite sure these type of discussions can be generally found on the net, so I doubt SM is the right place...

@ Boomer:

I wouldn't mind catching up on my German!

Blackpowder has always continued to fascinate me...

[Edited on by nitro-genes]

woelen - 3-7-2007 at 06:41

Quote:

[...]so I doubt SM is the right place...

Exactly!

tito-o-mac - 3-7-2007 at 07:33

I wouldn't say the bible is the worst book, some facts are actually correct, Noah's ark perfectly floated when tested in labs!

phj - 3-7-2007 at 07:38

Or how about the first world war that commenced exactly in 1914, as predicted by Daniël?

But we're getting a little off-topic now.
Let's discuss about the worst book again.

JohnWW - 5-7-2007 at 15:46

"Answers that start and end with GOD"? (with relation to the Bible). What about the Koran, claimed to have been ghost-written by Dog-Spelled-Backwards (the false god of Islam), and claimed by Muslim suicide bombers as justification for going around killing as many other people and themselves as possible, on promises of a free trip to Paradise with 72 virgins? That would surely make the Koran surely the deadliest book around; never mind textbooks on explosives.

phj - 5-7-2007 at 23:14

Quote:

Origineel gepost door JohnWW
...free trip to Paradise with 72 virgins?

Sometimes I wonder why they're still virgin...

woelen - 5-7-2007 at 23:35

Shall we stop making a mockery of Islam? I don't like it if others make a mockery of my religion (Christianity), but then one also should not make a mockery of other's religion.

Let's go back to the topic of pyrobooks and related stuff. There is already too much detritus in this thread.

franklyn - 6-7-2007 at 05:07

But why be so sectarian , here's a hindu point of view _
" As i see it, faith is belief without reason . For those who believe, no explaination is necessary; for those do not, no explaination is possible." -Verghese Kurien
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verghese_Kurien

Or perhaps that of a statesman of the English gentry
" A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
- Winston Churchill

Quote:

Originally posted by woelen
Let's go back to the topic of pyrobooks and related stuff. There is already too much detritus in this thread.

- Good thought

.

quicksilver - 6-7-2007 at 06:27

Legard had released a 3rd edition of the Preparatory Manual of Explosives. Legard has done quite a few of his "Preparatory Manuals" but the 1st and 2nd editions of the Explosives text had some glaring issues regarding his lack of accuracy siting the patents from which he drew from.

I have not had a chance to check if some of the sited patents were accurate (numerically, anyway) but he did add some items that made a well rounded text. He uses LuLu's as a "per-unit" publisher and this is somewhat interesting. The use of LuLu's started during the release of the "Preparatory Manual of Black Powder & Pyrotechnics" and some folks think that with the whole terrorism issue none of the smaller publishers want to risk another "Hit-Man" law suite.

Quality-wise I wanted to comment that I enjoy the effort that he had put into his past projects. I don't think that he had always been satisfied with them......I've never talked with him; but I think he could do better than some of his past efforts......he seemed rushed to completion....just my opinion. The 3rd edition seems to be his best and if someone were to buy any of his books I would suggest that one as a starter as it's better organized. The Pyrotechnics book was terribly organized, with one page or section seeming to end at the end of a page but really was continued on the other side. THAT seemed like a rush job.

mfilip62 - 7-7-2007 at 08:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Quince
Help for what? Like the great physicist Steven Weinberg said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Yes,a Jew!
And we all know what those Jewish smartasses leaded by satan want to make of christianity,nations,and sacrifice their own people to acquire some profit and influence!

And if you are soo dumb to belive those craps please keep it for yourselve!

Just despicably smartass like this kike cann said that science and religion are divided and present those and alike deviant thoughts trought mass media!

If You ask me,all of them need to be lined up in the front of the wall and shoot and all of their books need to be burned,
becouse those,not bible are spring of the evil,pain and suffering!

nitro-genes - 7-7-2007 at 09:47

Nobody can probably blame you for expressing this opinion after the dreadfull things that happened in your birth country, though there are many members on SM having other religions, who have nothing to do with the things that happened over there and would be seriously offended by your post. Religion itself isn't bad because like with a gun it's eventually the individual that decides what to do with it...

SM really isn't the place for these kind of debates, so please stop provocating. It isn't helping anybody anyway...

StevenRS - 3-1-2008 at 15:41

I liked were this thread was going... Until I got 1/2 way down the first page. :mad:

I don't have any bad books to comment on, but I have a pretty good one, The Chemistry of Powder and explosives. I describes in great detail exactly what is happening in the explosions of MANY different compounds, not only describing how to make them.

[Edited on 3-1-2008 by StevenRS]

quicksilver - 21-1-2008 at 06:09

"DETONATORS, ELECTRICAL DETONATORS & PRIMERS for HIGH EXPLOSIVES": Hall, Howell, Taylor, Cope. - is a re-print of the USBoM working papers of tests done at the turn of the twentieth century. The US Bureau of Mines had some extensive testing programs and some of their people developed some mechanisms that are still utilized today. The value of this re-print is profound from both a historical and practical standpoint. The book is a collection of USBoM bulletins that deal with both developmental data and material testing. The collection is subject specific and covers the major detonators (blasting caps, etc) of the day. The chemicals utilized during this time were diverse as it was around 1906 that mercury fulminate was found to be just too environmentally sensitive & toxic. Thus, there were those testing programs that dealt with some pretty strange primaries (this may be where you can find actual testing of practical uses of the diverse picrates, HMTD, etc, etc).
Remembering that this was prior to numeric modeling and was basically a period of industrial applications of energetic chemistry (pre-WWI), the material could be useful in
understanding some of the more complex studies of primaries today.

Don't look for this one to be scanned by some child and thrown around; it's not too easy to find. One issue that is troublesome is that there APPEARS TO BE LITTLE ORDER TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE BULLETINS. There is some really interesting material here but it's hidden in the minutia of EXTENSIVE sand-bomb and lead block testing.
It's a rather expensive book for what is essentially just re-prints of USBoM material ($65) but has some merit and is a great source for continued searching through the Dept. of the Interior's now defunct Bureau. ..Worth a look.

[Edited on 21-1-2008 by quicksilver]

Formatik - 25-3-2008 at 23:24

Quote:

Originally posted by quicksilver
For example: The Prepretory Manual of Explosives, J. Ledgard, while being a very interesting and well thought out text has an enormous amount of typos in it. While I certainly don't think it's a poor work by any means, there are omissions in it that are very serious. One very serious issue therein is in Chapter 20 where the preperation for ammonium chlorate is listed. NO WHERE in there is any caution listed for the sensitivity and unique issues entailed in production of AC. Unfortunatly (including the amount of typos) spoiling a potentially good work.

That's probably a good one to put up there. It gives a procedure that claims to produce copper fulminate from Cu(NO3)2 in HNO3 and EtOH.

Neil - 1-4-2008 at 17:47

The Jolly rogers cook book is pretty bad, rumor has it that he blew his own thumbs off doing some of the stuff in it...

chemrox - 1-4-2008 at 22:22

anything by Ayn Rand

len1 - 28-3-2009 at 00:15

In the course of a literature search I accidently came across this book with the strange title "Kings Chem Guide"

[email=]books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1411659236[/email]

Meeting statements such as

Quote:

enzymes have a particular attracation for substances like carbohydrates

and, this very funny, explanation of fractional distillation

Quote:

Distillation takes advantage of the vapour densities of the various components of gasoline. Vapours of liquid with lower densities will condense higher up in the apparatus. The pentane fraction will condense at the highest mark due to its density being less than hexane ...

my initial thought was the author was a dabbler with no real understanding of chemical theory but with at least a good practical understanding. There are excellent experimentalists like that.

However then I read the totally original account of PCl3 preparation below, where calcium and phosphorus exposed to oxygen for some reason unite with each other rather than forming the far more energetically favourable oxides CaO and P2O5, which are some of the most stable oxides in chemistry, and it seems the author never did what he is describing.

It appears the book is a flight of fantasy, a compilation of what the author imagined should work never having done the work, or understood the theory. Possibly he picked up some gossip, read some stuff on the internet, balanced a few equations. The 'recepies' for a few drugs and pyro precursors suggests his aim was at the clandestine and (tiny) amateur market. I have never seen anything like it. People often write misleading rubbish but to have someone publish a whole book of the stuff must be some sort of record.

Here's one more joke, a caviat to the phosphide preparation in an open crucible with a bunsen burner

Quote:

Note: some elemental phosphorus may be liberated in the reaction so use proper ventilation

[Edited on 28-3-2009 by len1]

[Edited on 28-3-2009 by len1]

len1 - 30-3-2009 at 03:48

Below is a snapshot of a 'distillation' setup from Ledgard's Kings Guide to Chem - its very original - one never sees arrangements like that, its interesting to find out why.

The author states the setup is based on a density differential. It is well known that vapours of higher density lie below those of lower density, for instance chlorine vapours will stay inside an upright container open to the air for a long time because chlorine is heavier than air. So why doesnt this distillation setup work?

When the gas mixture boils off from the liquid surface it is essentially a thorough mix of the ingredients, whats required is that they now segregate on the way up according to density. Boyancy force drives the segregation, if the mass difference of two molucules is delM

F = delM g

For simplicity assume the height of the segregation vessel is H = 10cm. Then for ten atomic units mass difference the energy difference = force x distance is

del E = delM g H ~ 10^-26 10 0.1m = 10^-26J

while the 1D kinetic energy with which the molecules are thermally agitated is

E = 0.5 k T ~ 3 10^-21J

the ratio of gravitational to thermal energy is about 300000!

Its clear no separation of any note will be achieved this way. A mixture of different density gases in the lab will stay a mixture!

The probability of finding a particle of energy E in an isothermal system is proportional to

e^-E/kT

so roughly the probability of a heavier particle being at the top rather than the bottom of such a segregation collumn is about

0.5 e^-delE/kT ~ 0.5 - 0.000001

so no difference at all!

The question arises why do gases segregate in the lab - CO2 for instance clings to the floor?

It seems the diffusion coefficients for gases are fairly small, and their viscosity sufficient so that convection predominates diffusion. A clump of chlorine gas generated in a flask,will 'fall' to the floor due to convection arising from internal viscosity. But that is not the thermodynamically stable state - eventually it will mix evenly with the air in the room.

[Edited on 30-3-2009 by len1]

Magpie - 30-3-2009 at 12:23

Quote:

A clump of chlorine gas generated in a flask,will 'fall' to the floor due to convection arising from internal viscosity. But that is not the thermodynamically stable state - eventually it will mix evenly with the air in the room.

Len1 you have explained what has long puzzled me: The conflict between these statements: "All gases mix to a homogeneous mixture" and "heavier gases sink to the floor."

I, too, naievely I guess, thought that density was the driving force for the 2nd statement. So, are you saying too that a hot gas rises, as say in a mirage, because the viscosity of the colder air is less?

A related observation also has puzzled me. Some observers have said that upstream air in a vent was contaminated by another gas introduced downstream. I resolved this in my own mind as due to diffusion at the staionary boundary layer along the duct wall. Does this seem a reasonable explanation?

Sorry for the off-topicness but I had to ask.

Formatik - 30-3-2009 at 12:38

Quote:

and it seems the author never did what he is describing.

That also goes for the "copper fulminate" in the other book of his above. We can conclude that at least some of the procedures are fudged meanderings.

len1 - 31-3-2009 at 02:27

Quote:

So, are you saying too that a hot gas rises, as say in a mirage, because the viscosity of the colder air is less?

A related observation also has puzzled me. Some observers have said that upstream air in a vent was contaminated by another gas introduced downstream. I resolved this in my own mind as due to diffusion at the staionary boundary layer along the duct wall. Does this seem a reasonable explanation?

I would say hot air rises because it is lighter than cold. The viscosity comes into it because in its absence the hot air would just 'diffuse' into equilibrium and not rise as a clump.

The kinetic theory of the ideal gas assumes gas particles dont interact and are independent

If a molecule of say chlorine is released in the lab, after a while it is equally likely to be found at any height. Not so with a chlorine molecule in the midst of a flaskfull of other chlorine molecules, it is then much more likely to be found near the floor after a short while. So the phenomenon relies on interaction between molecules, in particular viscosity of gases - the molecules can not be here assumed independent.

Could what you observed be due to back diffusion? There is some back diffusion in laminar flow. I did some back of the envelope calcs today. The diffusion equation for the concentration in 1D

dc/dt = D d^2c/dx^2

means a spike (delta function) of contaminant injected at t=0 x=0 will spread so that at later times the concentration is

1/sqrt(D t) e^-(x^2/Dt)

however the fluid is flowing at speed v, while the measuring point is a distance L upstream so

x = L + v t

and we must integrate over all times to get the contributions of all contaminant injections in the past (multiplying by the rate of concentration flux as the origin)

c = dc/dt(0) int [1/sqrt(D t) e^-(L + v t)^2/Dt dt

c ~ dc/dt(0) sqrt(D/v L) e^-(4L v)/D

so if the distance of the measurement point from the downstream contamination L is comparable to the diffusion coefficient divided the fluid velocity, significant back diffusion is possible.

Its increased greatly if there are wakes and the flow is turbulent.

Alternatively you could be right and the diffusion occurs through the boundary layer.

The boundary layer thickness (where velocity reaches 99% of its final value) by Blasius is

w ~ 5 sqrt(kin_viscosity pipe_diameter/flow velocity)

for gases

w ~ 5 sqrt(pipe_diameter * mean_free_path)

for a pipe of say 10^-1m diam and mean free path 0.1um, which is ~ right at atmospheric pressure we get

w ~ 1mm

But thats for 99%, you really need v to fall to 1% or below to aid diffusion, thats a ring of 10um diameter, which will result in ~ 2 * (10um/10cm)= 1/5000 less flux here due to surface area differential alone. Diffusion is I think further hindered because of the open boundary of the layer to the main flow. I havent tried to calculate how much this affects result. Its an interesting problem - thanks Magpie

[Edited on 1-4-2009 by len1]

quicksilver - 6-4-2009 at 08:06

Quote: Originally posted by woelen

Let's go back to the topic of pyrobooks and related stuff. There is already too much detritus in this thread.

For those who really want to get a copy of the PATR, I have been buying. The sources are obviously really professional rare book outlets. Amazon has (had) vol.2 & 3 in very good cond. but I bought them up. Most quality rare book outlets (not Amazon) will have the set; which IS the way to do it. Individual purchases can be @ 100 dollars or greater. That's too high!

Has anyone compared Legard's edition 2 to his 3rd edition? I think he got the message that quoting patents needs to be solid as wrong patent numbers create suspicion....I think that fellow may even surf this board.

Es

len1 - 6-4-2009 at 16:49

If you read the above carefully you will see that it shows and explains WHY that Ledgard book you are mentioning is detritus, and why discussing it seems pointless.

Swede - 6-5-2009 at 04:36

I have the third edition... I certainly have not read it cover to cover, nor do I have the expertise to look at a particular reaction and immediately know it is bogus. But I still believe it is useful in the sense that it can get you going in a particular direction, and give you ideas you may not have thought of before. As a "cookbook" (I hate that term) no.

I particularly dislike 99.9% reliance on "teflon coated 5mm shot". I'd love to find a source for teflon-coated mill media, but I suspect each individual piece would cost about $5. I still haven't found it yet.

quicksilver - 7-5-2009 at 10:08

Quote: Originally posted by Swede

I particularly dislike 99.9% reliance on "teflon coated 5mm shot". I'd love to find a source for teflon-coated mill media, but I suspect each individual piece would cost about $5. I still haven't found it yet.

I think that's a very appropriate criticism. Prior I had mentioned that the author must have access to a particularly well equipped/funded lab. I have yet to even see such a thing sold by larger firms (Fisher, Spectrum, etc).

On an interesting note of comparison between editions 2 and 3: in the synthesis for lead azide quoted in edition 2 the use of solution at 5C for lead acetate solution was quoted - in edition 3 the solution was quoted as to 70C.
Temperature [of reactant solution] in terms of crystal growth & shape may be directly effected. Aside from dextrinated solution, the use of lower temp was quoted by a very early patent to minimize needle shape product. The dissimilarities of the two editions is glaring in their temperature guidelines.

[Edited on 7-5-2009 by quicksilver]

grndpndr - 9-5-2009 at 05:43

Quicksilver, "Du Pont was a Civil War draft dodger".End qoute. If you were drafted during the civil war you could hire a replacement(warm body with enough teeth to tear open a paper cartridge) to serve in your stead.Perfectly legal and considered legitimate behavior for the wealthy.Politicians of course very much needed to be war heroes or at least Capt/Colonels whatever rank they could afford.Wealthy men who had political aspirations could essentially raise, equip and lead into battle thier personally funded battalion/brigade(depending on $$) under a generals orders of course and normally raised under the flag/auspices of a state.One way to gain elected office/ high military rank or avoid service depending on your nature.

Worst book? anarchist's cookbook. Had an original copy wish I still had.Must be a cult classic by now.LOL

[Edited on 9-5-2009 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 9-5-2009 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 9-5-2009 by grndpndr]

hissingnoise - 9-5-2009 at 07:01

Having a copy of Ledgard's weird, misinformative tome makes me feel like an idiot, but I'll hold on to it, just in case.
If it's still worthless twenty years from now I'll nitrate the fucking thing.
I love his (simplified?) C4 preparation. . .

quicksilver - 10-5-2009 at 06:49

I mentioned the issue of Du Pont's Draft Dodging as of interest due to political posing of his firm (through several generations) as deeply committed patriots. It seems a shame that it's always the young that pay the price for the old & rich to continue to thrive. The book was an attempt to glorify his life but it was quite candid & pointed out some facts that made him appear to be a bastard.....just an opinion of course.

grndpndr - 10-5-2009 at 17:02

I would add the poor young whose folks couldnt afford college to avoid the draft(VN)or afford replacements for thier drafted kids during the civil war.Id venture a guess that most of those in power/money dont have THIER children involved in our most recent bloodletting even the most vociferous hawks(profiteering Duponts among them)
among them wont risk thier kids returning in AL coffins with the remains marked as not to be viewed.An unpopular view im sure but Im for the draft again but this time NO deferments for anyone for any reason to include our representatives and president.Important enough to risk MY kids in the national interest thats good enough for our reps and president to risk thiers.Perhaps the'd think twice about declaring war/nationbuilding?LOL Its always the poor who bear the bulk of the pain of war,those with the least give the most.

[Edited on 11-5-2009 by grndpndr]

Davster edit to avoid a religion flamewar

[Edited on 12-5-09 by The_Davster]

len1 - 10-5-2009 at 17:24

If one looks into history with ones own eyes rather than through the propaganda tinged interpretations of the facts writers often give them voluntarily or involuntarily, one will see that the persistent theme is the exploitation of the masses by the few using whatever controls are at their disposal: royalty, nobility, religeon, law, money, their better education, patriotism. That is all bullshit of course everyone is looking after themselves and trying to exploit the other. The latest war on Iraq/Al Qaeda/Terrorism is no different, the disadvantaged believe the stories they are told, are losing their lives, their homes, their jobs, while the rich are making money.

This is not a call to revolution/communism etc by the way. History has shown that these change nothing - only rearrange the advantaged/disadvantaged, the ratio remains the same. It seems feifdom is genetically imprinted in the human mind.

I should add that one would think with information being available now at the flick of a button, masses of people would not fall for the same old trap - none of it. The mass media has evolved to dumb down people - the sound bites, the one line SMS text massages by which the youth lives, the cynicism. I think its all non-accidental (see how lack of education was used to rule masses in the past - same now). History, is still being taught in each country according to their own interpretation of events, 'for their own national good' a la 'the glorious dead' etc. If you need proof and you read several languages just see the completely different interpretations of contentious issues, past and present, on different language versions of wikipedia. Although knowing history is going out of fashion for the advantaged as well, as shown by recent events, if the ruler actually believes what he is saying it helps him mislead people.

[Edited on 11-5-2009 by len1]

The_Davster - 11-5-2009 at 15:30

This thread is about to degenerate, so lets get back to books.
A post likely to start a religion argument has been removed.

Back on the book theme, Akhaven's "chemistry of explosives" is far too simplified for my tastes, makes the tetrazine/tetracine mistake, and is overpriced for a thin paperback at over 120$CDN. It is not horrible, it just has too many deficiencies for my tastes. If I was thinking of buying it, money would be better spent elsewhere.

hissingnoise - 12-5-2009 at 06:00

The_Davster, IIRC, Akhavan's little RSC paperback cost me 27Euro nearly 10 years ago. . .
I don't know the exact value of the Canadian dollar but 120$CDN seems wildy excessive.
Copae in hardback cost me 35Euro 13 years ago and though dated, it is still light-years ahead of Akhavan's "effort".
Graphics in the latter are quite crude and misleading; the text too, is somewhat misleading in places.
At the risk of sounding sexist, I don't think females have the interest in energetic materials to write on them with any real passion, though Jimmie Oxley may be an exception.

[Edited on 12-5-2009 by hissingnoise]

quicksilver - 12-5-2009 at 08:30

"Detonators, Electrical Detonators & Initial Primers for High Explosives" Hall, Howell, Taylor, & Cope is a very interesting & damn hard to find book dealing with primary explosives from the US Bureau of Mines circulars, investigative memorandum, etc. It is actually simply reprints of the Dept of the Interior's material dating from approx 1913 through 1924. USBoM material is really difficult to find today and most of the material dealing with energetic material was dated prior to WWI.

The book is simply a collection of relevant papers dealing with tests of primaries. That being said, they were also written during a time in science history that the language of chemistry was being changed & this makes for some challenges. An example is that copper/cupric verbiage, which makes a great difference in the product. At that point in history these things were being settled but still confusing.
A great deal of the USBoM material surrounded testing of sensitivities & naturally standardization was being developed. The lead block sizes were not consistent; the lead itself not always pure. The use of a bent nail test were beginning to be faced with differing compositions of steel in use. On & on the mass of testing was almost kitchen chemistry, for lack of standardization. Interestingly, Europe followed in some aspects after the USA had made great efforts to maintain consistency. Most of the book is testing results & some synthesis. This was also a time in history of energetic materials that the Hg Fulminate shelf-life was at issue in warmer climates & a great effort was on to find a substitute that would not weather warmth as badly.

Another are of interest is the electrical sensitivity of primary explosives. Remember that static electricity was a known factor but measurement of extremely high voltage & VERY low current was a very challenging matter. Frankly the only method of dealing with a known static charge was reproduction (Van De Graff generator type), measurement of current below milliamps was not yet available (TTBoMK). The terminology of "high tension" - "Low Tension" meaning current/voltage proportions takes some getting used to. The development of resistive bridge wire was in it's infancy as materials which produced resistance yet conducted were available but the common VOM/DIM meter was not available of course. The influence on various primaries was very tough to deal with - without today's measurement devices.

If you know some of the history of energetic materials development, this is a very valuable book. To some it may be quite interesting. I would give little credence to any reference to toxicity however....;-)
The material can actually be found on-line through archive of the Dept of the Interior via the Library of Congress if you want to wade through a ton of other USBoM stuff.....You may be able to save some time by starting with Bulletin #59 & working forward. I have a collection of USBoM material & all the source matter of this book: it took a damn long time to sift through.

Some of you may love this material....others may find it's crudity too much to have value.

-=HeX=- - 16-5-2009 at 05:04

I want to get the book on electric detonators...

And the prep manual of HE aint THAT bad so long as your 'BS distillery skills' are good. I know mine are...

Sauron - 16-5-2009 at 22:22

"Angels and Demons"

for wholesale anachronism and buthery of history

Ha;i;eo died 200 years before the Illuminati were founded (1776, Bavaria)

They disbanded 10 years later after being outlawed by the ruler of Bavaria.

Thus Galileo was not a member.

The Catholic Church did not massacre Illuminati. That is a lie.

The founder was not a scientist, he was a Jesuit-eduvated professor of canon law. He was excommunicated, and before his death many years later he recanted and made his peace with Rome, jos excommunication was lifted.

The Illuminati were a failed decade long attempt at a masonic type secret societym and were not particularly devoted to science at all.

There is a huge amount of hogwash on and off the Net about this, and unfortunately Dan Brown's wife is not particular about source material.

File under RUBBISH alongside DA VINCI CODE.

hissingnoise - 17-5-2009 at 03:53

I tjought this was an Energetiv Materiald thresd. . .

Sauron - 17-5-2009 at 04:00

Read the thread and you will be forced to come to the unalterable conclusion that this is anything but an Energetics thread and really ought to be in Miscellany or Whimsy.

Anyway the book and film did have an antimatter bomb subplot, is that Energetic enough for you?

As regards the highly Energetic matter uf the US Civil War draft, the price to legally buy out was I believe $200 - nothing much for the rich, an unthinkable sum for the poor mostly immigrabt factory workers who were the intended cannon fodder for Mr Lincoln's War of Norther Agression as we southerners still call it.

See Martin Scorsese's GANGS OF NEW TORK for a treatment of the NYC draft riots and suppression by federal troops and naval bombardnwbr of Manhattan.

[Edited on 17-5-2009 by Sauron]

hissingnoise - 17-5-2009 at 04:12

Sorry Sauron, I was taking the piss---the devil makes wo. . .

franklyn - 5-12-2009 at 18:48

Stupid Book
The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook
http://thedisease.net/functions.php?&arcanum=nbc/chemica...
It appears who may charitably be called the author , listed items out of Bretherick's.
See - 2.4 , Home made Betaluminum Poison - Could he be thinking of Botulinum ?
" 1.5 to 2 spatulas of fresh horse dropping ( cow dropping can be used if horse
is not available ) " , Sure , or you can use a spatula of pages from this book.
See - 8.3 Touching poisons , no doubt a favorite among nitrile gloved tag happy
assasins. I'll just bet they'll forget not to cover their sneeze. Achoo - Arrrgh
See - 5.4 ( Nerve Gas ) " It can be obtained by heating CCl4 with any metal "
Oh yeah , now there's a flash in the pan from Bevis and Butthead , and another
See - 5.5 Nitrous oxide " In a closed room, your victims will laugh to death "
I'm dying already

hissingnoise - 6-12-2009 at 02:30

Now Infidel, will you convert to Islam??!!??

On a serious note, what the fuck is wrong with these sickos; they seem to be fixated on killing people they're never likely to know?
And for no real reason!
Stupid fucking sick organised superstition drives them---it seems!

[Edited on 6-12-2009 by hissingnoise]

User - 6-12-2009 at 03:03

There is also a book called something like the \"mujahideen explosive handbook\"
It just one big load load of crap promoting the use of AP

haha.
And they do everything with coffee like kclo3/coffee... REally!
Quite funny stuff, I hope no one is actually taking it serious.

hissingnoise - 6-12-2009 at 03:43

Yeah. . .It probably is just a joke!

User - 6-12-2009 at 04:30

I hope so, my last post sounds like I am not taking it serious in any way.
Actually I do.
Especially the potential lethal consequences of this sort of crap.
How many people would have killed themselves thanks to the anarchist cookbook?
How many wack jobs are there not capable of determining how dangerous it is what they are doing?
And them I am not even thinking about the fucked up minds that use this stuff to kill.
They internet definitely has it\'s downsides, this sort of crap will always remain to drift around no matter how often it is deleted.
Sad really.

hissingnoise - 6-12-2009 at 04:32

Quote: Originally posted by User

Sad really.

Amen!
[edit]
Everything Dawkins says about religion has the ring of truth. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjF4w_E86gw
Harry Kroto thinks so, too!

[Edited on 6-12-2009 by hissingnoise]

The WiZard is In - 6-4-2010 at 09:38

Quote: Originally posted by quicksilver

If you are lucky enough to ever find it:

NOTES on MILITARY EXPLOSIVES, Written by Erasmus Weaver (1909!) One of the 1st books published by Wiley (& Sons, Inc.) 382 pp Extremely well made, was text book from Military Collage in Southern US.

Obtained was a 4th edition from 1918. dates of past editions were '09, '12', '17. All are beatifully bound in the old style of book binders fom the past.

---------'
I have an original copy of the 4th edition.

If you want to invest in some toner you can DL a PDF copy from
Google.com/books and print it out.

I believe Marshall's opus is there too. And a wholebunch of others. The site looks more like my book shelves every day!

Spent years looking for a copy (that I could afford) George M. Mowbray's, 1874 classic. Tri-nitro-glycerin: as applied in the Hoosac tunnel, and to submarine ... Gave up and DKL'd it from Google.com/books.

The Green Flame

The WiZard is In - 20-4-2010 at 13:24

Andrew Dequasie
ACS 1991

If "worse" ='s I don't recommend it - then this
is one.

A chemical engineers remembrances of a US Gov.
1953-1960 project to make boron based rocket
and jet engine fuels.

A project that proved even a thousand-million US
dollars could not get to work — what science said
would not.

Years ago - I remember reading in some European Space
Agency magazine why using boron based rocket fuels
could not work. I who save most everything ... didn't file
it.

I find it not on the ESA's web site.

AJKOER - 25-10-2011 at 10:52

On the criticism of the NAClO + "Silver Oxide" method to make AgClO4, please note (I have done this), the use of NaClO on a soluble Silver salt does produce AgClO3 and a AgCl precipitate (albeit, the Silver Chlorate has a rather temporary existence, see Mellor).

My point is what would happen if the "Silver Oxide" is AgO and not Ag2O? (Please pardon the AgO misnomer as it is actually Ag2O·Ag2O3 also written as AgIAgIIIO2).

My opinion, not too likely, but given the poor source material as cited in this thread, perhaps with AgO, AgClO4 could actually be produced. My speculation notes that while silver oxide Ag2O is a mild oxidizing agent, AgO is much stronger, oxidizing NH4OH, for example, violently to nitrides and nitrates. Also, while Ag2O is not soluble in water, it is more soluble in strongly alkaline solutions forming AgOH and Ag(OH)2− complexes.

So unless we want to be as guilty the author in question, someone should check it out or, at least, reserve judgement less we be judged.

[Edited on 25-10-2011 by AJKOER]

quicksilver - 25-10-2011 at 11:16

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

On the criticism of the NAClO + "Silver Oxide" method to make AgClO4, please note (I have done this), the use of NaClO on a soluble Silver salt does produce AgClO3 and a AgCl precipitate (albeit, the Silver Chlorate has a rather temporary existence).

My point is what would happen if the "Silver Oxide" is AgO and not Ag2O (pardon the AgO misnomer as it is actually a compound salt)?

My opinion, not too likely, but given the poor source material as cited in this thread, perhaps with AgO, AgClO4 could actually be produced. So unless we want to be as guilty the author in question, someone should check it out or, at least, reserve judgement.

Which book did this come from? I went back into the thread but could not find which synthesis you were quoting from.

AJKOER - 25-10-2011 at 11:36

Hi:

See the second response on page 1 from Chloric1.

AndersHoveland - 25-10-2011 at 17:15

Quote: Originally posted by chloric1

preparation of silver perchlorate as from silver oxide and sodium hypochlorite!

The reaction of hypochlorous acid (HOCl) solutions with silver oxide only liberates oxygen and produces AgCl.

When chlorine reacts with silver oxide diffused in water, a mixture of silver chloride and silver chlorate is formed.

Silver nitrate can react with sodium hypochlorite to form silver chloride and silver I,III oxide, Ag2O2, is formed, both of which are precipitated. An unknown substance, with bleaching properties, is left behind in the solution. This substance is unstable, and quickly decomposes after several minutes, leaving behind silver chlorate in the solution, which does not bleach. If sodium hydroxide is added to the bleaching substance, oxygen gas is evolved.

However, silver hypochlorite may also be formed from the reaction between silver nitrate and sodium hypochlorite, according to the same book.

If a solution of chlorine is added to excess Ag2O, silver hypochlorite can be formed in solution. AgOCl partially decomposes in darkness, or rapidly if heated above 60degC, into AgCl and AgClO3.

A comprehensive treatise on inorganic and theoretical chemistry, Volume 2 By Joseph William Mellor. p271

The bleaching substance is probably a mix of ClO2 and HOCl. Although it is really rather speculative on my part, I think the reaction might look something like:

(6)AgNO3 + (6)NaOCl --> (6)NaNO3 + (4)AgCl + Ag2O2 + (2)ClO2

The formation of oxygen from the addition of NaOH to the bleaching substance probably only occurs in the presence of excess AgNO3 still disolved in solution. If this is not the case, I cannot see any plausible way that any bleaching compound could be produced in the reaction which would react with NaOH to produce oxygen. One would expect that an excess ratio of AgNO3 had been used, since if there was any excess NaOCl not reacted, then the investigators would not have been able to determine that there was a new bleaching substance that had been formed (since NaOCl acts as a bleaching agent itself). It is, for example, known that Ag2O reacts with HOCl to form AgCl and oxygen gas.

[Edited on 26-10-2011 by AndersHoveland]

gemyy - 3-11-2011 at 10:06

can you help me to get this book in PDF file

http://www.amazon.com/Alchemists-Secrets-Explosive-Chemistry-Moffatt/dp/087364963X

Who can help me ?

[Edited on 3-11-2011 by gemyy]

[Edited on 3-11-2011 by gemyy]

caterpillar - 15-1-2012 at 23:29

As Jack Sparrow said, I cannot resist, mates! (It is not the worst book, of course).

Some bugs in THE PREPARATORY MANUAL OF EXPLOSIVES A LABORATORY MANUAL by Jared B. Ledgard, A.A.S., B.S., M.A.

1.Ammonium picrate. What makes Mr. Ledgard think, that it is a primary explosive? It is less sensitive than even TNT.
2.PETN. Compare Procedure 13-05A: Preparation of PETN and Procedure 13-05B: Preparation of PETN . Procedure A: 100 grams pentaerythritol plus 90 grams 90% nitric acid. It is wrong, of course- too few nitric acid. Procedure B with same list of materials probably correct.
3.Preparation of Tetraniline. Both procedures A and B: Materials: ...3. 2 grams of meta-nitroaniline (can be prepared by careful nitration of aniline with 70% nitric acid). It cannot be obtained in that way. To say nothing about possible oxidation, amino-group is strong orto-para orientant. Meta-nitroaniline can be obtained by partial reduction of meta-dinitrobenzene.
4.Mercury fulminate gunpowder??? I think, it is not good idea to test such powder. Bye-bye my rifle (and eyes too).
5. All of the salts of perchloric acid are highly explosive. Not true- KClO4 is an exotermic compaund and can explode no more than NaCl. (Of course, mixture with reducing agents will make it dangerous, but is is another story).

Pulverulescent - 16-1-2012 at 01:40

Quote:

1.Ammonium picrate. What makes Mr. Ledgard think, that it is a primary explosive? It is less sensitive than even TNT.

Fuck! Did he really say that?
I have his stupid tome for years and hadn't even spotted it!
Reading crap is just sooo tedious . . .
When I got to his, er, novel 'prep'. of C4 ─ that's when the fan hit the shit!
But, off course, I'm in no way a fan, obviously, and if I ever did have the dubious 'pleasure' of actually meeting him, I'd fucking hit the cunt!!!
'Coupla' nice pics. though . . .

[edit] I really meant to say, the shit, but 'cunt' was just what came to mind!

P

[Edited on 16-1-2012 by Pulverulescent]

quicksilver - 16-1-2012 at 09:05

YES. in the 2nd edition he said that and much more. It is fair to note that there is a 3rd edition and that proof editors will often have macros for descriptors but this is no excuse for the amount of errors in the 2nd edition. As I said previously some of the quoted patents simply don't match up and gross errors of the type above have actually made this book a danger to those with limited background or no other means of cross-check.
What is even more serious is that Legard self published a text dealing with chemical weapons which has within it actual WMD's. (blood toxins, etc). Not ALL of his work is flawed to the extent that the synthesis would not function. Making Chem-weps available to the general public is not new but to have the potential of doing so within the scope of previously flawed material opens Pandora's Box to unforeseen accidents or mass-casualty dead through experiments gone awry by those who may be mentally unstable or immature.
Here again the scope of ethical behavior could be in active & serious discussion. Legard's text makes use of terms such as "conveniently prepared from..." Even IF his material were accurate to a fault would it even be appropriate to downwardly scope a textbook to make a WMD "conveniently prepared" ?

Pulverulescent - 16-1-2012 at 11:00

Quote:

As I said previously some of the quoted patents simply don't match up and gross errors of the type above have actually made this book a danger to those with limited background or no other means of cross-check.

Yes, misinformation in the HE-field is pretty unforgivable in this day and age! :mad:

If Ledgard's name could be inserted into the title of this thread and it made a 'sticky', it might help some poor, gullible k3wl someday . . . (

)

P

caterpillar - 16-1-2012 at 14:28

There are some errors in formulaes too- but I saw no way to demonstrate images here. I do not know, if PICRAMATES are primary explosives (but why?), but ammonium picrate is well- known kompaund. If I'm correct, it was used during WWII under code name "D". As for me, I made TNP and its salts (K and NH4) many times, to say nothing about books that I read.

Pulverulescent - 16-1-2012 at 14:40

Ammonium picrate was known as "Explosive D" (Dunnite)!
Slightly less powerful than TNT, its insensitivity made it useful as shell-fill because hardened targets often caused TNT fills to detonate on contact!

p

caterpillar - 17-1-2012 at 00:33

Really? Shells of large calibers, used for big guns of battle ships, often didn't exploded at all. I got nice book abot battle ships of WWII. Britons used shellit, germans sprengstoffe 88. Both of them was basen on TNP, that is more sensitive that TNT.

quicksilver - 17-1-2012 at 11:32

One of the other issues surrounding "explosive D is that it is very resistant to "set-back". During the propulsion of a shell, tremendous amounts of energy are exerted within any hollow cavity shell or related design. It is critical that the design and component be able to withstand such force.
One of the more interesting aspects of shell construction was the mortar. The pressure was quite low (that's why it may be "dropped" down a rube - becasue there is limited seal). Therefore in the design phase of the early mortar it was internal pressure that began to play a part in the physics of design and energetics. This continues to the present day; as the propellant gases push behind and yet around the projectile. To conceptualize any accuracy an enormous amount of testing must be completed to note the effects of the surrounding gas propellant. The low "tube pressure" became a mixed blessing.

Pulverulescent - 17-1-2012 at 13:39

Quote:

One of the more interesting aspects of shell construction was the mortar. The pressure was quite low (that's why it may be "dropped" down a rube - becasue there is limited seal).

I'm reminded of a (ahem!) piece of film-footage 'I saw' on telly in the mid-seventies in which, during some hostilities or other, in an African country ('won't say which) in which a group of 'raw conscripts' clustered around a small (37mm), fairly antique mortar were asked to pose for a news-shot!
It was required that one of the men be photographed in the act of loading the piece ('for impact')!
So anyway, this extremely thin, tall guy gingerly picked up the round and proceeded to insert the shell nose-first into the barrel ─ as he was on the very point of releasing his grip, the equally tall officer-in-charge just barely managed to grab the shell from his hands and prevent the 'drop'!
What freaked me out was that none of the other 'conscripts' batted an eye, but the bevy of civvies there left the immediate vicinity with, let's just say ─ all due haste . . . !!!
In another incident a similarly rusty, old piece, because of poor 'spade placement' on very soft soil, when fired, tried quite hard to follow its 'new companion' on its short flight!
Small stones and twigs showered the scattering participants and the smoking mortar was later found thirty feet away in thick brush!
And looking back now, all I can say is; "boys-oh-boys ─ them was the days"!!! (

)(

)

P

caterpillar - 17-1-2012 at 15:09

Well, I remembered- I once read something about anti-tank shells. For such shells TNT was a little bit too sensitive. About old rusty iron- one of my friends showed me a photo of a gun, produced in 1910. That gun was used against soviet troops in Aphganistan.

Pulverulescent - 19-1-2012 at 01:26

That last post of mine (ooops!) was entirely 'made up' BTW!
Not true at all, at all . . .

caterpillar - 18-2-2012 at 00:45

Dear Mr Ledgard presented me with something really interesting. Quote: "hydroxylamine is prepared by dissolving metallic sodium into liquid ammonia, and then evaporating the excess liquid to obtain dry solid". Once I dreamt and I clearly saw how mercury fulminate can be obtained from NH4Cr2O7 + NaSCN (and you may guess, what was my mind loaded with!). But it was only a dream...

The_Davster - 31-3-2012 at 11:37

From the mind of jared ledgard on his homepage:
http://www.uvkchem.com/

Quote:

"NEWS: I have received e-mail's from customers about how dangerous it is to mix pyrotechnic chemicals; now in most cases this not true. Many pyrotechnic chemicals like nitrates, chlorates, perchlorates, iodates, peroxides, and bromates can be blended with various combustible materials like sulfur, charcoal, and powdered metals in blenders using stainless blades, with no ignition or explosion; For example, You can safely blend pure potassium chlorate and pure sulfur (250 grams KClO3 and 98 grams of Sulfur) in a blender under high speed with no ignition or explosion. You can also blend pure powdered potassium perchlorate with powdered aluminum (300 grams KClO4 and 155 grams Aluminum) using a blender on high speed; no ignition or explosion (forms a uniform mixture of aluminum flash powder). "

...
wow
...

[Edited on 31-3-12 by The_Davster]

Rosco Bodine - 31-3-2012 at 12:07

Psi-Ops ...... ( or is that oops )

Game Over

AndersHoveland - 31-3-2012 at 21:09

Quote:

Jared Ledgard:
"You can safely blend pure potassium chlorate and pure sulfur (250 grams KClO3 and 98 grams of Sulfur) in a blender under high speed with no ignition or explosion. You can also blend pure powdered potassium perchlorate with powdered aluminum (300 grams KClO4 and 155 grams Aluminum) using a blender on high speed; no ignition or explosion (forms a uniform mixture of aluminum flash powder)."

I was laughing reading this; these are instructions for a disaster! In a high-speed blender?! Really?

There are many compositions that can be safely mixed together, but these two instances are just NOT one of them. I am not sure the exact probability of explosion trying to mix each of these compositions with such intense agitation, but I am sure the risk, though perhaps small, is nevertheless significant.

Just leaving a mixture of chlorate and sulfur by itself in storage there can be spontaneous ignition and explosion. And there have been many accidents in factories that manufacture flash powder. There are actually blast shields surrounding the automated mixing stage, because from time to time the flash powder will sometimes explode when it is being mixed. And this mixing involves far less agitation than an industrial mixer! Usually gentle sifting of the two powders together is done, in small batches.

caterpillar - 1-4-2012 at 02:01

Head of an ordinary match contents KClO3 and sulfur. One needn't a blender- when I was young, there was such a fashion- ignite matches by friction of one's trousers. I do not know about KClO4 + Al, but as for me I'd prefer to make another experiments.

Formatik - 5-4-2012 at 12:10

Quote: Originally posted by The_Davster

From the mind of jared ledgard on his homepage:
http://www.uvkchem.com/
...
wow
...

lol

So now it's not only that ammonium chlorate is stable, but that chlorate and sulfur mixtures are safe to grind in a blender.

But really, here is what happens when even much less sensitive black powder ingredients (potassium nitrate, sulfur and charcoal) are blended together in a blender - the blender becomes a grenade!:

YouTube - ‪Aftermath, 30 grams of black powder in a Blender, indoors‬: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHLIkyA5Nz0

franklyn - 20-12-2012 at 23:45

and now , for something really pathetic and kewl to the max

http://www.youtube.com/embed/RcIMuoUcc1s

<iframe sandbox width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RcIMuoUcc1s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

.