TATP--How sensitive is it?

Again without knowing the production variables there is no real gage for that answer in so far as the effecency of the material as an energetic can be hieghtened or lessened, etc.
However think of it as over an ounce of a familiar primary, let's say Hg fulminate (although that's a very unprofessional thing to say but seriously safer material) and that's what gonna' pop..... well if it takes a gram of mercury fulminate to make up a #6 cap; you have about 30 #6 caps poping at once.....Jesus, this sounds bad....OK, so 30 caps are going off and if they are out in the open you have a seriously big bang! A really big loud noise. BUT --- if it's contained... then you have a situation that needs addressing as that can be a danger to those around you. So don't contain the material.

Also we are getting out of chemistry here and dealing with funtional issues here. I have enormous respect for the moderators here so if you have dynamic query here better to U2U me and we can chat about that there.

[Edited on 28-1-2007 by quicksilver]

Lol, at least he was not talking about stuffing it into a steel container!

30 grams of TCAP will detonate under any circumstances and can kill without a doubt if you hold it in your hand while it goes off. Although deflageration of small amounts may look not very impressive, TACP is NOT harmless or a weak explosive! Compared to TNT it gives leadblock expansions up to 80% or 250 ml...
And don't be fooled by it's sensivity by hitting it with a hammer! It's friction sensitivity is what makes it really dangerous, especially with increasing crystal size. When I used to make TCAP for detonators, I occasionally heard small clicks when I gently scraped off the crystals (wooden spatula) that had been drying on a piece of paper. Just to give you an idea...

It's ability to deflagerate without confinement is deceptive as well, even a single piece of paper loosely put over the TCAP may provide enough confinement to result in detonation...

[Edit] Hehe, quicksilver beat me to it...



[Edited on 28-1-2007 by nitro-genes]

With more than 25% water TCAP becomes very insensitive indeed, though compressing sensitive primaries to a higher density it will not reduce sensitivity like it would with secondary explosives. Compressing lead azide for example will have little effect on it's sensitivity and the ability to make DDT upon ignition. In the past I have experimented with molten droplets of TCAP from a double recrystallized sample from acetone. (in the microwave actually, don't burn me for this, it was on a less than 50 mg scale ) I found that even though the density of the droplets (once it was cooled) was higher than water, it made DDT in much smaller amounts than the loose powder did. Even the smallest droplets detonated by flame without any confinement, showing high brisancy by punching a hole trough the plate is was on. Very strange...(admittedly of no value though)

" it still doesn't explode by itself unless the conditions promote a detonation "

Isn't that true for every explosive? Those peroxide bonds are pretty sensitive by themselves, add up the ringstrain of the dimer, which will always be present in your product, and it is obvious that the conditions for TCAP to detonate do not need to be as obvious as mistreating it. UV radiation like on a hot day in summer combined with confinement can be enough, just like the static electricity spark from wearing wool or synthetic clothing. When I'm working with flashpowder, I choose a humid day, deelectrify myself by touching the metal watertap, lock up the cat, and never think about using plastic or metal tools. This may seem paronoid, but static electricity is a an issue in pyrotechnics that is taken very serious. It would be lunacy not to so with something as sensitive and dangerous as TCAP!

TCAP is remarkably stable btw, not remotely comparable to it's cousine HMTD for that matter. The volatility of the compound is what is dangerous, and can be mistaken for decomposition. Recrystallized and stored under a layer of destilled water it remains intact for many years. This is not recommended though, since drying out of the container would mean serious trouble...

[Edited on 30-1-2007 by nitro-genes]

Quote:

Originally posted by nitro-genes Isn't that true for every explosive? Those peroxide bonds are pretty sensitive by themselves, add up the ringstrain of the dimer, which will always be present in your product, and it is obvious that the conditions for TCAP to detonate do not need to be as obvious as mistreating it. UV radiation like on a hot day in summer combined with confinement can be enough, just like the static electricity spark from wearing wool or synthetic clothing. When I'm working with flashpowder, I choose a humid day, deelectrify myself by touching the metal watertap, lock up the cat, and never think about using plastic or metal tools. This may seem paronoid, but static electricity is a an issue in pyrotechnics that is taken very serious. It would be lunacy not to so with something as sensitive and dangerous as TCAP!

You bet that. And I bet that HMX + HNIW are last!

Not to make a one-liner... There is a way of storage apart from the under-water-in-plastic-under-saran-wrap method, which also is accident-free to my knowledge (the fingers fly later, after drying):

Acetone solution, crashed into water before use. Stores for years just like wet crystals, but is even safer (probably undetonable), plus it gives superfine (1) crystals while even under water, they seem to grow with time.

(1) Usually, if spread thinly on paper TATP disappears within 2-3 month at RT. The crashed powder did so in two days (admittedly near the radiator, but still much faster). Another advantage: You cannot *forget* the shit somewhere, then weeks later drop a ciggie on it

Nonsense.

The trimer is only marginally less sensitive. Those 2cm drop for a 300g hammer equal *3mm* for the standard 2kg hammer. This is about 6-7 times less than nitroglycerine or mercury fulminate at 4cm.

Keeping this in mind, I don't give a fuck whether "Compressed TATP can detonate PLX, ANNM, ANFO, ANNMAL" (photoguy) if I have to use "small amounts (<3-4 g)" (chemoleo) to do this. Rather use 0.1g with a 1g base charge of a much more brisant HE like PETN/MAN/ETN. *If* you have to use it that is, otherwise 25-50mg of an azide or clathrate would be better to get the solid nitric ester going.

BTW I doubt you managed to det ANFO with TATP alone. Oh sorry, I forgot you used 200 gram for a cap

The reason that HMTD was experiemented with at all was that IT was a viable initatior: but not TATP. The need for more than a gram-level of material has been one of the factors amongst many that kept it from even making it into the USBoM's discussion of alternatives to Hg Fulminate. Has single gram levels initiated secondaries? On occation it has, but not consistently. That lack of consistency, relaibility, & predicability has made that material simply a field expedient explosive since it's isolation. In fact, peroxides have generally been viewed as a lab hazard for the most part: a by-product of improper storage.
HMTD on the other hand has resulted in accidents from unpredictable things like the withdrawl of a tamping rod from a cap body. But if powdered Al was used as a dry lubricant that may have been avioded...no it was the static, not the friction...no, it was the crushing of crystaline material built up on the tamp rod.... Good Lord, that's too damn much for me.
Studying it (TATP, etc) from a "paper perspective" is one thing but I can't deny the stats that place it on the top of listed materials to aviod. Too many people who have a great degree of experience with energetic material have been hurt by it.
People make it, work with it time after time and believe that THEY won't have an accident until they do. Then you never hear from them again. After being blinded, loosing fingers, etc who wants to hear: "I told you so"?
There are a Hell of a lot of people who have worked with energetic materials on this board. Most have very strong opinions about what and how to work with these same materials. Unfortunatly the commonality is the concept of "it hasn't happened, so it won't happen". That's exactly why it only makes sense to work with any energetic material on the gram level or below.
Strong opinions generally come from a powerful experience with something {pun intened}.


A guy once was very candid with me. He told me of loosing sight in an eye from an experiment gone bad. I really appriecied his honesty with me. But he also said he never wanted to "re-live" that same tragidy and I can respect that. I also knew a guy with no thumb and fore finger...HE did tell me the whole sorry affair and it was bad.
He had some TATP in a plastic film can and opened the lid. That's all. I asked if it was dry, I asked if he made sure the rim was clean, bla, bla, bla.... But the bottom line was what happened when he got hurt. We are talking about 20 grams IIRC. The blast was so loud that he got deaf for a long time and he couldn't drive from the injury. but he said he was bleeding like a fountain and HE KNEW he lost his thumb. He wrapped the hand up in a towel and had to call 911. he made up a story about picking up a "piece of metal that exploded". That was a big mistake. The ambulance people were OK but at the hospital, the ER doc thought that there might be "more" of whatever hurt this guy floating around and naturally called the sherriff. The sherriff then called the feds because he wasn't going to go hunt around for something that could hurt HIM like that! Well you can imagine what happened next!
I'll keep this guy's confidentiality and leave it right there...but you get the idea. Getting hurt is bad enough! But getting in deep Doo-Doo on top of THAT is actual torture.....you can't think because you hurt so bad, Remember you have exposed nerves, broken bones, torn tissue....you can't hear, you can't plan to minimize the problems....Makes BP rockets seem like a good idea to me.



[Edited on 5-2-2007 by quicksilver]

Another thread about HMTD in which several incidents occured with experienced people:

http://yarchive.net/explosives/hmtd.html

Simply pressing HMTD into blasting caps can lead to a spontaneous detonation. Note that using other metal tubing than aluminium, like copper, reduces the force needed for accidental detonation considerably, indicating the sensitivity of HMTD to catalysing impurities even when completely dry...

The iniating ability of HMTD is phenominal though, equal or even better than lead azide or DDNP. The statement that HMTD is less powerfull than TATP is probably derived from comparing detonation velocity figures which mention 5300 m/s for TATP at near crystal density (1.2 g/cc) and only 4800 m/s for HMTD at a density of 1.0 g/cc. The crystal density of HMTD however is 1.57, much higher than TATP, with theoretical detonation velocities far exceeding TATP. This potential can never be realized though because there is a certain pressing force above which HMTD will cetainly detonate. This is where I think the HMTD/AN or HMTD/MAN double salt would have a significant advantage. The sensitivity should be examined in detail before such an attempt should be made of course. I don't think many members are enthusiastic about experimenting with organic peroxides, though someone might have clue about the behaviour and performance of such a hypothetical doublesalt...

[Edited on 9-2-2007 by nitro-genes]

Yup! You're absolutely right!

Cited from a copy of an army technical manual about military explosives:

"When subjected to the sand test with ignition by
a black powder fuse, the brisance of normal lead
styphnate (10.5 grams of sand crushed) is much less
than that of lead azide (16.7 grams of sand crushed).
However, when initiated with a small charge of mercury
fulminate or lead azide, the brisance (24 grams of sand
crushed) is greater than that of lead azide or mercury
fulminate"

Lead styphnate can probably LVD easily or become deadpressed (densities as used for lead styphnate are rarely beyond 2.5 g/cc while it's crystal density was something like 4.something) and may not be able to sustain high order detonation from a fuse or a small enough amount of LA to be used in a detonator instead of LA. VoD's of about 5200 m/s are found for lead styphnate though this was found by detonating it with a blasting cap, quite different from lighting it with a fuse!

I wasn't talking about vague patents btw, but scientific literature in which *tests* were conducted to see the initiating ability of HMTD at only 1000 psi towards several secondary HE's. Real tests in the real world (just like the small critical diameter PBX tests ). These tests concluded that there is little difference between the initiating ability on a weight basis compared to dextrinated LA, and furthermore, that there is only a 20% decrease in initiating ability for an unreenforced detonator compared to an reenforced detonator. My HMTD needed slightly more confinement than TATP, but compressed in a thin cardboard tubing it made DDT reliably from the slightest spit of a fuse. Still despite it's very good initating ability, the dangers of working with this material still stand and I advice everyone still using HMTD to search for an other primary to use...

There are two types of initiating explosives, for sensitive basecharge material, like PETN, tetryl RDX, etc, and for insensitive HE's like TNT or AN based. A good performance with the first group will not garantee a good performance for the others. A good example is the AgNO3*HNO3 double salt. 0.05 grams suffices for PETN in a reenforced detonator, almost as good as dextrinated lead azide, though you can cram as much as you want of it in a steel pipe, I doubt it will be able to set of ANFO. From my own experience, 400-500 mg of pressed HMTD however can reliably initiate kinepack and ammonal types of explosives (!) something that TATP or MF couldn't do, so in this sense it really is a very powerfull initiator. Since all modern blasting caps contain basecharges like PETN or RDX, LA is the primary of choice because of it's combination of low pressure force to achieve high density,very rapid accelleration and high order VoD even when fully compressed. This was the main flaw with DDNP IIRC, it needed much larger pressing force to obtain maximum density and could become deadpressed as well, just as lead styphnate can...

[Edited on 9-2-2007 by nitro-genes]

The freebasing of hydrazine has already been discussed in great detail in the sticky hydrazine thread and the sodium azide thread . I don't understand how that falls short of "full details" being disclosed ..except that I did not personally write up a formal step by step . The information is already there in portions in different threads .

Search and you will find .

There is also a going beyond the methods I described , with the hydrogen peroxide oxidation of hydrazine sulfate .....which although less efficient is certainly simple .
So there is a way of using hydrogen peroxide to
get to sodium azide although it is much more technically
complicated than making AP .

And also there is microteks work on
freebasing hydrazine hydrate into isopropanol .

Certainly anyone wanting to synthesize sodium azide is not being kept from it by my not writing a 123 step by step .

And there already being available at least three good lab synthetic routes to sodium azide , aside from airbag salvage and the ordered chemical sources as well .....

I simply don't see that any lack of interest in different
azo-clathrates is due to some unavailability of sodium azide .

As for the dangers , that's been covered also .
Maybe I changed my mind about writing a 123 step by step
just because of what is going on here right now ,
and what the cause of that need for clarification speaks to
is a lack of study and skills and knowledge that makes me uncomfortable as handing the keys to the car to a 12 year old .....and saying " now be careful " .

If that reserve has discredited me ...well fine , sue me

But I am still going to leave the unwritten " recipe "
where it is . A variation on microteks method is more
technically simple and attainable anyway ....and this is old news .

One of the things that made me hesitant in making the azoclathrates was the incorporation of a fair amount of lead picrate. Lead picrate alone is pretty sensitive to static, friction and shock, more so in any case than LA alone and is described in literature as a dangerous and unpredicatble compound. Although I must admit this is from literature only since I've no experience with it myself.
Never seen any good sensitivity test concerning the clathrates, so for many people it may be a fair choice to stay with the well documented and thoroughly described LA instead of a relatively new and undescribed product from a patent. (From which you say yourself can contain a lot of bogus information. )

[Edited on 9-2-2007 by nitro-genes]

Quote:

Originally posted by nitro-genes One of the things that made me hesitant in making the azoclathrates was the incorporation of a fair amount of lead picrate. Lead picrate alone is pretty sensitive to static, friction and shock, more so in any case than LA alone and is described in literature as a dangerous and unpredicatble compound. Although I must admit this is from literature only since I've no experience with it myself.

Quote:

Never seen any good sensitivity test concerning the clathrates, so for many people it may be a fair choice to stay with the well documented and thoroughly described LA instead of a relatively new and undescribed product from a patent. (From which you say yourself can contain a lot of bogus information. )

Quote:

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine Following that same convoluted logic , then Lead Styphnate is a wonderful initiator even better than mercury fulminate , since lead styphnate accellerated by lead azide will do the same thing even better than mercury fulminate . Yup! You're absolutely right! Cited from a copy of an army technical manual about military explosives: "When subjected to the sand test with ignition by a black powder fuse, the brisance of normal lead styphnate (10.5 grams of sand crushed) is much less than that of lead azide (16.7 grams of sand crushed). However, when initiated with a small charge of mercury fulminate or lead azide, the brisance (24 grams of sand crushed) is greater than that of lead azide or mercury fulminate" Lead styphnate can probably LVD easily or become deadpressed (densities as used for lead styphnate are rarely beyond 2.5 g/cc while it's crystal density was something like 4.something) and may not be able to sustain high order detonation from a fuse or a small enough amount of LA to be used in a detonator instead of LA. VoD's of about 5200 m/s are found for lead styphnate though this was found by detonating it with a blasting cap, quite different from lighting it with a fuse.

So here's more off topic information ...but relevant to
reply to what you are saying .

Actually I have tried many composite mixes including
that one , and the only lead salt mixture which I found showing that synergistic increase was the mixture of
lead styphnate and lead azide , a mixture which is well known and has been documented and published by several sources as well as being used commercially .

The only composition of lead salts which I found among the *few* I tested which would high order detonate from the use of a small layer of azide as a shock initiator ,
was a nitrocellulose bindered and hardened putty which
was filled with the triple salt clathrate ( basic lead picrate - lead nitrate - lead chlorate ) . Observing this
led me to attempt the quadruple clathrate complex
having included lead azide based upon that particular
substrate ......an experiment which was successful ,
although I have not yet given the details for that
synthesis . The chlorate variant did prove to be a
more powerful , perhaps 25% more powerful initiator
than the non-chlorate variant and seemed to have
a saturation limit of azide well beyond the non-chlorate variant . I expect that a perchlorate variant would
likely also form according to the same scheme , but
I have not tried this . The yield was above 90% but was not quantitative , so I was uncertain about the exact
composition of the clathrate produced and I have not repeated the experiment . But it appeared likely to me
that the crystalline variant was likely :

4 [ Pb(C6H2N3O7)2 - Pb(OH)2 - Pb(NO3)2 - Pb(CLO3)2 - Pb(N3)2 ] - 16 Pb(N3)2

This is an exception to what is declared in the Kenney patent with regards to saturation limit for occluded
Pb(N3)2 being at 13 , soooo I was a bit uncertain of my own preliminary estimate and observations , especially without repeating the experiment . But anyway , that's what I found .

The next experiment contemplated was to try the perchlorate variant and see what resulted .

Anyway , this is a good example of the purely experimental scenarios I mentioned earlier . So
where exactly in the literature do you go for information
concerning a compound which just made its earthly
debut five minutes ago in your beaker ?

Answer : You don't go anywhere except your own notes
and understanding , trying to keep some rational perspective about what you are doing , consider the
possibilities and make an educated *guess*

[Edited on 10-2-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

How true. But there lies a danger in it, just like in you saying:

"Having good information from experiments is better than unconfirmed information from literature references".

I know you did not mean it that way, but the danger I see is people - especially young beginners - conclude a compound is safe, and dangers are exaggerated, because 'nothing happened' the last few times. I have read many claims by noobs stating "You are stoopid, my AP is safe, I made 3 pounds and nothing happened!"

Don't get me wrong, I know you for a serious scientist, but reading

"Lead picrate alone is ... described in literature as a dangerous and unpredictable compound" (nitro-genes)
"I do have some experience with it and the literature from where you got that information is wrong" (Rosco)

at least makes me doubtfull whether SOME (your words) experience by ONE person, even through real-world experiments, is enough to disclaim the dangers of a compound cited again and again in the literature. After all, it *is* one of the most sensitive primaries. And reading "unpredictable" raises more flags for me than "extremely sensitive". In the latter case, at least you know what to expect.

BTW my personal opinion is that of a person who has little time for experiments, and whose main interest is not in making the perfect primary:
How much I would like to make the clathrates etc. I still go with TATP how sad it may be, for the following reasons (apart from little time):

- A compound cap with the sensitive MHN needs far under 100mg even of this, and say 50mg is an amount I am willing to handle. A remote press is needed anyway, *whatever* you press on top of 2g MHN or PETN.

- My caps are either electric and fully moulded, or the fuse is secured in place first. This way, the primary is safe from mechanical forces and static once finished.

- The non-electric ones tend to be self-defusing once the TATP sublimates, in case you forget one or have to store for longer that planned. I disassembled several caps after 1-2 years which only had an empty space above the MHN, meaning they were safe.

- There is still the EBW

Oh and about TATP *being so much weaker* than HMTD, my real world testing showed both are more than sufficient if directly on top of a nitric ester. Needless to say I prefer the chemically stable TATP then. From fragmentation tests, I would rate HMTD 30-40% above TATP.

Whatever primary you use, a compound cap is the way to go - Let a secondary do the job of kick-starting the main charge - They are more brisant than any primary anyway. Why discuss the difference between 4800 m/s and 5300 m/s when there are enough compounds going 8000+ m/s with 50mg of just about anything on top going first?

I am not generalizing to the point of saying that all the literature is wrong about everything , on the contrary it is pretty reliable about almost everything , and should be presumed reliable in the absence of any good evidence to the contrary , which are exceptions .

But neither am I going to dismiss the significance of experimental data , when experiments show me directly
that something described in the literature is wrong .
COPAE has errors in it , and so does PATR , Urbanski ,
and other literature , patents included , and professional journals .....nothing in human endeavor is error free ,
and when you do some in depth fact checking and verification experiments ......you absolutely will find
errors in the literature , often simple typos , but also
more than that .....stating of information , usually conclusions or generalizations made by the writer but
stated for fact instead of qualified as opinion , which
are things that are simply not so Also there is a
common mistake of stating things which may be true
in an exceptional circumstance , without making it clear
that the statement is only true in a highly qualified and
restricted sense and should not be taken as a sweeping generalization . The dangers concerning picrates have been mischaracterized in that way .

Lead picrate has been used commercially in cartridge primers , and it is fit for such use . If it was unduly sensitive and dangerous , then it would never have been
used as an improvement over fulminate , which it is .
Basic lead picrate is better still , and its double salt with lead nitrate . Lead styphnate is better yet and has become the standard primer .

This is *not* the experience of *one* person ....
which makes me conclude that some of the literature
is in error . There are errors in the literature which I have pointed out as they appear to me , so that others can take a look and see that this is so .....and any careful reader will find and can confirm these errors themselves .
Frankly , if your knowledge of explosives is based only on unverified information which you have accumulated from
reading ......it is something like having read volumes about fishing without ever wetting a line , and then claiming to be a master angler .

Anyway , I hesitate to even post anymore in peroxide
discussions because they always without fail make a descent into arguments which are meaningless and
unscientific . That seems to be where this discussion
is going . I have followed carefully the online discussions
of energetic materials for years and have tried to make my contributions , and to clear the air of the smell of way too much bullshit being stated by " experts " for fact .
I have tried to provide *verifiable* , *repeatable* ,
detailed and accurate information to substantiate what I say . If I haven't got credibility ....then please ...
send in someone who does .

Anyway , lead picrate is somewhat irrelevant with regards to discussing the azo-clathrates , because it isn't lead picrate that is the substrate anyway ....but it is
the basic lead salt that is the clathrate former , and
I don't claim to know more than anybody else about
this particular family of salts , just that I have tried to
share some accurate and useful information about them
and point to references and experiments which are of
interest and which seem to provide reliable information
which should be of value . I'll leave it where it is now ,
and what is so or not so can pass or fail on its own merits .

From the perspective of NaN3 economy and it's initiating ability these clathrates defenitely seem very interesting and usefull, with a huge amount of other possible related compounds yet to investigate. I never claimed to be an expert by saying that lead picrate is described as a very sensitive compound as I said myself that I hadn't got any experience with it myself. It is just that I haven't seen any conclusive data about it's sensitivity, or I must have missed it completely, in which case I sincerely apologize. Everyone presents it as beeing a worldclass primary (by saying this I don't mean it isn't) which led me to believe that the sensitivity of this compound was tested to be low or at least not higher than the parental compounds alone, but apparently noone knows or has tried to find out, which I find strange...

Anyway, these homemade PETN PBX sheet explosives with critictal diameter of under a mm turned out to be validated multiple times and caught on video by an experienced person as well, though I seem to remember someone calling this bullshit because of some unscientific arguments and without any first hand experience as well.... So let's call it even shall we?

Just kidding, no harm intended!

[Edited on 13-2-2007 by nitro-genes]

The only written descriptions of which I am aware concerning the azo-clathrates is a brief mention in
PATR , which references the patents ....along with what
I have written myself Actually I believe Von Herz and Friedrich were aware of some of these multiple salts , but
never fully understood exactly what they were was clathrates nor fully described them .

I seem to have a talent for obscure topics of interest as
curiosities so if anyone finds anything more ....
please share .

Regarding the chlorate , perchlorate , and other variants
it works just the same as when forming the acetate or
aminoacetate , lactate , ......and azide variants ....you
simply add a soluble sodium , potassium , or perhaps ammonium salt of the desired acid , to an equimolar amount of additional lead nitrate being present in advance in the original reaction mixture , and double
decomposition occurs , with the new lead salt being formed .....complexing itself into the clathrate . This
will occur even in opposition to what the usual solubility
driven double decomposition would provide .

Actually this was described in detail in the earlier patents
which dealt with the non-azide containing clathrates ,
and it works exactly the same way with the azo-clathrates .

So ( theoretically ) ....
if you wanted to introduce lead perchlorate ,
you would simply add sodium or potassium or ammonium perchlorate in the amount corresponding to the molar
amount of basic lead picrate - lead nitrate already formed , in a residual solution containing excess lead nitrate which will then further react to form lead perchlorate , which would complex to form basic lead picrate - lead nitrate - lead perchlorate .

*All* of the sequential lead salts in the clathrate are
derived from lead nitrate alone . All of the other lead salts
in the complex are formed by double decomposition .

Some of the luckiest moves I have made were wondering into the chemistry building at the local U and simply asking for old stock. I wound up w/ perchloric acid (which was a whole world of discovery unto itself)..... until that time I was utilizing ammonium perchlorate but I found some limitations there. But my prize thus far is cupric, nickel & mercuric nitrate (they had a hell of a lot of water in them due to their age but I dried them out)......the cupric turned out to be much too sensitive to make more than a few Mg of azide (that's a story!) but Hg NO3 might form the basis for a unique clathrate. From what I read crystal size influences mercuric azide however they only seem to present an issue if one re-crystalizes, as the initial product is tiny. But in a clathrate the size issue raises it's fearsom head..... Another thing I found fun is a web page that is popped out by a guy who sells used microscopes. I found a 100-300x that has a measuring element to it and I check the crystals through it (it's a cheapy but it works). One day I am going to find a way to attach a camera and post some pics.

I did a little internet search to try and track down Joseph F Kenney, the author of the clathrate patents, in hopes that I could email him and request more information about the clathrates that he patented.

Unfortunatly, it appears that he already got old and died around ten years ago.

I found this info on a certain Joseph F. Kenney:

JOSEPH F KENNEY, 16 Mar 1927, 18 Mar 1997

Maybe it's not the same person? Anyway, he must have already been 40 years old (if same person) when he published/applied for the patent on the "azo-clathrates". Only lived to 70? Too bad for us, as he would likely have extensive information on the properties of those compounds that was simply too exaustive to include in the patents.

[Edited on 15-2-2007 by Sickman]

well, I actually tried the listed Kenny varients some time back. My results very very interesting in that what was projected for yield was not realized by my efforts. On the other hand; the sensivity of a clathrate made with PbNO3 -=appeared=- higher that one made with acetate. The styphnate issue sounds likely and would be very simple for me to give it a go. but in my heart, I want to attempt something wilder as I have a gut feeling that there is more to the clathrate concept than meets the eye. However I realize that IF it should actually form up, that the utility is as a simple curiousoty. UNLESS there is a method of working with the yield issue.
Remember you made a statement to the effect of " where else can you invest 25 gr of azide and get a yield of this level"? Shit; I don't know how you figured out the extrapolated formula that you did but, it's true, the yield for your clathrate was better than those listed in the Kenny patent. I know that for a fact as I tried the various listed clathrates and were below the margin of the one you worked out.
And indeed I thought of a differing salt but I doubt I would try it until I had more info. What I was thinking of was HgNO3-> mercuric azide -> a clathrate in the usual manner. It's heavy, etc. But there may be more to lead than the superrficiality of weght. I simply don't have enough information. Thus saturday will be my study day and sunday my lab yea!

Yeah the methods described by Kenney can be refined ,
as regards to sequence and temperatures , concentrations . IIRC the basic lead picrate - lead nitrate - lead chlorate
( non-azo clathrate ) yield is increased considerably by first forming the basic lead picrate alone , and then adding the lead nitrate - lead chlorate components as a mixed solution of lead nitrate and potassium chlorate .....as opposed to Kenneys method which has all of the lead nitrate in the reaction mixture from the start .

I'll have to check my notes and see how it was proportionally divided .....I can't remember if it was a mixture balanced for double decomposition to lead chlorate alone , or for that , and additional lead nitrate supplying the lead nitrate portion of the triple salt . I don't recall the exact sequencing I used , but I may be able to figure it out ...it was one way or the other .

I'll review my notes and try to remember the sequence ,
as I believe it is correct that I was able to also make
a 4/16 azo-clathrate based upon that basic lead picrate - lead nitrate - lead chlorate . By 4/16 what I mean to
say is represented :

4 [ Pb(C6H2N3O7)2 - Pb(OH)2 - Pb(NO3)2 - Pb(ClO3)2 - Pb(N3)2 ] 16 (PbN3)2

At first I thought it was possibly 4/17 .....but I think that
it was probably oversaturated slightly , and 4/16 is
more likely ....unless it is just an error in my notes .
I use abbreviations and improvised shorthand on notations
which are clear to me for the time I am doing experiments ,
but if I fail to transcribe the notes to plain english within
a reasonable time .....I forget my own abbreviations and
in time it becomes so much jibberish , so that I may have to repeat the experiments to try to figure out what in the hell I was doing Hopefully the math will allow me figure out
the verbal description which correlates and then I can
transcribe / translate these damn hieroglyphics that too
often are my " lab notes " .

-=I am VERY familiar with the "transcription" issue=-

Yea, If you can find any related info; let me know or post it.
Over the weekend - I attempted a crystal growth/sensitivity experiment with azo-clathrate material and it does appear that if the crystal is grown (as in lead azide) the sensitivity spikes appriciably. This may seem like common sense however I was wondering if the lattice effects the material through a physical "buffer". My experiments show this is not the case. Using a measuring mircoscope and re-crystalization of azo-clathrate so that I had a consistent sample that was larger than the original; it's sensitivty was much greater to friction, impact and (to a limited extent) heat.

I had some notes that I wrote about two weeks ago (that I actually really wanted to utilize) and I couldn't figure out what one third of it was. If they ever make a device for a handheld recorder that transcribes into text for a PC I may just invest.

[Edited on 20-2-2007 by quicksilver]

AP test what would it do to your hand (video)

Holy crap! Nice test

Why do people make AP? Its cheap and thats it! Way too sensitive and not that powerful.
There was a case not long ago in Denmark, where a group of young muslims (I feel bad for all muslims, because some think that blowing up civilians or other targets
in a fight for God you'll get rewarded. I have read about Islam and it is a beautiful and peaceful religion and way of life. Too bad very few people see that, even amongst them self) was arrested for making AP, it turned out to be a terror cell. But because of lack of evidence, only one was sentenced. He got 10.. or was it 14 years in the prison.
What were they thinking? You need ALOT of AP to do some real damage to buildings, I belive.

Explosives are fun yes, but putting a explosive compund in a small closed can of some sort, is just plane dump, think about it.

Good one!

And in case he's more into the practical applications, Cooper's "Explosive Engineering" is a must-have.

For even more hand-on practice, we recommend Bulson's "Explosive Loading of Engineering Structures".
It's a bit pricey at 243.75$ from the ISEE, but then he doesn't have to rent a Ryder truck.

Quote: Originally posted by Adas

I must say that TATP is not sensitive to (UV) light - I tried magnifying glass (11cm, pretty large) + direct sunlight

Quote: Originally posted by caterpillar

it is less sensitive than mercury fulminate.

Quote: Originally posted by Adas

Quote: Originally posted by caterpillar   it is less sensitive than mercury fulminate. Yeah, and the dumbasses still put mercury fulminate into blasting caps instead of using something less sensitive and - most importantly - LESS TOXIC! TATP is not so sensitive when the 2 surfaces (or just one of them) is not hard - for example, you can hit TATP hard on wooden surface using a glass bottle, and nothing happens - I tested. Even when the wood seems to be a hard surface, it actually isn't. People tend to overestimate its unstability, because they don't want any terrorists and kids to make it. Even TATP made at room temp is not nearly as sensitive as some sources say. [Edited on 27-1-2012 by Adas]

Quote: Originally posted by DDTea

You can be empathetic, definitely. It's all very sad. However, the whole concept of "what not to do" misses the point. Those discussions tend to be along the lines of, "He had an accident because he was drying AP under a heat lamp," or, "Your batch blew up because you were using plastic equipment and a static discharge occurred." Everyone always thinks that they know more than they do and that accidents won't happen to them. After all, they've read all the "What not to do" accounts/articles and are pretty sure they know what they're doing. Teenagers, especially, have this sort of invincibility complex. Combine that with explosives that will go off with a hair trigger and it's asking for trouble. But then, we already knew this. So having people blow themselves up as a testament of "what not to do" is the ultimate waste, not the ultimate sacrifice that being a 'martyr' would imply.

Detonating urea nitrate

Quote: Originally posted by caterpillar

if you have 1gr of a primer the worst thing what may happen is one, well, up to two thown away fingers. The only real hazardous situation is when you insert a primer into some larger charge.