Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2
Author: Subject: Help: Can ETN/PETN 4:6 be poured safely in a vacuum vibration environment?
Microtek
National Hazard
****




Posts: 861
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 27-9-2023 at 08:10


It would be better if you did sensitivity tests on molten ETN in even smaller amounts (less than 1 g). So melt such a small amount and hit it in a measurable manner and compare to solid ETN and PETN. Then do the vacuum treated molten ETN to see if there is any significant difference. Remember to do at LEAST five repetitions.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PLSHY
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 91
Registered: 30-7-2023
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 28-9-2023 at 03:36


I found that all current etn-related accidents are caused by temperature, not mechanical impact. This means that if no heat source is used during the pouring process, most accidents can be avoided! Finally, I decided to test the impact sensitivity of melted etn and its safety under vacuum. If the melted etn with bubbles removed can achieve a lower impact sensitivity than PVA-LA, I will use 1:1 etn/petn in water The shaped charge warhead is cast below, divided into 200 grams and 100 grams. I believe this will achieve good results. It is expected to launch this warhead in December, and relevant information will be posted on the shaped charge thread at that time.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MineMan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1004
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-10-2023 at 00:40


This is dumb.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MineMan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1004
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-10-2023 at 00:41


Accident in the making. Accept
Things
As they are
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PLSHY
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 91
Registered: 30-7-2023
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 5-10-2023 at 10:28


Quote: Originally posted by MineMan  
This is dumb.
Oh my god, isn't that enough? Is it also foolish to add proof of theory to reality testing? If you want to refute me, you should use theory to prove why my theory is wrong, or give a few examples of accidental melting etn caused by mechanical impact! Instead of just saying "You're so stupid" and walking away, it makes me so angry! I suspect you didn't watch the entire discussion and just saw the outcome: "I'm going to use a lot of melt etn"

[Edited on 5-10-2023 by PLSHY]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Microtek
National Hazard
****




Posts: 861
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-10-2023 at 22:34


In engineering courses on risk assessment and management you learn that the burden of proof must be the other way round. You want to do an activity such as melt casting a large amount of sensitive HE. We can identify several possible outcomes, at least one of which is catastrophic (the accidental detonation of the HE). If we assume that this outcome is likely, we can conduct the process with adequate precautions (remote operation, large safety distance and so on), and if the assumption turns out to be wrong, we will only have wasted the effort that went into our precautionary measures.
Conversely, if we assume that the catastrophic outcome is UNlikely, and therefore conduct the procedure without safety measures, then if the assumption turns out to be wrong we will lose life or limb.
So, it is a question of what you risk losing. You must understand that extrapolating from observations made in a different context means that you assume that the same mechanism apply in this context. And also that the absence of reports about mechanically induced accidents while melt casting ETN may be explained precisely by people dying when they try it.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
UndermineBriarEverglade
Harmless
*




Posts: 42
Registered: 13-6-2024
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 27-9-2024 at 06:34


PLSHY, did you ever carry out this experiment? It seems like a bad idea to pour molten ETN, or to vibrate it. Its sensitivity is dramatically higher when melted. For instance Lease et al. 2018 found that molten ETN could be detonated by 2.5kg dropped from 1cm, an impact of 0.25J. That was close to the low end of what their apparatus could test.

But I have also been thinking of melting ETN in a vacuum to extract bubbles.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PLSHY
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 91
Registered: 30-7-2023
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 30-10-2024 at 08:57


Thanks to the forum for reminding me, I didn't do this experiment in the end. A friend of mine did this experiment, he soaked it in hot water and then ran away quickly. In the end, there was no accident, but the experiment failed and the melted etn leaked out. After that, we did not conduct related experiments again, but turned to looking for more convenient, cheap and safe mixed explosives. Looking back, this was indeed dangerous and irresponsible behavior. If anyone has ever been angered by me, I sincerely apologize to you.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PLSHY
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 91
Registered: 30-7-2023
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 30-10-2024 at 09:05


We tried some other explosives, such as tmptn and dipehn. But they all failed, and we never found an excellent casting explosive like etn. tmptn turns into a sticky paste after nitration (and is difficult to solidify). Dipehn produces holes when casting. We also tried many ways to improve their shortcomings, but ultimately failed. The process of testing them is very interesting, if anyone wants to hear it, I can send it out
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PLSHY
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 91
Registered: 30-7-2023
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 30-10-2024 at 09:06


We tried some other explosives, such as tmptn and dipehn. But they all failed, and we never found an excellent casting explosive like etn. tmptn turns into a sticky paste after nitration (and is difficult to solidify). Dipehn produces holes when casting. We also tried many ways to improve their shortcomings, but ultimately failed. The process of testing them is very interesting, if anyone wants to hear it, I can send it out
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2

  Go To Top