| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by hissingnoise
OK, grndpndr and Rosco, if you were to find (by accident), say, a kilo of explosive, which explosive would you most like it to be---an acid substance
which stains everything it touches, attacking most metals forming sensitive and dangerous salts while having a couple of per cent more power than TNT.
Or would you wish it to be a really potent HE like HNIW, octogen or sorguyl. . .?
Nitroglycol, remember, has more than twice the power of TNT! |
You are changing the premise of the thread, and there are a lot of things which surpass TNT in power ...big so what on that one.
[Edited on 15-2-2009 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Whatever. . .I wouldn't though, go for baked beans if caviar was on offer!
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
This is missing the point of the thread. Apples and oranges.
grndpndr is correct and so am I, there is only one EM which
fits the criteria specified at the beginning of the thread and
all the rest is another discussion. BTW number two would be PETN.
PETN can easily DDT from ordinary flame ignition if the deflagration
is chanelled through an increasing density gradient short runup length
of confined and properly shaped tube.
Caps have been successfully tested based on that property, so PETN
can be configured in a way that it will self-detonate on the transition
in a couple of inches or less of runup distance from ordinary ignition.
In this regard it would surpass the performance of picric acid, but the
added complexity of machining components and needing more difficult
precursors, leaves picric acid in first place.
[Edited on 15-2-2009 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Yeah sure, I know how it is---you prepare one HE and fall head over heels for it, despite its many drawbacks.
First love (only love?) is never forgotten. . .
And since grndpndr agrees with *you* he must be correct!
Picric acid is way down the list.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Your argument is inconsistent with the premise of the thread. So don't even think that some bias accounts for
my correct identification of the EM which fits the criteria
specified by the originator of the thread. I have given the justifications for my first choice and for the second, consistent with the premise of the
opening post of the thread .....while all you are doing is arguing without giving any justifications as legitimate debate would require for defending
your different view. So given that distinction, then for whom would an accusation of bias be more applicable ?
The poster of the thread asked a question seeking knowledge. What do you seek , argument for argument's sake, or to provide an intelligent answer
which has justification and withstands scrutiny as being accurate.
|
|
|
Globey
Hazard to Others
Posts: 183
Registered: 9-2-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
WOW, back when I was into it, many years ago, we had fun w/ ethylene glycol di-nitrate. It was even less shock sensitive than nitroglycerin, and did
a number on a few deserved mailboxes. But my favorite (for personal memories sake) is sodium chlorate. I like the idea of 100% OTC, and nothing
packs a whallop like chlorate/sugar, or some other reducer between hard rocks with a large boulder dropped on top. Now a days, you couldn't get me
there with a 100 foot pole. Even distilling non-explosive materials, like simple ethanol, still makes part of me cringe. Have turned full circle
from the days when I thought explosives were fun.
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Lighten up Hissingnoise youve been diasagreed with by me first off to which you took offenseTHEN one of the most senior members here could there be a
flaw in your argument?And personal attacks really have no place here do they?After all you are here to" foster discussion" and contribute to the
forum?" Maybe you should begin to 'foster discussion" rather than attack those who disagree with you. Pure powdered Aspirin is $6.75lb, nitrating chemicals are pretty std for this synthesis and any metal sensitivity or
mess can be dealt with by anyone with a bit of intelligence.
And no picric acid isnt the sensitive HE you make it out to be certainly no more than ETN/ NG. And no not my "first love,only love" but certainly one
of the simplest to find precursors for and synthesise and most adaptable.
My apologys to the OP, Hissinhgnoise.I mistook the OP as Hissingnoise at this late hour.Still,no hard feelings regardless,really. no room for petty
shit here.
Just an answer that meets the \OPs Intent rather than personal attacks w/o merit
[Edited on 17-2-2009 by grndpndr]
[Edited on 17-2-2009 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Guys, what part of "lighthearted banter" do you not understand?
You're both a little bit too serious!
Take it easy---it's just a bit of fun. . .
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
In the technology of explosives picric acid is parallel
to the lead acid battery in the technology of batteries,
a golden oldie that does what it does. You can get fancier with things for specialized purposes but for the basic purpose utility the journey will
always come full circle back to the basic technology. It has held true that way for a long time, although it isn't impossible that any day something
all new may be discovered to change that,
it just isn't likely.
|
|
|
Globey
Hazard to Others
Posts: 183
Registered: 9-2-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Rosco Bodine
In the technology of explosives picric acid is parallel
to the lead acid battery in the technology of batteries,
a golden oldie that does what it does. You can get fancier with things for specialized purposes but for the basic purpose utility the journey will
always come full circle back to the basic technology. It has held true that way for a long time, although it isn't impossible that any day something
all new may be discovered to change that,
it just isn't likely. |
Yep, picric acid is literally a golden oldie (or a yellow oldie!), and the Field Expedient guide's recipe works just fine!
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
It isn't any coincidence that so many experiments have been done and so much literature accumulated in the early research concerning ways to make
picric acid, nor that it was the principle EM of WWI...it's because its value and significance was recognized a hundred years ago. It really is EM101
as the one most readily obtainable material to which is attendant derivatives which complete the elements of a practical firing train, igniter,
initiator (DDNP), and booster / base charge, the last element or pair being the PA itself.
The DDNP is the most difficult element there but can be finessed and made to work.
DDNP is circa 1858.
Some of the tetrazolate family of compounds may accomplish the same thing even better, but they are much harder won materials having more difficult
precursors and syntheses,
and they are less well known and less documented, being more experimental curiosities
of research than a proven industrial use system having a long history.
Being a powerful dye is an inconvenience about PA
which is outweighed by its value otherwise, in the
same way as is the weight of a lead acid battery a
relatively minor concern in its general application,
where *reliability* and proven performance wins out.
If you need to get a good quality battery for your
automobile for long reliable use in starting the engine,
you don't shop for the lightest weight high tech one on the shelf,
you look for the one that ten million just like it have been made before
and is a known quantity.
PA is sort of like a crescent wrench on which you can roll
the adjustment knurl and use the same tool to secure
the different sized nuts needed in assembling your EM experiment.
[Edited on 18-2-2009 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
Sickman
Hazard to Self
Posts: 98
Registered: 9-5-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: Icy and I see!
|
|
So to put another way "Picric acid is the bomb"!
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
That B word is a huge taboo .....
go wash your mouth out immediately.
We scientists call those things "science experiments".
a rose by any other name ......
|
|
|
hellfire23
Harmless
Posts: 16
Registered: 10-2-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: bleh
|
|
What is the most powerful explosive though? Not taking in to account all the outliers like in this thread. Which one has the most strength and is the
most powerful?
And no a thermonuclear device does not count, looking for the best explosive compound.
Ive heard of HMX which is nitrated RDX but there's probably a worse one out there.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by hellfire23
Ive heard of HMX which is nitrated RDX but there's probably a worse one out there. |
HMX is prepared by varying the reaction conditions used to prepare cyclonite (RDX).
When it was first prepared, HMX was called homo-cyclonite because the nitramine groups were known to be identical to those of cyclonite.
HMX stands for High-Molecular-weight-rdX.
The four nitramine groups give the explosive a higher density and a consequently higher VoD than cyclonite.
As for the most powerful HE, there are several candidates of which HNIW and octanitrocubane are but two.
|
|
|
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
Posts: 2893
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by hissingnoise
HMX stands for High-Molecular-weight-rdX.
The four nitramine groups give the explosive a higher density and a consequently higher VoD than cyclonite.
As for the most powerful HE, there are several candidates of which HNIW and octanitrocubane are but two. |
Actually it is not the amount of nitramine groups that give a higher density 
It is the amount of groups per volume units and the specific cristaline
form...HMX has several cristaline forms with lower densities...
By comparative studies of HE data, I came to the conclusion that in a family of compounds:
-monomer is less good than dimer
-dimer itself less good than trimer
-trimer itself worst than tetramer
-tetramer itself outperformed by polymer
This was true on different levels:
-Sensitivity to shock lower or equal
-heat resistance higher
-higher density
-higher VOD increasing linearly with the density!
From this one can conclude that for example:
CH3-NNO2-CH3 < CH3-NNO2-CH2-NNO2-CH3 < CH3-NNO2-CH2-NNO2-CH2-NNO2-CH3 < CH3-(-NNO2-CH2)n-H (n>3)
This is true for all families I had the ability to analyse from databases on HE!
Sole exception is the lead block test what is usually better from little weight molecules than higher homologues in a specific family of compounds!
Typical example is CH3ONO3 vs manitol hexanitrate ester!
This can maybe be explained by the variation of ab initio volume into the LBT generated by the higher density of higher homologues...
[Edited on 19-2-2009 by PHILOU Zrealone]
[Edited on 19-2-2009 by PHILOU Zrealone]
PH Z (PHILOU Zrealone)
"Physic is all what never works; Chemistry is all what stinks and explodes!"-"Life that deadly disease, sexually transmitted."(W.Allen)
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by PHILOU Zrealone
Actually it is not the amount of nitramine groups that give a higher density
It is the amount of groups per volume units and the specific cristaline form.
|
That's one way of saying it, but is the minor distinction really necessary, PHILOU?
Beta-HMX is higher in density than cyclonite. . .
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I beg to differ hissinghoise. In have been told in no uncertain terms by Royal Marines that HMX stands for Her Majestys xplosive  Not High Molecular Wieght RDX.
I chose not to argue the point!LOL
[Edited on 21-2-2009 by grndpndr]
[Edited on 21-2-2009 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by grndpndr
In have been told in no uncertain terms by Royal Marines that HMX stands for Her Majestys xplosive
|
Her Majesty's Marines? Yes of course, they'd know for sure. . .
How astute of you!
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You are unable to see an obvious joke Einstein?Pushing to start a fight on an amenable forum.Do you really belong here ?
[Edited on 23-2-2009 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by hissingnoise
Guys, what part of "lighthearted banter" do you not understand?
You're both a little bit too serious!
Take it easy---it's just a bit of fun. . . |
Take a bit of your own advice please.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by grndpndr
You are unable to see an obvious joke Einstein?Pushing to start a fight on an amenable forum.Do you really belong here ?
|
What's obvious grndpndr, besides a continuing lack of amenability on your part, is that you've tried to avoid looking foolish by passing off your
(risible) comment on the origin of the acronym as a "joke".
And I'm here quite a bit longer than you are, but it seems you're the one spoiling for fight.
I won't be drawn as I'd say you've been in too many fights already.
Try some relaxation---it'll help!
|
|
|
chief
National Hazard
Posts: 630
Registered: 19-7-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The best would be the safest ; and this would be something manufacturable in a 1-step- walk-away-synthesis:
==> Set the harmless precursors in place in the right way, walk away and 1/2 hour later ready to blast ...
==> Even better: if 1 hour later not sensitive any more, so in case of failure the risk would be low enough
Now: Could this be fulfilled (I'm not gonna do it !) with a well-cooled NG-synthesis ?
(Anyhow I like my electric guitar: Makes much more noise of much better quality ...)
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
For many, safest means least sensitive, but powerful highly brisant HEs like nitroglycerine *are* pretty shock-sensitive.
Nitroglycol, though, is an exception; more powerful and more brisant, it is *less* sensitive than nitro.
Its only drawback seems to be its greater volatility.
Because of the volatility, headaches from handling EGDN are something else, but they fade quicker.
Again, swings'n'roundabouts. . .
|
|
|
edmo
Harmless
Posts: 6
Registered: 16-7-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fiesty
|
|
I think RDX is the generally preferred energetic among the explosives community. I don't know of anything that has such widespread benefits and is so
widely used. (2nd to PETN)
Benefits:
1. Easy Synthesis
2. Cheap
3. Safe
Cons:
1. Requires a Primary (PETN+)
2. More expensive than AP / NG
3. Detectable
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
