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

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  ..  6    8
Author: Subject: Ag2C2.AGNO3 (DS)
markx
National Hazard
****




Posts: 432
Registered: 7-8-2003
Location: Northern kingdom
Member Is Offline

Mood: Very Jolly

[*] posted on 6-10-2017 at 03:42


The witness plates nicely complement my sand crushing test result, which indicated that the mix has roughly 88% higher brisance compared to pure double salt. As can be seen 0,5g DS left almost identical damage compared to 0,25g mix. Though it is not correct to compare sand crushing results to witness plates, the underlaying patterns do match quite well.



Exact science is a figment of imagination.......
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 638
Registered: 2-9-2014
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 24-10-2017 at 01:51


ETN is much less sensitive on friction than SADS. Therefore is my idea, create mix, with maximum content ETN, which is still possible reliable detonated in solid cavity. I recommend ratio for example 1:1 and try it. Mixing both under acetone and after from this create some grain on sieve 1 x 1 mm. For filling cavity. Output segment can be from 0,25 pure ETN. DDT segment from 0,15 ETN + 0,15 SADS. Advantage is, that at filling cavity we not use pure and sensitive as classic primary, but less sensitive mix. Dr.



Safety explosive Alfred Nobel 1867. Safely ecologic detonator Dr. Liptakov 2015.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Bert
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 2705
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".

[*] posted on 24-10-2017 at 13:19


Silver acetylide has quite high sensitivity to static electricity, perhaps this might help address this?
Quote:

This invention relates to a process for reducing the sensitivity of primary explosives to initiation by electrostatic discharges, and to a primary explosive composition having a reduced sensitivity to initiation by electrostatic discharges by virtue of the combination therewith of a polyol polynitrate of low sensitivity, such as trimethylolethane trinitrate, in a small amount.



https://www.google.com/patents/US3461007




Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:

1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).

View user's profile View All Posts By User
agent_entropy
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 91
Registered: 17-7-2006
Location: U.S.
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-10-2017 at 04:19


Quote: Originally posted by Bert  
Silver acetylide has quite high sensitivity to static electricity, perhaps this might help address this?


From what I can tell by handling it, the SADS:ETN (80:20) is indeed somewhat less sensitive to static electricity than pure SADS. I'm not sure how to quantify it though.

Bonus tip: I realized that I could add some methanol or isopropanol to the water in the calcium carbide acetylene generator, in order to help control the foaming.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MineMan
National Hazard
****




Posts: 281
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-10-2017 at 19:51


hmm

What LoL is proposing should certainly work, but the issue is if this goes of the primary is now 4-8 times more powerful resulting in some bad damage.

It is interesting, but LoL, CHP works fine.

75mg of SADS fails to kick off PETN sometimes... so this could be a real help to that.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 638
Registered: 2-9-2014
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-10-2017 at 23:43


Of course, that CHP is during manipulation almost "indestructible" against SADS. But it is another thread. I also recommend CHP, than trouble with sensitivity SADS....:-)
Dr.




Safety explosive Alfred Nobel 1867. Safely ecologic detonator Dr. Liptakov 2015.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2879
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline

Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic

[*] posted on 31-10-2017 at 03:16


Quote: Originally posted by agent_entropy  
Quote: Originally posted by Bert  
Silver acetylide has quite high sensitivity to static electricity, perhaps this might help address this?


From what I can tell by handling it, the SADS:ETN (80:20) is indeed somewhat less sensitive to static electricity than pure SADS. I'm not sure how to quantify it though.

Bonus tip: I realized that I could add some methanol or isopropanol to the water in the calcium carbide acetylene generator, in order to help control the foaming.

Nice idea to use alcohols as a foam killer...suds depressant.

A layer of organic oïl on top (0,5-1cm) or of benzine/ether/petroleum ether will do aswel ;)

[Edited on 31-10-2017 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)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rocinante
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 73
Registered: 13-11-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 14-11-2017 at 09:25


CHP seems like nonsense since the starting perchlorate is quite sensitive primary and you won't (likely) be making small mg size batches like with SA.DS plus the amount of handling during CHP synthesis is quite large. That's similair to the situation with NHN, where some hail it as a work of god, yet they fail to remind that NHN is among the most static sensitive primaries or that un-dextrinated lead azide is more sensitive to friction than HMTD and faar faar more sensitive to friction than TATP/DADP. It's like dangerous boasting about ones ability to get the right chemicals (being a grown up with tons of NaN3 in the chems room). In the end of the day you still need remote handling, large pieces of paper with small amounts of said primary, blast mitigation devices, cotton wrapped sticks and many layers of body protection.

Would it be possible to use another acid instead of HNO3 to create the needed acidic conditions? I mean, would a few drops of sulphuric acid be enough? It (the sulphate) should be possible to wash it from the filter.

[Edited on 14-11-2017 by Rocinante]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2879
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline

Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic

[*] posted on 16-11-2017 at 16:56


Quote: Originally posted by Rocinante  
CHP seems like nonsense since the starting perchlorate is quite sensitive primary and you won't (likely) be making small mg size batches like with SA.DS plus the amount of handling during CHP synthesis is quite large. That's similair to the situation with NHN, where some hail it as a work of god, yet they fail to remind that NHN is among the most static sensitive primaries or that un-dextrinated lead azide is more sensitive to friction than HMTD and faar faar more sensitive to friction than TATP/DADP. It's like dangerous boasting about ones ability to get the right chemicals (being a grown up with tons of NaN3 in the chems room). In the end of the day you still need remote handling, large pieces of paper with small amounts of said primary, blast mitigation devices, cotton wrapped sticks and many layers of body protection.

Would it be possible to use another acid instead of HNO3 to create the needed acidic conditions? I mean, would a few drops of sulphuric acid be enough? It (the sulphate) should be possible to wash it from the filter.

[Edited on 14-11-2017 by Rocinante]

First part...
What starting perchlorate into CuHexP (Copper hexamine perchlorate) is a primary? NH4ClO4 or Cu(ClO4)2?
==> Not into this world sorry

Second part...
Your question is unclear what are you refering to? SADS, CHP, CTAP, HMTD, else?

[Edited on 17-11-2017 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)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rocinante
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 73
Registered: 13-11-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-11-2017 at 14:54


I was talking about Dr. Liptakov synthesis on Vimeo, where he uses 10 g of TACP to synthetise CHP - I was pointing out that this TACP is quite sensitive and handling 10 g of it is simly too big of a risk (even though you might handle it in its not completely dry state). The fact that CHP is quite unsensitive should not lure anybody to directly handle/store 10 g of TACP. It requires somewhat more of a work than making SA.DS or lead azide, so a person is tempted to go into the gram scale, rather than to quickly make 400 mg of SA.DS or LA for use in blasting caps. If you use another route, without the TCAP step and in small quantitiy, than yes .. it is indeed a workable solution.

SA.DS - I understand that the nitric acid should be ideal due to the common ion effect, making the precipitation of SA.DS easier, but would it be possible to avoid the use of HNO3 and use something else instead .. like a few drops of sulphuric acid, has this been tried out?

[Edited on 17-11-2017 by Rocinante]

[Edited on 17-11-2017 by Rocinante]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MineMan
National Hazard
****




Posts: 281
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 20-11-2017 at 17:04


Quote: Originally posted by Rocinante  
I was talking about Dr. Liptakov synthesis on Vimeo, where he uses 10 g of TACP to synthetise CHP - I was pointing out that this TACP is quite sensitive and handling 10 g of it is simly too big of a risk (even though you might handle it in its not completely dry state). The fact that CHP is quite unsensitive should not lure anybody to directly handle/store 10 g of TACP. It requires somewhat more of a work than making SA.DS or lead azide, so a person is tempted to go into the gram scale, rather than to quickly make 400 mg of SA.DS or LA for use in blasting caps. If you use another route, without the TCAP step and in small quantitiy, than yes .. it is indeed a workable solution.

SA.DS - I understand that the nitric acid should be ideal due to the common ion effect, making the precipitation of SA.DS easier, but would it be possible to avoid the use of HNO3 and use something else instead .. like a few drops of sulphuric acid, has this been tried out?

[Edited on 17-11-2017 by Rocinante]

[Edited on 17-11-2017 by Rocinante]


I have handled much much more than 10Grams of TACP at a time, but have not stored it of course. The point it, it is not a primary explosive, it can be treated like PETN. Look, CHP is the best around, unless you can come up with another DDT system. Of course, there are main charges that are safe and can DDT from just a blackpowder cap... but those are kind of a secret of mine, but now you know, they are out there! Also, there are several AN mixtures that 2grams of flash (even confined in plastic) will bring to full orde Report back to us, but trust me, you don't even need a primary :). I can say this because I have invented a complete binary system... including the det

[Edited on 21-11-2017 by MineMan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rocinante
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 73
Registered: 13-11-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-11-2017 at 00:28


Has it been confirmed? I mean, is this true for the average crystal modifications? I was under the impression that TACP is about average primary (from impact test on youtube) and that CHP is at the level of ETN/PETN ..and..with very low friction sensitivity. If so, than I stand corrected. We're little bit OT.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 638
Registered: 2-9-2014
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-12-2017 at 11:55


Primary substance is too broad a concept. They should be divided into at least 3 degrees. Depending on the hazard for general (laboratory) handling. Example: 3 = FHg..... 2 = Lead Azide, (next?)...... 1 = TACP, CHP, NHN (next?)...... 0 = TACN. (ETN? MHN?) ETN is between primary - secondary edge? If someon said, that This is primary, Is it as say = she is the Witch! You all are an Witches!



Safety explosive Alfred Nobel 1867. Safely ecologic detonator Dr. Liptakov 2015.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rocinante
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 73
Registered: 13-11-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-12-2017 at 12:08


The problem is that there is no real correlation between friction, impact and static sensitivity. NHN is quite friction/impact insensitive, but it's static sensitive (I think). Undextrinated lead azide, esp. the beta modification is very sensitive to friction...from the prof. tested ones.. only DDNP seems to be good in all 3.. IIRC.... ETN is 5× less friction sensitive than MF.. that's slightly into the secondary cat, no real static problems
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rocinante
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 73
Registered: 13-11-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 12-1-2018 at 09:39


Here is a book that contains a section on SA and SA.DS:

http://pyrotechnics.no-ip.org/files/Primary%20Explosives3.pd...
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DrManhattan
Harmless
*




Posts: 30
Registered: 24-1-2015
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 11-11-2018 at 02:15


Im having touble with my SADS. I made a batch about 6 months ago and have been using the primary from this batch to fire my charges. All worked well at the start with 5 continuous charges going off without a hitch. Now using the same batch i get 100% misfires. My cap has always been 700mg pressed etn - 300 loose etn - 200mg SADS, set off with an E Match. E match always went off but even though it was in direct contact with the SADS it didn't ignite it. The product was an off white - pale brown color at the start but it turned blackish so i thought id make a new batch. still get problems with this fresh new batch. It seems as though either none of the primary goes off or only a fraction of it does. I took a misfired cap apart and poured out the primary and put a blow torch to it and it crackles as apposed to all going off in one bang. Any idea on whats going on?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
markx
National Hazard
****




Posts: 432
Registered: 7-8-2003
Location: Northern kingdom
Member Is Offline

Mood: Very Jolly

[*] posted on 12-11-2018 at 03:30


Quote: Originally posted by DrManhattan  
Im having touble with my SADS. I made a batch about 6 months ago and have been using the primary from this batch to fire my charges. All worked well at the start with 5 continuous charges going off without a hitch. Now using the same batch i get 100% misfires. My cap has always been 700mg pressed etn - 300 loose etn - 200mg SADS, set off with an E Match. E match always went off but even though it was in direct contact with the SADS it didn't ignite it. The product was an off white - pale brown color at the start but it turned blackish so i thought id make a new batch. still get problems with this fresh new batch. It seems as though either none of the primary goes off or only a fraction of it does. I took a misfired cap apart and poured out the primary and put a blow torch to it and it crackles as apposed to all going off in one bang. Any idea on whats going on?


Could you describe your preparation process of the double salt?
Have you changed something compared to preparation of the initial functional batch (source of Ag or acetylene)?




Exact science is a figment of imagination.......
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DrManhattan
Harmless
*




Posts: 30
Registered: 24-1-2015
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 12-11-2018 at 05:06


Ratios i used were - 8.7ml H2O
- 1.3ml 68%HNO3
- 700mg silver nitrate

Acetylene is from a gas bottle and passed through a solution of copper sulfate. Silver nitrate solution was kept between 65-70 degrees Celsius during the reaction. Passed gas through the solution for 3 minutes. SADS is then filtered and neutralized to get rid of the acid. The end product is certainly SADS or at the very least silver acetylide. Makes a nice bang even in the smallest amounts but after putting it into a cap it just seems to go dud. No change was made to the original successful batch. I have even tried alternates to the E match including nichrome wire in direct contact with the primary and even smokeless powder + e match. Smokeless powder ignited but didnt even set the primary off, very unusual indeed. I even had a cap where at least a small amount of the primary detonated as the cap was shattered (i use 10mm plastic test tubes as the housing for the cap) but i recovered some silver acetylide after sifting though the remains.

I attached 3 images. I use an ear plug as a plug to keep everything together. Green plug was the failed cap with partial detonation of primary. Orange plug cap was a successful cap. Only difference to the green was a larger 2 gram base charge of etn. SADS of both came from the same batch.

blasting 1.jpg - 125kB blasting 2.jpg - 68kB blasting 3.jpg - 147kB
View user's profile View All Posts By User
markx
National Hazard
****




Posts: 432
Registered: 7-8-2003
Location: Northern kingdom
Member Is Offline

Mood: Very Jolly

[*] posted on 12-11-2018 at 08:18


Quote: Originally posted by DrManhattan  
SADS is then filtered and neutralized to get rid of the acid. The end product is certainly SADS or at the very least silver acetylide.


What did you use to neutralize the end product...something caustic? In fact I would suspect that this step might be the culprit here. Omit the neutralization step, just wash with coupious amounts (within reason) of distilled water and store damp if you dare not dry bigger amounts.

Apart from neutralisation the approach you used should theoretically produce a potent end result that is quite stable against visual degradation due to light. At least in my personal experience. Nor has it ever failed to ignite if a flame was used. You mentioned that the product darkened upon storage....how long did it take for that to happen and was it stored in dark or in open light?




Exact science is a figment of imagination.......
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DrManhattan
Harmless
*




Posts: 30
Registered: 24-1-2015
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 13-11-2018 at 02:41


Quote: Originally posted by markx  

What did you use to neutralize the end product...something caustic? In fact I would suspect that this step might be the culprit here. Omit the neutralization step, just wash with coupious amounts (within reason) of distilled water and store damp if you dare not dry bigger amounts.


You mentioned that the product darkened upon storage....how long did it take for that to happen and was it stored in dark or in open light?



I used sodium bicarbonate to neutralize the end product. Took about a month for it to turn black. Stored under acetone in a storage box in complete darkness. It was still reliable after 2-3 months of storage, only as of late has it been troublesome. I have been thinking of trying Mercury Fulminate if i cant get my silver acetylide to work reliably.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
markx
National Hazard
****




Posts: 432
Registered: 7-8-2003
Location: Northern kingdom
Member Is Offline

Mood: Very Jolly

[*] posted on 13-11-2018 at 04:14


Quote: Originally posted by DrManhattan  



I used sodium bicarbonate to neutralize the end product. Took about a month for it to turn black. Stored under acetone in a storage box in complete darkness. It was still reliable after 2-3 months of storage, only as of late has it been troublesome. I have been thinking of trying Mercury Fulminate if i cant get my silver acetylide to work reliably.


Omit the bicarbonate treatment....I fear this may be the main cause of your instability and performance issues. The double salt in essence is a nitrate complex of an acidic nature and I fear the bicarbonate treatment shall strip it (at least partly) from the nitrate. Hence the weak performance and instability. Also perhaps the acetone storage is not the best of options....flammable and volatile liquid over a friction and impact sensitive compound does not perhaps sound like the best approach. What if a piece of residue gets caught between the lid of the container and dries out. Next time you open it and the stuff goes "crack" and ignites the fumes....just a dark scenario, but still.
My small samples have been storing moist in a PE baggy just fine for several years in relative darkness and cool climate without any noticeable darkening of the product. It does not dry out and keeps just fine.

So try it without the bicarb and in simple water damp storage....compare the results. If still problems arise, make sure your thermometer is not "crooked" and the 65-70C range is really true. Also you may try to slightly increase the acid content in the synthesis stage if all else fails, it should not worsen the odds of getting superior product.
I've had weak product from higher as well as lower temperature ranges that showed high sensitivity towards light and also mechanical factors, as well as a weak performance.

Your acetylene comes from a gas cylinder? A welding grade product I presume? They usually have acetone mixed into the gas tank to lower the sensitivity of compressed acetylene in storage (I'm not totally sure it is still practiced, but I know that it was done)....perhaps the acetone vapours also have an effect on the synthesis? If you can access some calcium carbide, then it would be useful to try the synthesis with the generated gas and compare results. Generated acetylene purity seems not to have a profound effect upon final product, so thorough filtration and washing of the gas is not required. At least I've never bothered and have had no issues.

MF is by far more uncomfortable, poisonous and probably also more sensitive than double salt. I trust it would be wiser to work carefully towards perfecting the double salt synthesis than engaging in the mercury route....

Hope this helps and be safe in your practices!




Exact science is a figment of imagination.......
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Herr Haber
National Hazard
****




Posts: 281
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 13-11-2018 at 07:20


Quote: Originally posted by markx  


Your acetylene comes from a gas cylinder? A welding grade product I presume? They usually have acetone mixed into the gas tank to lower the sensitivity of compressed acetylene in storage (I'm not totally sure it is still practiced, but I know that it was done)....perhaps the acetone vapours also have an effect on the synthesis? If you can access some calcium carbide, then it would be useful to try the synthesis with the generated gas and compare results. Generated acetylene purity seems not to have a profound effect upon final product, so thorough filtration and washing of the gas is not required. At least I've never bothered and have had no issues.



Acetylene is not compressed. It's absorbed in acetone, the bottle is filled with a porous media. This has not changed much in over 100 years as far as I know.
Generated acetylene can be quite impure depending on your calcium carbide.
I get mine from China for my carbide lamps. I usually pay 3-5 Euros per kilograms.
Impurities will mostly be H2S but I was also given a piece of shiny dense metal that looked like lead but was probably Arsenic (used in the process to get the CaC2 out of the mold more easily)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DrManhattan
Harmless
*




Posts: 30
Registered: 24-1-2015
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 14-11-2018 at 04:21


Quote: Originally posted by markx  

So try it without the bicarb and in simple water damp storage....compare the results. If still problems arise, make sure your thermometer is not "crooked" and the 65-70C range is really true. Also you may try to slightly increase the acid content in the synthesis stage if all else fails, it should not worsen the odds of getting superior product.
I've had weak product from higher as well as lower temperature ranges that showed high sensitivity towards light and also mechanical factors, as well as a weak performance.

Your acetylene comes from a gas cylinder? A welding grade product I presume? They usually have acetone mixed into the gas tank to lower the sensitivity of compressed acetylene in storage (I'm not totally sure it is still practiced, but I know that it was done)....perhaps the acetone vapours also have an effect on the synthesis? If you can access some calcium carbide, then it would be useful to try the synthesis with the generated gas and compare results. Generated acetylene purity seems not to have a profound effect upon final product, so thorough filtration and washing of the gas is not required. At least I've never bothered and have had no issues.

MF is by far more uncomfortable, poisonous and probably also more sensitive than double salt. I trust it would be wiser to work carefully towards perfecting the double salt synthesis than engaging in the mercury route....

Hope this helps and be safe in your practices!


Yep acetylene came from a bottle for welding. I'll give it a go without the bicarb and see how to performs over time. Thank you for your expertise and advice, it's been of great help to me.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  ..  6    8

  Go To Top