| Pages:
1
2 |
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 830
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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.
|
|
|
PLSHY
Hazard to Self
Posts: 88
Registered: 30-7-2023
Member Is Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 998
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
This is dumb.
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 998
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Accident in the making. Accept
Things
As they are
|
|
|
PLSHY
Hazard to Self
Posts: 88
Registered: 30-7-2023
Member Is Offline
|
|
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]
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 830
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
