Axt
National Hazard
Posts: 849
Registered: 28-1-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Energetic Perovskites
There is scattered information regarding these on this forum, but i thought it better to consolidate this into one thread.
Energetic perovskites are as the name suggests energetic double salts that form in a perovskite structure. From what I can find in the literature only
DABCO (1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane or triethylenediamine) and piperazine (diethylenediamine) are known to form these, with a variety of nitrate,
perchlorate and periodate salts. Other amines are listed in the patent US 20190112242A1 but I believe it's just to cover all the bases just for patent
purposes, excuse the pun.
Theres some pretty wild performance figures shown in the literature, which is all out of China. The rhetoric from the early reports has been toned
down slightly but still is in the high 8000's and into the 9000's for velocity of detonation and likewise high det pressure. The current highest
performing is "DAP-6" which is Hydroxylamine Dabconium Triperchlorate with a calculated figure of 9123m/s and 38.1GPa det pressure.
I have made DPPE-1, DAP-2, DAP-4, DAN-2 and experimented with swapping out the KNO3 in DAN-2 with NaBrO3 and KClO3. These are all DABCO based which is
a fairly common industrial and lab chem but not OTC. Piperazine is available OTC as poultry dewormer, quite cheaply. Here its available as piperazine
citrate solution or as the solid dihydrochloride at the equivalent of about $60US per Kg. This will need to be freebased as the piperazine
perovskites seem to be significantly soluble, I attempted to use the dihydrochloride as is but could not form a precipitate.
DPPE-1 is a primary explosive but interestingly it seems the DAP-2 and DAP-4 will likewise act as initiating explosives even though they only
deflagrate in the open. I'm only basing this assertion on the supporting info available here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/smll.2023026... , I cannot access that main article. If anyone can that would be great.
The downside to these perovskites is that they seem to be quite friction sensitive, which is attributed to there rigid perovskite structure.
Heres a description of what my results were.
Potassium Dabconium Trinitrate (DAN-2)
(H2DABCO)[K(NO3)3]
11.2g (0.1mol) DABCO and 10.1g (0.1mol) potassium nitrate is dissolved into 50ml of water, then 18.5g (0.2mol) of 68% nitric acid is added in one
portion with stirring. This resulted in a slight exotherm that raised the temperature to 38 degrees C. The solution was left stirring for 5 minutes
then left to stand at an ambient temperature of 18 degrees C. Crystalisation began at about 20 degrees C and proceeded at the stable temperature of 18
degrees C as a moderate yield of needle shaped crystals. These were shown to be only very feebly energetic. The mother liquor was left to stand for
one day, whereby it redissolved the needles through the heat of the sun, then deposited large blocky crystals as the solution cooled throughout the
14°C night, these were filtered and dried.
As far as I can determine both crystal forms were the same thing and DAN-2 has no notable energetic properties. When held in the jet of a butane gas
flame it turns black then burns weakly and splutters putting itself out. Nothing even remotely close to the "modern blackpowder" as claimed in the
literature. A vacuum was applied to the seemingly dry crystals for 2 hours but the energetic properties were not improved.
Attemps to substitute KNO3 with NaBrO3 failed, there was no precipitate but on placing the solution in the sun to evaporate I believe bromination took
place from the breakdown of HBrO3, fine yellow needles precipitated in high yield that were only mildly energetic.
Attempts to substitute KNO3 with KClO3 produced a precipitate of ill defined crystal form that deflagrated vigorously leaving white pearls. I believe
this to be more a coprecipitate than a perovskite.
Potassium Dabconium Triperchlorate (DAP-2)
(C6H14N2)[K(ClO4)3]
2.77g of potasssium perchlorate in 100ml water was heated with stirring at 50°C until dissolution. Another solution comprised of 2.24g of DABCO in
100ml and 5.74g of 70% perchloric acid was then poured into the stirred potassium perchlorate solution resulting in an immediate milky precipitate.
The heating was turned off and the solution was stirred for another 30 minutes as it cooled to 25°C before filtering, flushing on the filter with
ethanol and drying.
On ignition DAP-2 flares vigorously with a fsssshhhht emitting a large lilac tinted flame leaving a small amount of white residue. It explodes readily
with a violent report when struck with moderate force with a hammer on anvil, suggesting a far higher impact sensitivity then the 16J reported.
Ammonium Dabconium Triperchlorate (DAP-4)
(C6H14N2)[NH4(ClO4)3]
A solution is made by dissolving 4.48g (0.04mol) of DABCO into 10ml water and 11.48g (0.08mol) of 70% perchloric acid then left to stir for 5 minutes.
Another solution is made of 4.7g (0.04mol) ammonium perchlorate in 10ml of water (or 2.72g 25% ammonia and 5.48g 70% perchloric acid). The two
solutions are combined at room temperature with stirring resulting in an immediate white precipitate, stirring is continued for 10 minutes then it is
filtered, flushed on the filter with ethanol and dried for a yield of 16.0g (93% of theory).
When ignited DAP-4 deflagrates vigourously with a jet like flame leaving no notable residue. DAP-4 is readily detonated with a moderate hammer strike
on an anvil again suggesting a far higher then reported impact sensitivity.
Ammonium Sodium Didabconium Hexaperiodate (DPPE-1)
2C6H14N2.2Cl + NH4Cl + 6NaIO4 --> {(C6H14N2)2[Na(NH4)(IO4)6]}n + 5NaCl
2.24g (0.02mol) DABCO and 0.54g (0.01mol) ammonium chloride in 50ml water is neutralised with 4.56g (0.04mol) 32% hydrochloric acid, into this at room
temperature and whilst stirred was added 12.8g (0.06mol) sodium periodate in 80ml water. An immediate white precipitate formed, stirring was
maintained for 3 minutes then the white solid was filtered, flushed with a further 50ml of cold water and dried.
DPPE-1 is a very vehemic compound, detonating violently in >10mg type quantities when touched with a flame and easily initiated with a hammer on
steel which is quite odd for something based on periodate. Here's a video comparing 5mg quantities of DPPE-1 with cyanuric triazide and NAP https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/files.php?pid=697407&...
Attached is a picture of DAP-2, these precipitate immediately as small cubes. The DAP-4 and DPPE-1 look the same but smaller.
[Edited on 19-12-2024 by Axt]
[Edited on 19-12-2024 by Axt]
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1023
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you for condensing this into a dedicated post. Are any of these derivatives secondary explosives with moderate or insensitive properties? Or no
because of the structure?
It’s strange, but from talking to others periodates can be more violent than perchlorates, even noticed in pyrotechnic applications.
|
|
|
Axt
National Hazard
Posts: 849
Registered: 28-1-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by MineMan  | | Are any of these derivatives secondary explosives with moderate or insensitive properties? Or no because of the structure? |
Their listed properties are all over the place, there's a table in the attached article. The ammonium nitrate based DAN-4 has off the scale friction
sensitivity (less than TNT) but even higher supposed impact sensitivity than the perchlorates with VOD 8164m/s. If the figures for DAP-4 are true, it
is sensitive but not awfully so. I'm just not sure I trust it based on how impact sensitive it seems to be.
Attachment: Molecular_perovskites_as_a_new_platform_for_design.pdf (2.7MB)
This file has been downloaded 94 times
|
|
|
Axt
National Hazard
Posts: 849
Registered: 28-1-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Here's DAP-4, according to the Chinese this is 153% less sensitive than TNT.
Attachment: DAP-4 hammer (1).mp4 (6.3MB)
This file has been downloaded 107 times
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1023
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you. I trust your tests more than the papers. I often note exaggerated claims in some papers.
To me, considering how your own results are so wildly different from the paper, makes me wonder about their other sensitivity claims.
|
|
|
Axt
National Hazard
Posts: 849
Registered: 28-1-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yeh so had a look at that article mentioning initiation efficiency, here's the results they obtained. So yes DAP-4 will act as quite an efficient
initiator when used over 30mg. DDPE-1 was published later the same year and is the best at sub 5mg to initiate RDX. I've shown 5mg DPPE-1 being
ignited in open in first post, I'll attach a pinch of DAP-4 being ignited here as you can see DAP-4 and DAP-2 are pretty tame unconfined.
In the picture DAP-0 is dabconium diperchlorate, DAP-1 sodium dabconium triperchlorate, DAP-2 potassium dabconium triperchlorate, DAP-3 rubidium
dabconium triperchlorate and DAP-4 ammonium dabconium triperchlorate. It's interesting that the ammonium salts have the highest initiation
efficiencies. TDPI's are the exact periodate analogues to the perchlorates, their efficiency is also unexpectedly better than perchlorates, their
VOD's are significantly lower but they reach their peak pressure quicker.
Attachment: DAP-2 and DAP-4 ignition.mpg (6.7MB)
This file has been downloaded 91 times
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1023
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you for the additional information.
|
|
|
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
Posts: 1443
Registered: 2-9-2014
Location: Tel Aviv University
Member Is Offline
Mood: old jew
|
|
A picture is worth a thousand words. Using a lead witness plate is one of the best measurements. By making a dent or hole in the lead, it is possible
to measure power with high accuracy. I consider the "plate dent" method, i.e. a dent or crater (in the lead) to be the most accurate amateur
measurement. The method used in the picture is not so accurate because part of the energy disappeard through hole. As a result, part of the
information is lost. Exact method here for example:
Development of primarily - secondary substances: CHP (2015) neutral CHP and Lithex (2022) Brightelite (2023) Nitrocelite and KC primer (2024) Diper
60 (2025)
|
|
|
Axt
National Hazard
Posts: 849
Registered: 28-1-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
They were only looking for the transition point from partial to full detonation, that's why there is a big difference between the first and second row
but negligible difference between the second and third. At a certain point you are just measuring identical RDX base charges with a tiny difference
explained by way of a heavier primary loading.
Your picture is great, but it's not testing the same thing.
|
|
|
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
Posts: 1443
Registered: 2-9-2014
Location: Tel Aviv University
Member Is Offline
Mood: old jew
|
|
Oh yes. It was only research of amount of primary weight.....
Development of primarily - secondary substances: CHP (2015) neutral CHP and Lithex (2022) Brightelite (2023) Nitrocelite and KC primer (2024) Diper
60 (2025)
|
|
|
dettoo456
Hazard to Others
Posts: 252
Registered: 12-9-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
If DAP-4 in a small cap (<500mg) could be used alone to trigger a booster, that’d be ideal, especially considering its ease of manufacture,
low-ish sensitivity, and cost.
@Axt, have you seen any DDT characteristics in confined DAP-4 by itself? Also, the impact sensitivity video you linked appeared to show the DAP-4
slightly ‘clumped’ after the first hammer strike; most non-hygroscopic EMs dont clump unless they’re low density and/or wetted. Hopefully these
DABCO perchlorate aren’t hygroscopic in storage.
|
|
|
Axt
National Hazard
Posts: 849
Registered: 28-1-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
DAP-4's hygroscopicity is discussed in the article attached above.
"Different from the most perchlorate-containing salts, DAP-4 has a
very low hygroscopicity. Our studies indicated that, according to the
Chinese GJB772A-97 test standard, the samples of DAP-4 showed only
ca. 0.01% weight change (i.e., almost unchanged) under the relative
humility of 91% at 30 C for 3 days. A comparison study reported by Cao
et al. revealed that the hygroscopicity of DAP-4 is only about 10% of that
of AP under the same condition (vide infra)."
It does not feel in any way hygroscopic but does have a distinct tendency to clump and keep its shape when moulded which I was putting down to its
crystal form or maybe some other attraction between crystals. I would expect pressing it into pellets would be very easy. It was hard to get an image
under the microscope as they all want to bunch together a cluster of DPPE-1 is attached.
No I have never tried to confine it.
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 215
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The calculated detonation parameters in the article are highly overstated! It seems that the Chinese did not bother with the calculations at all, but
continued hexogen and octogen to the density of the perovskites.
It is very interesting what values they would receive for methylamin and guanidine perchlorates. For these substances, there are experimental
data.
|
|
|
Axt
National Hazard
Posts: 849
Registered: 28-1-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Just some advice Etanol, don't make definite assertions when you don't know the answer, I see you doing this a lot. At least word it as "I believe
...... because ....".
The double salt of ethylenediamine diperchlorate and triethylenediamine diperchlorate (DABCO) was measured in J. Ener. Mat. (2017) 35:4, 443, 8956m/s
@ 1.873g/cm3. "tested by a ZBS-10A100 MHz intelligent ten segments detonation velocity measuring instrument at room temperature".
Actual performance measurements are sorely lacking for perchlorate salts, but these are for the ones you mention from PATR 2700. I'm not sure what
percentage of their maximum density this is.
Guanidine perchlorate VOD is 6000m/s at sp gr 1.15, and 7150m/s at 1.67. 6 G152
Methylamine perchlorate VOD is 7540 m/see at d 1.68 and 6600 at d 1.565. 1 A227
Triaminoguanidine perchlorate VOD is 7730m/see (d 1.56g/cc) 9 T28
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 215
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Axt |
The double salt of ethylenediamine diperchlorate and triethylenediamine diperchlorate (DABCO) was measured in J. Ener. Mat. (2017) 35:4, 443, 8956m/s
@ 1.873g/cm3. "tested by a ZBS-10A100 MHz intelligent ten segments detonation velocity measuring instrument at room temperature".
|
Thank you. This is a very interesting substance.
| Quote: Originally posted by Axt |
Guanidine perchlorate VOD is 6000m/s at sp gr 1.15, and 7150m/s at 1.67. 6 G152
Methylamine perchlorate VOD is 7540 m/see at d 1.68 and 6600 at d 1.565. 1 A227
Triaminoguanidine perchlorate VOD is 7730m/see (d 1.56g/cc) 9 T28
|
Yes. I meant these values.
+ ethylenediamine diperchlorate 7150 m/s at 1.67 (not max density).
Guanidine perchlorate maximum density is 1.743.
For methylamine perchlorate, it is near 1.72.
Usually, with a high density, VOD grows linearly with a density or VOD reduces growth.
However, the calculated data in these articles and "experimental" value 8956m/s@1.873g/cm3 violate this rule.
These substances do not have molecular fragments with positive enthalpy. They are like methylamine perchlorate. However, the d(VOD)/d(dencity) grows.
Based on this, I am inclined not to trust this data.
[Edited on 28-12-2024 by Etanol]
|
|
|
Axt
National Hazard
Posts: 849
Registered: 28-1-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Healthy scepticism is warranted, particularly for reports coming out of China. My only criticism is the talking in absolutes. I'm personally not a fan
of high reported figures of simple perchlorate salts, it just takes the fun out of it.
They calculated a heat of formation of +563kJ/mol for the en/DABCO tetraperchlorate which seems absurd (although not as absurd as the initial reported
1904kJ/mol for DAP-4). This wouldn't affect (supposed) measured values though. This is a topic where the amateur can provide more credible
information.
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 215
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Axt |
They calculated a heat of formation of +563kJ/mol for the en/DABCO tetraperchlorate which seems absurd (although not as absurd as the initial reported
1904kJ/mol for DAP-4).
|
No, I have no complaints about this value. This is believable. The heat of formation is minus Enthalpy of formation. Positive heat means negative
Enthalpy:
For hexamine, Enthalpy of formation = -99,2 KJ/mol, heat of formation = +99,2 KJ/mol:
For piperazine, Enthalpy of formation = -45,6 KJ/mol, heat of formation = +45,6 KJ/mol:
For liq H2O, Enthalpy of formation = -285,8 KJ/mol, heat of formation = +285,8 KJ/mol;
For hydrazine, Enthalpy of formation = +50,5 KJ/mol, heat of formation = -50,5 KJ/mol
| Quote: Originally posted by Axt |
Guanidine perchlorate VOD is 7150m/s at 1.67
Methylamine perchlorate VOD is 7540 m/see at d 1.68
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Axt |
The double salt of ethylenediamine diperchlorate and triethylenediamine diperchlorate (DABCO) was measured in J. Ener. Mat. (2017) 35:4, 443, 8956m/s
@ 1.873g/cm3.
|
Actually, there are two possible explanations. Either the new VOD measurements are too high, or the old ones are too low.
[Edited on 30-12-2024 by Etanol]
|
|
|
Axt
National Hazard
Posts: 849
Registered: 28-1-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
No it doesn't. Enthalpy and heat of formation are the same thing not the inverse. Any positive number means its formation is an endothermic process
and implies a strained compound. Look at the table above comparing RDX, PETN and TNT. I haven't checked, but they look about right.
It'd be most interesting to throw these up against the other purported high velocity salts aminotetrazole nitrate and aminonitroguanidine nitrate
which as far as I know have no experimental values.
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 215
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It seems the definition of Wikipedia is fatally diverges with the definition in a chemical textbook.
We were taught that the heat of formation is released when subs formed from simple substances, and enthalpia is the level of own energy of the system
relative to reagents. This automatically changes the sign. When the heat is released out, the own energy of the system decreases by this value.
| Quote: Originally posted by Axt |
It'd be most interesting to throw these up against the other purported high velocity salts aminotetrazole nitrate and aminonitroguanidine nitrate
which as far as I know have no experimental values. |
These substances have a good oxygen coefficient, contain chemical connections with positive enthalpy and a lot of nitrogen.
The first two factors provide good heat of the explosion.
Nitrogen has a small own molecules density. Therefore, with the same density with RDX, such substances can have a greater VOD.
As an example, the experimental VOD of hydrazine nitrate is 8920 m/s at 1.68 (Detonation properties of hydrazine nitrate Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1147
012034)
Cl/HCl has a greater density of its own atoms and molecules. Therefore, from Cl-containing explosives, it is worth expecting low speed at a similar
density.
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 910
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That must be a very strange textbook. Axt is correct in saying that "heat of formation" = enthalpy, and both are equal to the energy flow INTO the
system required to form the substance from elements. That means that substances that release energy when formed such as CO2 from C and O2 will have a
negative heat of formation. This is obviously just a matter of definitions - it would have been possible to define enthalpy with the opposite signs,
but the way Axt refers it is the consensus in the scientific community. And certainly the way it is presented in the textbooks I have read.
We have run into this language barrier before, and I would second Axt's request that you stop phrasing your assertions as definite truths and instead
leave room for the possibility that you might be wrong. It is just a fact of life in the natural sciences that even our most succesful theories can't
be definitively proven, so it grates when something is presented as a final truth.
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 215
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
This is a barrier not only of a language, but also of time.
Historically, until about 1900-1950, scientists used the concepts: "heat of reaction", "heat of combustion", "heat of formation", "heat of the
explosion".
In modern times, the concepts of “enthalpy of formation” and “enthalpy reaction” began to be used. However, "heat of combustion" and "heat of
the explosion", are still used.
"Heat of reaction", "heat of combustion", "heat of formation", "heat of the explosion" are the concepts of one scale.
“Enthalpy of formation”,"enthalpy of reaction"="heat effect of reaction","enthalpy of combustion" are the concepts of another scale.
This causes confusion between the old and new literature.
| Quote: Originally posted by Microtek | That must be a very strange textbook. Axt is correct in saying that "heat of formation" = enthalpy, and both are equal to the energy flow INTO the
system required to form the substance from elements. That means that substances that release energy when formed such as CO2 from C and O2 will have a
negative heat of formation. This is obviously just a matter of definitions - it would have been possible to define enthalpy with the opposite signs,
but the way Axt refers it is the consensus in the scientific community. And certainly the way it is presented in the textbooks I have read.
|
Remember how you calculate the heat of reaction, for example C+O2=>CO2 ?
Enthalpy of formation C = 0;
Enthalpy of formation O2 = 0;
Enthalpy of formation CO2 = -393.51 KJ/mol;
You subtract the initial state from the final state:
d(Etnhalpy)=(-393.51)-(0+0)=-393.51 KJ/mol;
However, you will not say that the heat of combustion 1 mole of carbon is minus 393.51 KJ/mol?
Also, you will not say that the explosion heat of RDX is minus 5.45MJ/kg.
It would be great to hear the authors of these articles. In one article, they use the "heat of formation", in another "enthalpy of formation".
Formally, they do not lie.
upd
Hmm, I looked at the tables for TNT, RDX, PETN, HClO4 and Ethylenediamine. The authors used determination "Heat of formation" = “Enthalpy of
formation”, but a typo really takes place for ETT.
Before ETT, there should be a minus sign:
ETT −563
TNT −67
RDX 92
PETN −407
[Edited on 31-12-2024 by Etanol]
|
|
|
Axt
National Hazard
Posts: 849
Registered: 28-1-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Etanol |
Hmm, I looked at the tables for TNT, RDX, PETN, HClO4 and Ethylenediamine. The authors used determination "Heat of formation" = “Enthalpy of
formation”, but a typo really takes place for ETT.
|
It's not a "typo", it's reiterated in the text. A positive number is an ongoing trend for the purely amino based double salts with the first
(seemingly outrageous) numbers published in 2018, but toned down by 2023. The calculations are given in the supporting information linked to in first
post.
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 215
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Axt |
It's not a "typo", it's reiterated in the text. A positive number is an ongoing trend for the purely amino based double salts with the first
(seemingly outrageous) numbers published in 2018, but toned down by 2023. The calculations are given in the supporting information linked to in first
post. |
Oooh...I see
Do you have a DABCO enthalpy of formation?
We can try to evaluate the enthalpies of the formation and heats of detonation for DAP-1, DAP-2, DAP-3, DAP-4 and ETT.
How about double salts NH4ClO4 with Polyethylene-polyamine(PEPA)/Diethylenetriamine(DETA)/Triethylenetetramine(TETA) diperchlorate?
[Edited on 1-1-2025 by Etanol]
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 215
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C280579&Mask=F...
Triethylenediamine C6H12N2
112.176 g·mol−1
ΔfH°solid (1)=28.2 ± 3.7kJ/mol
ΔfH°solid (2)=-14.2 ± 8.4kJ/mol
I calculated the parameters of these substances.
Real ΔfH° and heat of detonation are lower these values:
en(HClO4)2 ΔfH°solid<-515 KJ/mol Qdet<6.1 MJ/kg
pz(HClO4)2="PAP-0" ΔfH°solid<-497 KJ/mol Qdet<5.9 MJ/kg
DABCO(HClO4)2="DAP-0" ΔfH°solid<-466 KJ/mol Qdet<5.8 MJ/kg
en(DABCO)(HClO4)4="ETT" ΔfH°solid<-980 KJ/mol Qdet<6.0 MJ/kg
NH3(Pz)(HClO4)3="PAP-4" ΔfH°solid<-792 KJ/mol Qdet<6.0 MJ/kg
NH3(DABCO)(HClO4)3="DAP-4" ΔfH°solid<-761 KJ/mol Qdet<5.9 MJ/kg
[Edited on 4-1-2025 by Etanol]
|
|
|
Nemo_Tenetur
Hazard to Self
Posts: 54
Registered: 13-12-2023
Location: Germany
Member Is Offline
|
|
DPPE-1 update
13 Months ago I´ve synthesized several small batches DPPE-1 for testing. A major concern is long-term stability. So I decided not to use all for
sensitivity testing, but also for storage stability testing.
Quantities between one and two gram were covered with several milliliters distilled H2O, and stored in a tool shed outside of my house. The
temperature was in the winter close to zero and reached in the summer about 25 to 30 degree centigrade.
All batches were prepared from the same precursors, even same batch of precursors, but showed different behaviour. One batch remained almost
unchanged, virtually no discoloration, still pourable and goes ddt in small quantities.
The next batch was considerably discolored, with crystal growth and agglomeration, not pourable. It gave small flashes in the blue bunsen burner
flame, really tame, but no explosion at all.
The last (third) sample seems halfway between the former two. Slight discoloration, somewhat clumpy and a very fast burning with flash and a "whomp"
but no bang.
This sample still works fine:
This is the other end:
"Intermediate", halfway between the former two:
I thought that similar prepared samples should behave in the same way? I still have no idea what went wrong. Maybe slight differences in the
stoichometric composition? Or the precipitate not enough washed? The pale amber color looks like traces of iodine due to degradation.
Any other ideas?
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
