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

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2
Author: Subject: MHN Soluability
holmes1880
dushbag





Posts: 194
Registered: 13-12-2010
Location: http://highexplosivesforum.forumotion.com/
Member Is Offline

Mood: Egregious

[*] posted on 24-6-2011 at 13:18


@grexy
Normal quantities of secondary work via thermal principle- a #8 is a #8. The blasting cap costs come largely from the cost of the capsule and all the surrounding equipment needed to perform operations- not the 1g quantities of the cap powder.

As far as ETN, I believe in doing away with it, but it is safer than NG in impact and thermal stability. You said "making NG"... he must have had a violent runaway then?

@rosco

Not everyone is a robot who can ignore the minor probability of a blasting cap going off from static. There have been accidents both static and mechanical with caps. Mishandling is often the cause, but mishandling happens quite a bit. But it's OK, if you're LA type of guy- the odds are on your side, indeed.

[Edited on 24-6-2011 by holmes1880]
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
quicksilver
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline

Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~

[*] posted on 25-6-2011 at 07:27


Actually the costs of a blasting cap (as an example) come from enormous amounts of production and handling/contact control. on each capsule (generally) there is a stamped sequence number of where it was produced, who (what shift) handled it and the time it was officially added into inventory. Then there is a further (often non-permanent) stamp on the carton showing who is the attendant supplier and what part of a bulk sales inventory the cap carton is from. So we have two sequences - one actually permanently stamped into the capsule and another stamped into the container. That's a Hell of a lot of paper work and it's continual. Secondaries always have taggents today but even caps may have taggents if they are mfg in certain conditions. The taggents also have commensurate paper work.
Controlling all those records is what actually boosts the price beyond logical. This is a classic example: A carton of "fuse caps" in the 1950's used to cost about $2.50 per 100 units. "Fuse caps" are actually only made by one (or maybe 2) mfg in the USA. The rest are Nonel caps as no one really even uses fuse any more. They are no longer sold as 100. but sold as dozens. Electric caps are the most common (w/ a zero time delay). They used to sell for 50 cents per unit in a carton of 100. They sell for approx $10 per individual in boxes of 100 in special circumstances. They typically sell in half and full dozen small containers for $16-$20 per unit. There has been little change in electric, zero delay caps other than the immense record keeping (which is actually more than I briefly described here). All those records have to be available locally (at point of mfg) and copied to other agencies at time of construction.
All the numeric and taggent controls mean little if not handled with the most anal of record-keeping sophistication! THIS is what has taken a cap that really did sell for 20cents and make it virtually impossible to obtain today and one that sold for fifty cents; which today sells for up to $20. Detonators are the single most expensive expenditure in modern blasting / construction / demolition.




Source: Journal of Explosives Engineering (isee.org)

[Edited on 25-6-2011 by quicksilver]




View user's profile View All Posts By User
holmes1880
dushbag





Posts: 194
Registered: 13-12-2010
Location: http://highexplosivesforum.forumotion.com/
Member Is Offline

Mood: Egregious

[*] posted on 25-6-2011 at 08:26


Thanks for the info, silver. The labor is therefore the largest cost factor. Makes sense since it's a regulated, dangerous industry.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
freedompyro
holmes1880





Posts: 116
Registered: 16-6-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 29-6-2011 at 20:54


After recrystallization in boiling ethanol and boiling acetone...

Both are a total failure to make proper crystals of any recognizable size. In the second case the acetone was even filtered and evaporated.

All I have been able to achieve is highly sensitive low density white fluff and higher density granular white fluff... LoL! It may not be possible to get MHN to crystallize anything like ETN.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2

  Go To Top