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

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2    4  ..  6
Author: Subject: Best way for getting high density ?
VladimirLem
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 204
Registered: 24-5-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: Have no fear <Vlad> is here.

[*] posted on 15-10-2011 at 23:41


Quote: Originally posted by Phantom  
By the way C-4 works great which is plastic RDX. I`m pretty sure you all had seen this video-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LudNqf56AFo


C4 is a strong explosive, thats for sure, but the VoD suffers exremely from the 9% plastic stuff.

AND:

RDX needs around doubble as much high concentrated HNO3 than PETN needs - when not having Acetic anhydride...so thats for the most users nearly impossible to build huge (CD 6cm<;) chaped sharges with pure RDX...

View user's profile View All Posts By User
Phantom
Harmless
*




Posts: 43
Registered: 26-4-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: AUDENDUM EST,FORTES AUDIUVAT IPSE DEUS

[*] posted on 16-10-2011 at 09:23


Still has around 8000m/s that's for sure.

It is easy to make WFNA out from H2SO4 and KNO3.

If you want a big charge and you can't make that much of RDX than use NG/PETN or ANNMSA which is much simpler.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
VladimirLem
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 204
Registered: 24-5-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: Have no fear <Vlad> is here.

[*] posted on 16-10-2011 at 09:51


Quote: Originally posted by Phantom  
Still has around
It is easy to make WFNA out from H2SO4 and KNO3.


sure...but are the results much better then with normal "pure" HNO3 (~97%) ?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 16-10-2011 at 10:25


Quote:
sure...but are the results much better then with normal "pure" HNO3 (~97%) ?

What do you think WFNA is . . .?

View user's profile View All Posts By User
Maniak
Harmless
*




Posts: 45
Registered: 26-6-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-10-2011 at 02:05


hissingnoise: the acid was checked using pycnometry, it was surely around 98% HNO3. Unfortunately, I wrote about about my older experiments so that I can not provide you any exact values. I detonated it on usual 1cm thick steel plate and examined indent and back side spalling. If somebody performed exact tests with HNO3 based explosives, I'll greatly appreciate measured data..
View user's profile View All Posts By User
VladimirLem
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 204
Registered: 24-5-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: Have no fear <Vlad> is here.

[*] posted on 17-10-2011 at 07:38


Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
sure...but are the results much better then with normal "pure" HNO3 (~97%) ?

What do you think WFNA is . . .?



WFNA...W stands for White - means adding urea to the normal "pure" - yellow colored HNO3...

I made RDX without using urea, and just "normal" HNO3

or did i get something wrong? :(
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 17-10-2011 at 08:24


RFNA is distilled @ atmospheric pressure --- WFNA under strong vacuum; they're both normal for the methods used . . .


View user's profile 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 20-10-2011 at 10:47


Newer (2004) energetic putty-type. Density demands clearly spelled out. expanded base (from Czech and NATO types); US Patent.

Attachment: plastic_2004_6833037.pdf (77kB)
This file has been downloaded 1452 times





View user's profile View All Posts By User
VladimirLem
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 204
Registered: 24-5-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: Have no fear <Vlad> is here.

[*] posted on 27-3-2012 at 09:16


*bump* ^^


what about "phlegmatizing" some (lets say PETN) H.E. with FTN ?

fine powdered PETN into a ethanol-FTN -solution (7% FTN of PETN weight)

stirring the solution and then wait up to the ethanol is "away"...(1-2 days dunno)
then a thin layer of FTN is around the PETN crystals...if that would work, there are very high VoDs possible...

good idea? bad idea?

View user's profile 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 27-3-2012 at 15:35


Quote: Originally posted by VladimirLem  
*bump* ^^


what about "phlegmatizing" some (lets say PETN) H.E. with FTN ?

fine powdered PETN into a ethanol-FTN -solution (7% FTN of PETN weight)

stirring the solution and then wait up to the ethanol is "away"...(1-2 days dunno)
then a thin layer of FTN is around the PETN crystals...if that would work, there are very high VoDs possible...

good idea? bad idea?






You have a complication there. ETN and PETN use differing solvents for optimum results. Acetone (best @ sub-boiling) is actually too STRONG a solvent for ETN - which does a great job of solvency and re-crystallization in ethyl/methyl alcohol. It is obviously possible to experiment with percentages of both solvents to produce a clean well formed result. However acetone alone is too strong a solvent for ETN - PLUS commercial (paint-grade) acetone has petroleum distillates as adulterants within it (leaving that "unclean smell"). This can occasionally be problematic for ridged crystal formation; trapping unwanted materials in the final product. Not all acetone has this problem but most 'hardware store" brands do.
As more and more drug cooks use OTC chemicals, the purity of those products becomes lower. The common source of sulfuric acid is blackened due to it's use in metal treatment surplus. It is more cost effective to leave the garbage and metals in the acid since it's only drain cleaner. Denatured alcohol may on occasion contain acids (phosphoric most commonly) as a means of De-naturing. This presents a serious problem when a pH of neutral is demanded, etc, etc, etc




View user's profile View All Posts By User
VladimirLem
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 204
Registered: 24-5-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: Have no fear <Vlad> is here.

[*] posted on 28-3-2012 at 07:48


dude...i'm talking about Fructose-Tri-Nitrate...(sticky stuff)

ETN mouldnt make sense as a wax-substi cause crystals and shit...
View user's profile 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 28-3-2012 at 08:11


Sorbitol hexanitrate as a compounding medium may be functional energetic density increasing mechanism.

Materials that have limited background study (nitrated fructose) may impose undocumented complexities.
Of the work Tenny Davis did with the Sugar industry in the 1940-50's I could find little of great worth on nitrations of fructose, sucrose, etc. There was some commentary on the difficulty in shelf life longevity with the above. Do a SEARCH on "Tenny Davis" and you should find an old reprint I put up on some material that's not in the COPAE.
And remember some of us are 60 yrs old+ and and "F" looks like an "E".




View user's profile View All Posts By User
Goorlap
Harmless
*




Posts: 29
Registered: 15-11-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 29-3-2012 at 12:14


Quote: Originally posted by VladimirLem  

C4 is a strong explosive, thats for sure, but the VoD suffers exremely from the 9% plastic stuff.


Don't think so, otherwise it wouldn't be used by the military




Life is short. Enjoy it
View user's profile View All Posts By User
VladimirLem
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 204
Registered: 24-5-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: Have no fear <Vlad> is here.

[*] posted on 30-3-2012 at 06:40


Quote: Originally posted by Goorlap  
Quote: Originally posted by VladimirLem  

C4 is a strong explosive, thats for sure, but the VoD suffers exremely from the 9% plastic stuff.


Don't think so, otherwise it wouldn't be used by the military


C4 isnt used as a anti-tank charge in combat...most use for C4 is to blow up captured ammonition from enemies

its just easy zu handle, powerful, dont need some container to get the maximum power and dont have to mixed first (like much cheaper other explosives)...i think thats why its used, not because high VoD...

And yes...sure RDX is used in Antitank ammunition, but that most times RDX/TNT (75/25) or RDX itselv but with only 5% Wax...
And last but not least, most plastizieser have a horrible OB...that could decrease of the VoD (alot?)...
View user's profile 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 30-3-2012 at 06:42


A great many materials shoot even at 30% inerts. Semtex has had 1/4 inerts and all sorts of surplus energetics for export. Their Vod is the same as the lower weight energetic if roller mixed & the inert-bulking agent is infused with the energetic. That is a fact from PATR & the old Soviet-block military reports on exported Czech explosives. Even Jerry Hurst wrote about that 10+ years ago.



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




Posts: 73
Registered: 26-5-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: Alternatingly paranoid or pi**ed

[*] posted on 6-4-2012 at 03:21
Propellant approach???


The patent QS referenced certainly provides some ideas. It suggests you can use the basic approach used to make ammonium perchlorate composite propellants. Just add your energetic solid (AP, PETN, etc.) to your binder system. Certainly 88% solids loading is quite doable; I've done it with AP and HTPB as a binder no problem. I briefly perused the patent, but I didn't notice them giving any actual results though.

You could get wilder and "soup up" your binder system with an energetic (ETN, NG) plasticizer; though that would be certainly increasing the risk level.

The one thing I'm unsure about is if the catalyst would react with the energetic solid in some unpleasant way. These systems are usually hardened by some sort of isocyanate (isophorone diisocyante for example) or an epoxy depending on the exact binder (HTPB, CTPB).

One feature of this approach is that the needed chems are easily available and relatively inexpensive. Now if we only knew if they worked :)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hennig Brand
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1284
Registered: 7-6-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 24-4-2012 at 16:06


Sorry for the long post. I was on a roll!

Plastic explosives made from PIB seem to work fairly well even if they are not the perfect thing.

I think Quicksilver quoted Gerald L. Hurst, well I remember reading archived material from the old Alt.Eng Explosives forum and he said (in my own words) that the type of inert material used in a plastic explosive was of very little importance as far as the performance of the explosive goes.

From Yarchive, in section on plastic explosives:

"There is no particular magic in the specific plasticizer mix other
than that it has good stability and low-temperature plasticity. It
may be viewed as an inert diluent as far as explosive properties go."

Jerry (Ico)


At the bottom is a picture of some ETN plastic explosive made a couple of weeks ago. It weighs 54.3g and has a volume of ~ 30.7cc. That’s right, the density is about 1.77g/cc, and I couldn't believe it myself.

The volume was estimated by rolling it into a nearly perfect ball and then taking the average of three diameter measurements. The diameters were measured on the three perpendicular axes, the x,y & z axes if you will.

Volume of Sphere = 4/3 *pi * r^3

I measured the volume twice, the first time gave a density of 1.78 g/cc the next time 1.76 g/cc. I took the average of these, which as I said before gave a density of 1.77 g/cc. This seems awfully high to me.

The explosive was made from PIB, methyl ricinoleate and SAE 30 non-detergent motor oil/compressor oil (I think that is what the auto parts store guy said people buy the non-detergent stuff for mostly, compressors).

The methyl ricinoleate was made from castor oil laxative. It was made basically the same way one would make biodiesel. I guess biodiesel made from methanol & castor oil is ~90% methyl ricinoleate.

The 15% inerts (PIB, oil, methyl ricinoleate) are all dissolved in white gas, and then the ETN is added and mixed well. I have to find my notes but I think I last used about 5% of each, or close to it. After it is mixed well the gas is allowed to evaporate, not in the light, especially not sunlight.

I have a little table with a smooth plastic surface on it. I found a really good way to knead the dough .....er I mean plastic explosive. Once the gas is gone or almost all gone, put the mass on a nice clean smooth surface, and use a glass rolling pin to knead it. Knead it really well, just like making pizza dough. I found that an old beer bottle with the labels cleaned off makes a great rolling pin.

A little more methyl ricinoleate usually needs to be added during kneading to get the right consistency (few drops at a time while kneading).


Last year I did a little explosive test with 30g or so of this type of plastic explosive. I stuffed the 30g or so into a plastic pill bottle and used a paper blasting cap to initiate it. I normally use about 1.5 g of ETN, MHN or PETN with a little primary on top, all well pressed in a paper tube to initiate this stuff. The inerts make the explosive surprisingly insensitive to initiation.

The charge was duct taped to the side of a large barrel (that old barrel is nothing but holes now). It was fired with safety fuse. When it detonated it formed shrapnel, 6 or 8 pieces about the diameter of a pencil eraser went through the other side of the barrel like tissue and embedded themselves in a woodpile 15 ft behind the barrel. None of the dynamites I ever made created shrapnel like that.

It is unbelievable the difference in brisance of this stuff relative to most dynamites and the common blasting agents.


ETN Plastic Explosive.JPG - 255kB


I would like to thank nitro-genes for outlining his process to produce a plastic explosive using PIB in the thread PETN vs RDX. I used his work as a guide, which helped me when I was first attempting this a great deal.



[Edited on 25-4-2012 by Hennig Brand]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hennig Brand
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1284
Registered: 7-6-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 25-4-2012 at 15:24


OK, I am starting to wonder if it is possible that I had as high a density as I measured. I looked up the densities of the individual components of the plastic explosive.

PIB (amorphous) = ~0.84 g/cc
SAE 30 oil = 0.912 g/cc
Methyl Ricinoleate = 0.925 g/cc
MHN = 1.604 g/cc

I didn't find the density of ETN quickly so I included the density of MHN, it should be close I would think to that of ETN.

I checked the weight again with much better scales and the difference was negligible.

Is it possible that I got a density higher than all the individual components, or is this impossible?



View user's profile View All Posts By User
inspector071
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 69
Registered: 20-2-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 25-4-2012 at 15:51


Perhaps your volume measurement is off. Wouldn't a better way of measuring the volume be to place an amount of the plastic explosive into a graduated cylinder filled with water, then calculate the volume change? Then you can use your accurate scales and calculate density from there.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hennig Brand
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1284
Registered: 7-6-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 26-4-2012 at 05:30


I agree, I would say that the volume or more specifically the measurement for the ball diameter is off. I couldn't find my vernier calipers so I used a ruler instead, bad idea. In the equation for a sphere the radius is to the power of 3 or cubed, this can result in much larger errors than expected. For example, say we have a sphere with an actual radius of 1 cm, which would produce a calculated volume of 4.19 cm^3. If we measured the radius to be 1.1 cm, or greater than actual by 10%, the calculated volume would then be 5.58 cm^3 which is a 33% error from the actual value for volume. Measuring volume in this way, especially with a ruler, was a bad idea.

Someone suggested that I should use a container with a known volume and pack it full of the plastic explosive to find the density, which is basically what I have done.

I took a plastic pill bottle and weighed it empty and then recorded its mass. I next filled it with water and weighed it again, subtracting this weight from the weight taken when the container was empty to find the weight of the water. I measured the temperature of the tap water and went to a table to find the density of water at that temperature. From the density and mass of the water I was able to easily calculate the volume of the container. I carefully dried the container and then packed it full of my plastic explosive. I weighed the container and plastic explosive and then subtracted this weight from the weight of the empty container. This weight divided by the container volume gave me the explosive density.

Mass of empty container = 4.63 g
Mass of container filled with water = 32.74 g
Water Temperature = 10.5 C
Density of water @ 10.5C from table = 0.999 654 g/cc
Mass of container filled with explosive = 44.72 g

Volume of container = (32.74g - 4.63g) / (0.999654g/cc) = 28.1 mL
Density of Explosive = (44.72g - 4.63g) / 28.1 mL = 1.43 g/cc

I think I may have fluffed the explosive up a little, or included a little air getting it into the container, but probably not that much. This value of 1.43 g/cc for the explosive is much closer to the actual value and seems more reasonable.


I included a density table for water, which I thought others might find useful.

Attachment: Density of Water at Various Temperatures.pdf (72kB)
This file has been downloaded 3701 times



[Edited on 26-4-2012 by Hennig Brand]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Jimbo Jones
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 102
Registered: 15-10-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 26-4-2012 at 06:10


Press the plastic explosive in precise graduated syringe. Just cut some small holes for the trapped air on the end of the plunder and the rubber piston. Works fine.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hames
Harmless
*




Posts: 24
Registered: 14-2-2012
Location: oz
Member Is Offline

Mood: as was

[*] posted on 26-4-2012 at 07:54


I was wanting to plasticize my etn,I have few litres of dioctyl phthalate, would this be suitable with pib as a binder,according to wikipedia semtex is plasticized with n-octyl phthalate, could they be substituted?.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hennig Brand
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1284
Registered: 7-6-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 26-4-2012 at 12:19


I think that is normally used with styrene-butadiene, in Semtex, not PIB. I assume there is a good reason but I don't know yet.

I found a very interesting pdf, on line just now, with specs for some of the common grades of Semtex. Notice that Semtex 1H in the pdf has a density of 1.43 g/cc, the same density as my ETN plastic explosive. I wonder what the percentage of inerts is in Semtex 1H. Mine is around 16% inerts, but I plan to drop that some.



Attachment: SEMTEX.pdf (532kB)
This file has been downloaded 3845 times

Ok, according to Wikipedia Semtex H is 17.9% inerts. This is a little more than I am using, however I am not using PETN and RDX either. PETN and RDX I believe are both more powerful explosives than ETN.


Here is another spec sheet for some Semtex products, from the Explosia a.s. company website. This company appears to be an older more established company than the one above. The data tables look identical though, so maybe they are affiliated in some way.


Attachment: Plastic Explosive Specs.pdf (44kB)
This file has been downloaded 1049 times


According to Wikipedia:

"Explosia a.s. is an explosives manufacturer in Semtín, a suburb of Pardubice in the Czech Republic. The company was established in 1920. Its most famous product is the Semtex malleable explosive, the name is formed as a combination of the first letters of the Semtín village and the company name."



[Edited on 27-4-2012 by Hennig Brand]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Maniak
Harmless
*




Posts: 45
Registered: 26-6-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 27-4-2012 at 09:03


The reason why there is SB rubber and not PIB is very simple. When the manufacture was started in sixties, SB was much more readily available than PIB in Czechoslovakia and there is no reason to change the composition now, when the manufacture is optimized.

The first pdf file you attached is just from some distributor of Explosia a.s., because this is the only place where S is prepared on the world (maybe exception are some amateurs' labs).
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hennig Brand
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1284
Registered: 7-6-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 27-4-2012 at 12:00


So there is no difference in suitability between the two? I assumed, but didn't know, that every binder might have a plasticizer that it works best with. I am in the process now of trying to find some good information on plasticizers.

I found what I think is a really good book, "Handbook of Plasticizers by George Wypych". I haven't found a download yet and the book goes for around $300, which is out of my price range right now for a book.



View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2    4  ..  6

  Go To Top