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

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  ..  26    28    30  ..  37
Author: Subject: Diphoronepentaperoxide (DPPP)
fatkangaroo
Harmless
*




Posts: 43
Registered: 20-12-2004
Location: australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: disturbed

[*] posted on 25-1-2005 at 20:59


My batch is now fairly dry. I also made a batch of AP at the same time. The differences between the two substances that I have are. The DPPP powder has a very faint yellow tint not pure white like AP. AP is very "sparkerly" the other powder is not. I guess the true test is the explosion test which I will do. I will use tic tac containers containing 25 grams of both powders and see if there is any difference in power. They are both primarys explosives thats for sure. They look pretty similar when a tiny rice grain is ignigted by a match in the open. They smell similar but not identical.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6306
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 25-1-2005 at 21:39


My intuition about the DPPP is that the structure likely would be different from
what is Mackowiaks idea and diagram in the patent . I am more inclined to believe in a different more compact symmetry for such a possible compound produced by reaction conditions of this sort , as opposed to the page wide DPPP molecule which the patent shows . To me what seems more plausible is a symmetrical tetrachlorophorone or hexachlorophorone intermediate , which is then peroxidized to a monophorone triperoxide , that is a six oxygen monophorone derivative . This just seems more believable to me than
the more complex molecule which the patent proposes . I can see where these
monophorone triperoxide molecules could add to each other at the ketone carbonyl group including yet another peroxide bond there in formation of dimer , trimer , or tetramer , cyclizing in the same ways as does acetone peroxide . This would seem to be more consistent with the known molecular models for ketonic peroxides . As strange as it may sound , I can actually visualize a cyclic triphorone tetraperoxide ( three phorones with four peroxide groups each ) as being more likely for reasons of symmetry and cyclization , than the "diphorone pentaperoxide" linear compound proposed by the patent .

[Edited on 26-1-2005 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Chris The Great
National Hazard
****




Posts: 463
Registered: 29-10-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 25-1-2005 at 23:11


I beleive that the DPPP is very likely to be a large mixture of many chemicals. Hideki's videa actually sorta supports my view. When the explosion happens, directly after there is alot of deep orange flame. This doesn't look like the flame of CO or C burning, but like heavier compounds. Of course, they would probably all be broken down in the explosion....still, usually fire isn't seen after a detonation.

The shockwave seen in the video looks more like heat to me as well. Certainly is loud though :)

Near the beginning of the thread a link was posted to a google group where this was discussed (4 replies I think, about a week ago). It was suggested by someone who seemed to know the theory behind chemistry, that chlorine will be added to the phorone as the patent states, but not to the methyl groups. If the chlorine could be added, then there really wouldn't be any reason for it to stop either, and so all four methyl groups could get a chlorine on them. Even if the chlorine doesn't go onto the methyl groups, I would except four chlorines to stick to the main carbon chain, rather than three.

This wouldn't happen to all of them, so the total curve might seem to follow the route shown in the patent. However, it's probably going to be a mix of very large molecules with alot of O2 groups and some small molecules without any O2 at all.

Also, what about the O=C bond? In acetone this is broken down, perhaps tetraphorone derivatives are formed as well by peroxidation of these bonds?

Just some thoughts, don't really know if any of them are actually correct however.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
Matsumoto_Hideki
Banned





Posts: 103
Registered: 27-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: detonated

biggrin.gif posted on 25-1-2005 at 23:55
video thoughts pt2


1) Video belongs to Pyroz not me.

2) That distortion was most defently a high speed shockwave as this was conformed by a physics assistant prof at University.
BTW He also enjoyed the video. :) nice to know that people still enjoy a good detonation once in a while:)

3) I don't think my DPPP was a mix at all as this material was filtered many times with pure isopropylene alcohol. the material left behind was totally prismatic in structure, "cubic". I still am NOT 100% sure it was totally pure, but I am at least 95% sure that it was.

4) Orange flashes can also be seen from PETN, TNT and RDX I am not so sure this has much to do with impuirities.???
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6306
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 26-1-2005 at 06:46


Quote:
Originally posted by Chris The Great
I beleive that the DPPP is very likely to be a large mixture of many chemicals.
The crystals obtained from slow sublimation are mostly uniform in appearance and this result indicates a relatively pure single compound .
Quote:

Near the beginning of the thread a link was posted to a google group where this was discussed (4 replies I think, about a week ago). It was suggested by someone who seemed to know the theory behind chemistry, that chlorine will be added to the phorone as the patent states, but not to the methyl groups. If the chlorine could be added, then there really wouldn't be any reason for it to stop either, and so all four methyl groups could get a chlorine on them.
The extent of chlorination is controlled by temperature and the concentration of HCl . If the reaction is run very hot with high HCl concentration , so that the chlorination activity prevails , then no peroxidation occurs , and a dense yellow insoluble oil settles to the bottom of the reaction mixture , which is believed to be a polychlorinated phorone derivative or polymerized product . This heavy oil will not peroxidize even when separated and attempted to be peroxidized directly in a fresh reaction mixture . Cool but not freezing cold temperatures having a moderate acidity present a combination of chlorination and peroxidation potential , so that either reaction may proceed without one or the other being favored . The theory suggesting formation of DPPP relies upon the assumption that the sequence of reactions simply follows the path of least resistance , with the reactivity potential for each possible combination establishing the trend of the reactions which predominates for the pathways "most likely" to occur first , second , and third , from the triacetone dialcohol . My guess is that the pentachlorophorone is not a distinct intermediate , but the chlorination and peroxidation occurs in an alternating fashion through a series of intermediates which are stepwise chlorinated and peroxidized , in a way that pentachlorophorone never even exists as an actual distinct compound found in the reaction mixture . Thus pentachlorophorone is purely a speculative intermediate presented as an explanatory example for a more complex reaction involving many steps and many intermediates which appear as an alternating chlorination and peroxidation .
Quote:
Even if the chlorine doesn't go onto the methyl groups, I would except four chlorines to stick to the main carbon chain, rather than three.

This wouldn't happen to all of them, so the total curve might seem to follow the route shown in the patent. However, it's probably going to be a mix of very large molecules with alot of O2 groups and some small molecules without any O2 at all.

Also, what about the O=C bond? In acetone this is broken down, perhaps tetraphorone derivatives are formed as well by peroxidation of these bonds?
For acetone peroxide this is where the peroxide group is introduced , and never involves the terminal methyl groups whatsoever . The CO group takes on an additional O and then the COO links to the "backside" of the central C on the next acetone peroxide , with three such units forming a cyclic ring bonded at the central carbons as
COOCOOCOO-->( this last "O" to the back of the first "C" )
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Pyroz
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 76
Registered: 27-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: curious...

[*] posted on 26-1-2005 at 07:59


Quote:
Originally posted by Rosco Bodine
...To me what seems more plausible is a symmetrical tetrachlorophorone or hexachlorophorone intermediate , which is then peroxidized to a monophorone triperoxide , that is a six oxygen monophorone derivative . This just seems more believable to me than
the more complex molecule which the patent proposes .


I would agree with this statement... however, couldn't a more complex molecule form if the temperature was kept lower and the exact or double to the amount of hydrogen peroxide were to be added? humm, this part is rather curious to me..
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6306
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 26-1-2005 at 10:14


Because phorone is a ketone having an active carbonyl group , it is even plausible that the first intermediate is phorone monoperoxide , or phorone dihydrochloride monoperoxide having an O added to the carbonyl as occurs for other ketonic peroxides . This could cyclize in the same way as trimeric or tetrameric acetone peroxide , at the carbonyls , before anything further occurs in the way of chlorination or peroxidation involving the terminal methyls , or middle chain methylene groups . Because of the
potential for either chlorination or peroxidation occurring , it is difficult to visualize what reaction follows what other reaction . The determination of residual unreacted peroxide which remains in the reaction mixture should provide useful information for making an educated guess about what is the true identity of the substance we suppose is DPPP . Really what should be done is some thorough and professional analysis in a fully equipped laboratory , performed by someone who knows what they are doing . Some of the rough analysis can be done with basic technique and tests ,
which is all that I am doing , to satisfy my own curiosity really . The basic tests of sublimation and melting point for separate and control samples , and also for mixed samples should be reavealing when the results in total are examined .
One of the tests I intend to do regarding the experiment where extra acetone is added to the spent DPPP reaction mixture , is to do a sublimation and melting point test on the mixed product if an unaccounted for increased yield is obtained . If that mixed sample behaves in the same way as a separately made sample of "DPPP" made by the conventional route , then that test result will basically nail the coffin shut that DPPP and AP are are chemically identical . There are both chemical tests and physical tests as well as detonation test results which will all three be compared for any inconsistency before I declare any conclusive finding , so that I will have good basis for my own conclusions more than just guessing . With regard to the work done at university laboratories , by students or professors either one or together , those opinions or results are no better than the competency and pertinence of the tests which are done . A fancy technical sounding writeup which is opinion based and involves no revealing test results nor good science and scientific method substantiating its findings is basically nothing but a load of bullshit , even when signed by a PHD . Good science on the other hand speaks for itself with results which make the case for the theory as proposed and validated .
View user's profile View All Posts By User
fatkangaroo
Harmless
*




Posts: 43
Registered: 20-12-2004
Location: australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: disturbed

[*] posted on 26-1-2005 at 14:20


Just returned from a quick test. Tic-tac containers were used each one had 15 grams of powder untamped. One had the AP one had the yellow AP. The charges were put on a solid steel manhole cover. Both charges were blown-The yellow AP gave a loud bang little bit of black smoke and no smell after detonation. The original stuff gave a louder bang and there was a smell after detonation. Both charges had no effect on the manhole cover. The yellow AP had left a small black stain about 1/10 of the total container size. I would of thought that if the yellow AP was DPPP it would of least done something to the plate. I didnt hang around long had a quick look and took off. I also did some micky mouse basic impact tests, you know just puting match head size bits on the ground and hitting with a hammer and draging the hammer across the powder. They both are very sensitive and the original AP detonates in much smaller amounts. I have plenty of powder left so I will do a couple more tests then flush it down the toilet. I dont think this stuff I have is DPPP.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Pyroz
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 76
Registered: 27-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: curious...

[*] posted on 26-1-2005 at 16:25


Quote:
Originally posted by fatkangaroo
The yellow AP gave a loud bang little bit of black smoke and no smell after detonation.

This material you have is unpure--- it should not burn with any smoke at all nor should it detonate with any smell either. The material that I created is extremely pale green-yellow, almost white and has a camphorus/bugspray odor to it with cubic crystals. I find it quite stable in comparison to other organic peroxides. It is also quite a bit denser material as well.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Joeychemist
National Hazard
****




Posts: 273
Registered: 16-9-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: Sedated

[*] posted on 26-1-2005 at 21:28
Trauzl test


Since each family of explosives has different properties and acts different it is best to perform this test with substances from the same family(peroxides -O-O-)And since there is so much question about whether or not this DPPP is or isn’t AP, I thought it best to compare the DPPP with AP and HMTD and not against PETN.


Lead block test,(LBT).
I packed 10g Of HMTD and 10g of DPPP under 2000PSI (give or take) and 1½g AP loosely on top into regular plastic film containers then the charges were fixed with a #8 equivalence cap consisting of Lead Azide and PETN. The lead blocks were placed on 1” steel plate and were at the temperature of 5C, it was cold out today. The results speak for themselves, if the DPPP were anywhere close to 9000m/s it would have destroyed the lead plate turning it into a puddle of hot lead.

lead2.JPG - 12kB
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Joeychemist
National Hazard
****




Posts: 273
Registered: 16-9-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: Sedated

[*] posted on 26-1-2005 at 21:29
Witness plate test


5g of AP and 5g DPPP pressed into pill containers initiated the same way as the other charges were placed on a metal witness plate 2mm thick.The witness plate was place on top of 6” of snow. The pictures are self-explanatory.

AP vs DPPP.jpg - 10kB
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Matsumoto_Hideki
Banned





Posts: 103
Registered: 27-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: detonated

[*] posted on 26-1-2005 at 23:34
I can't see the picture clearly.


I don't see anything. can you maybe take a higher res picture.

point 2# Joey if you compressed DPPP or HMTD at 2000PSI they would both go off on you. And no just because something detonates at 9000m/s dosen't mean you will reduce your target to a molten state. I would expect more shattering than what you are describing. ie) a big hole blasted in the plate that is round. How thick is your plate? You have filtered your DPPP out with isopropylene alcohol, no? Your DPPP has got moisture in it?

Every test that I have done idicates that DPPP is the winner. ie) the 1.6g of DPPP vs TCAP test.pdf clearly indicates this.
I will do another 2 tests the 1.2cm plate vs 2 film canisters TCAP and DPPP and a lead block test.

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Matsumoto_Hideki]

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Matsumoto_Hideki]
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Joeychemist
National Hazard
****




Posts: 273
Registered: 16-9-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: Sedated

[*] posted on 26-1-2005 at 23:49


I can’t take a better pic, I tried and that’s the best I can do.

I already stated the plate was 2mm thick.

Lead is a soft metal so it does not shatter like other metals. It more so expands, and when a high explosive is DDT on a lead block it actually does turn it into a molten puddle, (much like a copper liner).The pictures speak volumes to me.You can look at the pictures whichever way you wish, either way DPPP is not even close to 9000m/s and the patent has one more hole in it.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Matsumoto_Hideki
Banned





Posts: 103
Registered: 27-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: detonated

[*] posted on 26-1-2005 at 23:57
2mm thick? I think you mean 2cm?


what!! you have got to be kidding and you were using a film canister? .. well , Then why would a .223 remington filled with 1.6g of DPPP almost punch a hole in a 3.5mm steel plate and 1.6g acetone peroxide barely scratch the surface of the witness plate?
can you explain that one? I think you should retry the test. BTW thin lead can shatter even though it is a soft metal, I have seen it happen before although you probably wouldn't believe me anyway.



[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Matsumoto_Hideki]
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Joeychemist
National Hazard
****




Posts: 273
Registered: 16-9-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: Sedated

[*] posted on 27-1-2005 at 00:12


The lead probably was ripped, strechted or torn,I doubt it would shatter, and I don't know what I believe when it's comes to you.:(

If you want Hideki, I will re-do the test any way you want.:D:D;)

It won't matter though and I will seem very repetitive I assure you. The DPPP may be a little stronger than AP but it is not stronger than HMTD nor is it 9000m/s, I don't know why you're tests say otherwise. Frankly, I could really care less about you're posts or you’re findings, as you have told one too many lies already for me to believe you.:(

Any way you want, I will conduct the re-tests exactly the way you tell me to,I will make the DPPP exactly the way you tell me to, and if you can tell me a way to make this stuff work at 9000m/s I’ll apologize for ever doubting you.
;)

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Joeychemist]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Matsumoto_Hideki
Banned





Posts: 103
Registered: 27-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: detonated

mad.gif posted on 27-1-2005 at 00:40
Really?


Well I wouldn't pretend I was a server admin either.

Anyway, we are trying very hard to ruin this thread and make everything into "false", if something is one thing is out of place it is deemed fake or flase, if another person trys the test and gets different results "they are lying.. i do see a pattern here.
I see something totally different and Pyroz sees something different as well, physicists and chemists at my university see something quite interesting in terms of it's power and you happen to see nothing. weird.
Are you still working on that Doctorate in physics of yours? How goes your theisis?
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6306
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 27-1-2005 at 07:13


How is the thickness of the witness plate material being determined ? Is there being used a micrometer or dial caliper , or is the thickness being estimated ? How is the weight of the charge being determined ? Is an accurate scale being used , or is the weight of the charge being estimated ? There have been claims and opinions offered which relate to yields and power which are biased and which do not withstand scrutiny and which follow no conventional scientific method , and yet when these matters are pointed out , there seems to be a reaction of taking offense instead of taking a closer look to clarify the facts . Why should anyone get emotionally invested in a science experiment ? If one was testing the performance of various loading combinations for ammunition to be used in a benchrest shooting competition , then the choice would be the components which produced the smallest group on the target , not which favorite brands were already decided would be the ones declared to perform the best before any testing began . So let's just tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may . I have at least two more experiments to do related to the chemistry aspects of alleged DPPP . And I have yet to do some of the physical properties tests like melting points . I have carefully dried and weighed and labeled the samples from various syntheses for the tests to follow . There are a couple of discrepancies which I have already identified which have not received any attention in this topic .

(1) The supposed DPPP is actually colorless , as evidenced by sublimation tests which all produce a colorless sublimate and all leave a yellowish residue whose quantity increases with the tint of the sample before sublimation .
The more pale the color of the sample , the less the amount of residue . Control samples of AP sublime completely leaving no residue .

(2) A discrepancy has been noted with regards to the stoichiometry , establishing that the amount of H2O2 specified by the patent would limit yields to well below the 90% claimed by the patent . This is a mathematical certainty ,
and though I have pointed this out , what comes back here in this thread is "no comment" . I find that very curious .

PS: The cause of the crackling sound produced by the burning of some small amounts of DPPP has been identified as not being associated with the DPPP material itself but the presence of the material responsible for the yellowish tint , which is a resinous material acting as a local binder for clumping crystals together . It is this small amount of bindering of crystals which causes the snap crackle pop sort of burning which on first examination might seem to be a burning property of the crystals themselves , when it is actually an effect being caused by the yellowish resinous impurity . Crystals of ordinary AP will behave similarly when treated with a small percentage of some binder just sufficient to cause some clumping of small crystals into granules . Binders actually lower the threshold amount for DDT so the snap crackle pop is something like a series of "mini-detonations" where the leap is not quite made to a sustained detonation of the entire mass .

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Joeychemist
National Hazard
****




Posts: 273
Registered: 16-9-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: Sedated

[*] posted on 27-1-2005 at 09:44
My results are fact


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Rosco Bodine
How is the thickness of the witness plate material being determined ? Is there being used a micrometer or dial caliper , or is the thickness being estimated ? How is the weight of the charge being determined ? Is an accurate scale being used , or is the weight of the charge being estimated ?

I have already said that the plate is 2mm thick, and if you must know the means of which it was calculated by, I used a dial caliper. The charge weights have already been stated, and no I am not estimating, I measured them with a Newton drop scale, the best I have.

There have been claims and opinions offered which relate to yields and power which are biased and which do not withstand scrutiny and which follow no conventional scientific method , and yet when these matters are pointed out , there seems to be a reaction of taking offense instead of taking a closer look to clarify the facts . Why should anyone get emotionally invested in a science experiment ?

Opinions are like assholes, right Rosco:D, The test pictures show the facts period, and I take no offenses to them, and if others do, that’s not my problem, there was no bias during these tests, I do not want these tests to fail so, but as you said Rosco, let the chips fall where they may.

I already knew the yellow water insoluble stuff acts as a binder and my DPPP was clean for the test. I dissolved in acetone then precipitated by dumping into ample water, filtered then washed again. It was dry and very light pale mint green, (pretty much white like AP) when fired.

I too was once sick with the “holy grail” fever but now, well, look at the pics, flat out. You have my test results, un-biased and factual. Take it or leave it for what it is.fact.;)

[Edited on 28-1-2005 by Joeychemist]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Chris The Great
National Hazard
****




Posts: 463
Registered: 29-10-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 27-1-2005 at 09:47


Ok. Thanks for your answers. So, DPPP (or whatever it's 'real' name is) is a pure substance. However, it will have impurities from other chemicals formed in the HCl + acetone stage, as shown by the black smoke and yellow colours some people have gotten.

Ok, well to me the distortion looks like heat in the fact it goes awa slowly and rises. We could be discussing different things however, but I can sa with 100% certainty that the slowl rising distortion is caused by the (very) large amount of hot gas produced by the explosion.
Also, perhaps you're right about the fire, to me it looks like it burns to slowly compared to other HEs.....

Rosco, you never reall did answer m sorta-question about peroxydation of the O=C bond. I know how acetone peroxide forms, but what I was wondering is if it might be possible for 'impurites' to be formed by peroxydation of this bond in the DPPP synthesis.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
WaveFront
Harmless
*




Posts: 31
Registered: 1-1-2005
Location: Southern Europe
Member Is Offline

Mood: curious

[*] posted on 27-1-2005 at 10:22


Even if the VoD was really 9000 m/s, if the "reaction time", the total time to burn all the products of the reaction is slow, the brisance can be low. The brisance is more related with how fast the energy is released.

So VoD should be measured directly, by an electronic micro-second counter or by findind the point of collision of the shockwaves in detcords with one them know VoD, as somebody described.

Anyway, if the brisance is a little bit more than AP and it makes me cry every I make it, the VoD doesn´t matter to me. I will wait for the Brains of the forum to find a better thing to do with the precursor.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
fatkangaroo
Harmless
*




Posts: 43
Registered: 20-12-2004
Location: australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: disturbed

[*] posted on 27-1-2005 at 10:43


I washed my yellow powder in a metho bath then a good rinse with distilled water. The powder is now white but still not sparkerly like regular AP. There is almost no odor anymore. The powder now looks just like HMTD except there is little bit of clumping.
I am going to a series of small 1 to 2 grams of powder tests today on as many bits of scrap, wood and other junk I can find around the house and hopefully some useful information will come out. One sort of test I will do is put 1 gram of each powder in the middle of a yellow pages and see how pany pages its rips threw.

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by fatkangaroo]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Matsumoto_Hideki
Banned





Posts: 103
Registered: 27-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: detonated

sad.gif posted on 27-1-2005 at 11:20
Sorry for my outburst Joey but..


Yes Rosco the crackling sound is mesityl oxide decomposing and not the DPPP. The material I have is almost pure white and has that bug-spray odor to it. It is cubic as you say. I also notice that it is FAR more brisilliant than AP as the Test.pdf shows this VERY clearly in "actuall fact" this was the yellow DPPP totally dry that caused the damage. I notice a BIG increase in power when I filtered the mesityl oxide out of the crystals. The 3.5mm sheet steel = no match for 1.6g of DPPP in a .223 shell. So I hardly beleive that lead at 2mm wasn't even dented from Joes test.

I will do a film canister test ( DPPP vs AP vs HMTD) hopefully in the next few weeks.. I am too busy right now.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Joeychemist
National Hazard
****




Posts: 273
Registered: 16-9-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: Sedated

[*] posted on 27-1-2005 at 11:44


The steel plate is 2mm thick, and the charges were 5g AP and DPPP toped with 1 ½ g AP, the lead blocks are 3/4" thick and 1 3/4" in diameter, and those charges were 10g HMTD vs 10g DPPP, again toped with 1 1/2 g AP. The lead blocks were the same size at the beginning of the test and are clearly different diameter than each other now. I will do the calculations for the LBT as soon as I can find/remember the formula to correctly calculate the expansion of the blocks.

I will attempt the sand blast tests next which is a fairly good test from calculating brisance.

Edit] Hideki read my previous post. I already stated that I also used #8 equivalence caps. Lead Azide/PETN.


[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Joeychemist]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Matsumoto_Hideki
Banned





Posts: 103
Registered: 27-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: detonated

[*] posted on 27-1-2005 at 12:20
Ok, maybe so but...


The steel plate is 2mm thick, and the charges were 5g AP and DPPP toped with 1 1/2 g AP, the lead blocks are 3/4" thick and 1 3/4" in diameter, and those charges were 10g HMTD vs 10g DPPP, again toped with 1 1/2 g AP. The lead blocks were the same size at the beginning of the test and are clearly different diameter than each other now. I will do the calculations for the LBT as soon as I can find/remember the formula to correctly calculate the expansion of the blocks.

I will attempt the sand blast tests next which is a fairly good test from calculating brisance.


In order to make a good initiator you are going to have to put the AP in a small compressed det cap. This makes your material (x) to detonate evenly. Those .233 shells make excellent detcaps.

Well Pyoz last test was 80g in a butane cylinder and was initiated by this method. 80g of DPPP=
4mm steel pot top was evenly blown in and 3/4" steel braket that the pot was on was warped BADLY and a deep crater 1.5 cm deep was made in the braket. Had the cylider been on the 3/4 " braket the DPPP would have blown right through it with ease even though it was a still a wide angle punching charge. "shaped"
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6306
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 27-1-2005 at 12:51
positive complete detonation of picric acid by DPPP


Let's not be too hasty about the AP versus DPPP debate , because I just got an anomalous test result involving a complete detonation of picric acid when initiated by DPPP in an unreenforced cap .
This differs from my experience with AP . However I did add an element to the firing train , which may be responsible for skewing the results a bit so I will need to repeat the test with some variations to learn the whole story . What I have gained is useful information however , since this is the *first* time I have ever secured a complete detonation of picric acid initiated by a ketonic peroxide in an unreenforced detonator test . The picric acid used for the test is pure dry pale yellow reflective crystals of the detonator grade variety , obtained by dissolving 120 grams of picric acid in about 3.5 liters of boiling water and letting the hot solution cool slowly for 16 hours in a covered container wrapped in insulation , set on a stirplate and being continuously stirred at
a low rate while slowly cooling .

1.5 grams of the picric acid crystals were added in half gram portions with each portion being compressed by hand before the next portion added , in a 5 ml polypropylene Sarstedt brand culture tube 9.5 mm I.D. 12 mm O.D. X 75 mm L.
A one foot length of 3/8" 316 stainless centerless ground round stock was used for the compression ram , and about 15 Kg of pin pressure was applied to each portion being compressed . After the 1.5 grams of picric acid was loaded in three portions , 1.75 grams of DPPP was similarly loaded in portions with each portion being compressed until the 5 ml culture tube was filled to within about 10 mm of the very top . A .25 gram spherical chunk of AP putty was placed on top . A piece of visco fuse was inserted through a hole drilled through a snap cap and secured with duct tape . The loaded test detonator was taped to the surface of a 16" length of 1" square 1/16" wall extruded aluminum structural tubing , and the tubing was marked with a pencil showing the position of the picric acid section of the detonator . The test detonator was fired and a complete detonation of the picric acid was achieved , severing the tube into two pieces . No colored residue or colored smoke was produced , and no washings of the metal fragments produced any yellow coloration to the water in which the metal shards were immersed , so the detonation of the picric acid was complete . Metal fragments from the front wall of the tube which were in contact with the detonator were impact welded to the twisted shards of the back wall of the tubing , confirming high order detonation of the picric acid in the marked section of the tube . However the section of the tube which was adjacent the organic peroxide was *not* showing evidence of the same sort of brisant high order detonation as was witnessed by the metal adjacent the picric acid . The metal adjacent the DPPP was deeply indented all the way to the inside of the back wall of the tubing , and the metal was split , but not shattered to fragments as it was in the section adjacent to the picric acid . The deepening trough from the point of ignition revealed the accelleration over a distance of ~50mm to the point where the impulse was sufficient
at the transition to the picric acid to cause its complete detonation . It may be that this result is simply general information which may be translated to detonator design for AP as well , knowing that the critical diameter is large , for example 3/8" and above , and that a relatively long column of organic peroxide primary is required , along with a rather solid starting shock , so that it can reach sufficient velocity to have initiating capability for picric acid in an unreenforced detonator . Whatever the analysis reveals from more experiments , this is an interesting development for me that an organic peroxide other than HMTD can detonate picric acid in a capsule of reasonable dimension . This could be exploited for improvised compound detonators made from rather common materials , although the detonators would still have to be nearly double the dimension of their commercial counterparts , they would also be double the output which would be an advantage provided to compensate for their bulkier dimension which would appear mostly as length . The increased length is due to the low density and slow accelleration of the organic peroxide . So a detonator can be built using this material , but it will be at least 30% larger diameter than for other materials , and about 50% greater in length to get the job done . Hmmmm. very interesting .
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  ..  26    28    30  ..  37

  Go To Top