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

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: List of explosives more powerful than HMX
John paul III
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 51
Registered: 28-4-2018
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 13-5-2018 at 09:36
List of explosives more powerful than HMX


I want to propose creating a thread, or making this thread,
for educational purposes, a list of explosives possesing VOD higher than HMX, with density data included. I think a lot of
our members would appreciate (including myself) such a
comprehensive list - even if it's just for expanding our knowledge.
If you want to contribute, please reply with your entries for
the list (unless someone feels compentent enough to create
a full list themselves)

I hope you guys don't find this too K3WL :)

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




Posts: 108
Registered: 22-4-2011
Location: guard duty at the checkpoint
Member Is Offline

Mood: "may we see your papers, please?"

[*] posted on 13-5-2018 at 09:54


And, what government agency is it that you are working for?



"Opportunity is missed by most people
because it is dressed in overalls and it
looks like work" T.A. Edison
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rocinante
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 73
Registered: 13-11-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 13-5-2018 at 10:00


epsilon-HNIW (there is even a RS- ε-HNIW)
Hexanitrobenzene
TENGU
Dinitroazoxyfurazan (DNAF)
HHTDD (quite possibly not true)

View user's profile View All Posts By User
John paul III
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 51
Registered: 28-4-2018
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 13-5-2018 at 10:10


Quote: Originally posted by Rocinante  
epsilon-HNIW (there is even a RS- ε-HNIW)
Hexanitrobenzene
TENGU
Dinitroazoxyfurazan (DNAF)
HHTDD (quite possibly not true)


Thank you, I have never heard of TENGU before!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
underground
National Hazard
****




Posts: 383
Registered: 10-10-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 13-5-2018 at 12:08


Octanitrocubane
CL-20
Amino Nitroguanidine nitrate
Tetranitroglycoluril
Tetrazoles
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Dornier 335A
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 208
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: Northern Europe
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 13-5-2018 at 12:15


5-Nitrotetrazole, 9450 m/s at 1.9 g/cc
5-Nitrotetrazole-2N-oxide and hydroxylamine salt, 9450 m/s at 1.7 g/cc and 9500 m/s at 1.64 g/cc
1,1'-azobis(tetrazole), 9200 m/s at 1.77 g/cc
Dinitrodiazenofuroxan (DDF), 10000 m/s at 2.0 g/cc
TKX-50, 9700 m/s at 1.88 g/cc
Ditetrazolylhexaazadiene, 9600 m/s at 1.8 g/cc
Dinitromethyltetrazole, 9600 m/s at 1.87 g/cc
Bis(2-(5-nitrotetrazol-2-yl)-2,2-dinitroethyl)nitroamine, 9330 m/s at 1.97 (I calculated much higher performance though!)
1,7-Diamino-1,7-dinitrimino-2,4,6-trinitro-2,4,6-triazaheptane, 9540 m/s at 1.91 g/cc
Ethyl perchlorate
3-Amino-1-nitroguanidinium nitrate, 9750 m/s at 1.91 g/cc
Bis(triaminoguanidinium) bis(2,2-dinitroethanide)nitroamine, 10000 m/s at 1.99 g/cc
Hydroxylammonium 5-nitriminotetrazolate, 9300 m/s at 1.79 g/cc
5,5’-azo-bis(1-oxidotetrazole), 9550 m/s at 1.9 g/cc
3-Nitramino-4-nitrofurazan, 9860 at 1.95 g/cc
Ammoium 3-nitramino-4-nitrofurazan, 9880 m/s at 1.82 g/cc
Hydroxylammonium 3-nitramino-4-nitrofurazan, 10010 m/s at 1.89 g/cc
3-Amino-3’-azido-4,4’-azoxyfurazan, 9400 m/s at 1.74 g/cc
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rocinante
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 73
Registered: 13-11-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 13-5-2018 at 12:25


ANQ data: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/921e/eca88286e0b691bdac1d00...
also, tetrazoles is too broad of a term
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DubaiAmateurRocketry
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 823
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: In research

[*] posted on 29-5-2018 at 23:18


Quote: Originally posted by Dornier 335A  
5-Nitrotetrazole, 9450 m/s at 1.9 g/cc
5-Nitrotetrazole-2N-oxide and hydroxylamine salt, 9450 m/s at 1.7 g/cc and 9500 m/s at 1.64 g/cc
1,1'-azobis(tetrazole), 9200 m/s at 1.77 g/cc
Dinitrodiazenofuroxan (DDF), 10000 m/s at 2.0 g/cc
TKX-50, 9700 m/s at 1.88 g/cc
Ditetrazolylhexaazadiene, 9600 m/s at 1.8 g/cc
Dinitromethyltetrazole, 9600 m/s at 1.87 g/cc
Bis(2-(5-nitrotetrazol-2-yl)-2,2-dinitroethyl)nitroamine, 9330 m/s at 1.97 (I calculated much higher performance though!)
1,7-Diamino-1,7-dinitrimino-2,4,6-trinitro-2,4,6-triazaheptane, 9540 m/s at 1.91 g/cc
Ethyl perchlorate
3-Amino-1-nitroguanidinium nitrate, 9750 m/s at 1.91 g/cc
Bis(triaminoguanidinium) bis(2,2-dinitroethanide)nitroamine, 10000 m/s at 1.99 g/cc
Hydroxylammonium 5-nitriminotetrazolate, 9300 m/s at 1.79 g/cc
5,5’-azo-bis(1-oxidotetrazole), 9550 m/s at 1.9 g/cc
3-Nitramino-4-nitrofurazan, 9860 at 1.95 g/cc
Ammoium 3-nitramino-4-nitrofurazan, 9880 m/s at 1.82 g/cc
Hydroxylammonium 3-nitramino-4-nitrofurazan, 10010 m/s at 1.89 g/cc
3-Amino-3’-azido-4,4’-azoxyfurazan, 9400 m/s at 1.74 g/cc


Glad to know you're still around, what are you working on recently.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rocinante
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 73
Registered: 13-11-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-5-2018 at 01:42


The list by Dornier is faulty, for example there is 0 way that a 1.79 or 1.74 g/cc explosive is more powerful than HMX, moreover some of his numbers are just plain wrong.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DubaiAmateurRocketry
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 823
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: In research

[*] posted on 30-5-2018 at 02:08


Quote: Originally posted by Rocinante  
The list by Dornier is faulty, for example there is 0 way that a 1.79 or 1.74 g/cc explosive is more powerful than HMX, moreover some of his numbers are just plain wrong.


"Hydroxylammonium 5-nitriminotetrazolate, 9300 m/s at 1.79 g/cc"

It is indeed somewhat true, although the density is actually even lower, at 1.78g/cc, but the VoD is also slightly lower, at 9240 m/s.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/zaac.201100...

and the source for 3-Amino-3’-azido-4,4’-azoxyfurazan, 9400 m/s at 1.74 g/cc can be found here.

http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-BGXB201301010.htm

It is rare that at those densities, an explosive can reach a VoD of over 9000m/s. The high volumetric gas produced, relatively perfect OB, and super high enthalpy of formation did the trick.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rocinante
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 73
Registered: 13-11-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-5-2018 at 04:04


They all claim pressures ~ 350 - 370 kbar, hence not more powerful than HMX - I'm familiar with Klapötke's work. Yes, VOD can shoot up. And remember, Explo5 can crate 5 - 10 % errors.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Dornier 335A
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 208
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: Northern Europe
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-5-2018 at 13:29


Rocinante, please tell me which values you doubt and I will gladly provide you with a source (except for DTH, which is my own work).
I think you underestimate the importance of chemical composition since HMX lacks both the oxygen balance and enthalpy of formation that we see in new experimental explosives.
For example, pure hydrogen azide reaches a measured detonation velocity of 7570 ±20 m/s at 1.127 g/cc, outperforming every single explosive I have ever read about by almost 1000 m/s at that density.

The never-ending discussion about what makes an explosive "powerful" starts again... John paul specifically asked for VoD so that's what I provided. Detonation pressure is more interesting in a few applications but is a weaker function the energy content of the explosive and a stronger function of its density.

Since I've been writing thermochemical codes for more than five years now, I can tell you that modern code like newer versions of EXPLO5 and CHEETAH do not produce 5-10% errors. They very rarely exceed 2% error in VoD for ideal explosives. We can safely assume that new, sensitive, high performing materials are ideal.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DubaiAmateurRocketry
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 823
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: In research

[*] posted on 30-5-2018 at 14:46



Quote:

Since I've been writing thermochemical codes for more than five years now, I can tell you that modern code like newer versions of EXPLO5 and CHEETAH do not produce 5-10% errors. They very rarely exceed 2% error in VoD for ideal explosives. We can safely assume that new, sensitive, high performing materials are ideal.


How hard would it be for you to re-create a more accurate, up-to-date, metric version of PROPEP3?

I can give a new ingredient list too.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rocinante
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 73
Registered: 13-11-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-5-2018 at 15:42


I meant 5 - 10 % for Pcj, not VoD, I'm shooting for Pcj not VoD in relation to HMX.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
underground
National Hazard
****




Posts: 383
Registered: 10-10-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-5-2018 at 17:17


Dornier can you upload EXPLO5 / CHEETAH ?
View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top