Sciencemadness Discussion Board

New melt-cast secondary explosive

Hey Buddy - 4-11-2022 at 09:36

Firstly I wanted to apologize for previous posts I've made that were immature and distracting. I drink a little too much, the result is drinky posts. I commit to adding more useful, less distracting input.

After some experimentation, I want to report a new secondary explosive that possesses what I believe to be beneficial qualities for amateur chemists and excellent qualities in terms of utility, performance and production simplicity. I believe this compound is:
2-nitrimino tri-nitroso 1,3,5 triazine,
C3H4N8O5 232.1145g/mol, OB (CO2) -20%.
Assuming this to be the compound, and that I haven't really-screwed this up, I've been calling it NTNT in reference.

This explosive is a sparkling yellow crystal (somewhat whiter than TMTN and with greater light reflection by the crystals) which packs well and has an absolute melting temp of approximately 110C. I have not measured its decomposition temperature but suspect it to be in the 220C-250C range.
Melt NTNT has a deep yellow color and reverts back to a lighter opaque lemon color at ~ 68C with a considerably increased melt-cast density.

I have not observed a significant increase in sensitivity in the melt-phase like as seen in ETN.

On exposure to flame, NTNT deflagrates without detonation in 1-2 gram quantities with intensity approximate to HMX. Deflagration leaves behind some residue.

NTNT can be detonated with impact of a very strong hammer blow. It is less impact sensitive than PETN.

I do not believe NTNT is friction sensitive.

My analytical ability is crude, but if the 2-Nitrimino structure is correct, then NTNT has a CO2 Oxygen Balance of -20.67%.
NTNT has a Pyro Valence in its end state of (+6) for CO2 and ZERO for carbon monoxide. This is identical pyro valance for HMX and RDX which are both zero with respect to CO, whereas Keto RDX is -6, (a net oxidizer effect depending on decomposition path) and TMTN R-Salt is (+6) for CO and (+12) for CO2.

Assuming the structure is correct, the molar mass of NTNT would be 232.1145g/mol

NTNT is not hygroscopic, it does not solvate in H2O even after 4 days of submersion at ~15C.
NTNT is soluble in Acetone and Methanol.

It's too preliminary to declare, I suspect NTNT to have a detonation velocity and pressure higher than RDX and possibly higher than HMX or equivalent. There is a fair chance it exceeds HMX performance. The nearest compound that I have found in literature is 2-nitriminohexahydro-1,3,5-triazine monohydrochloride which has a detonation velocity of 9000m/sec @1.80g/cm^3.
The monohydrochloride was found in:
"Synthesis of Polynitrocompounds from Nitroguanidine" Yu Yongzhong Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics 14,150-152 (1989)

Im currently testing compatibility with Al, TiH2, Cu.
Personally, I'm very excited with ease and positivity of this material's melt-castability. Even if the performance were lower than commercial explosives, its ease of production and castability make it very useful.

It should be noted that NTNT decomposes with deflagration on even trace contact with concentrated H2SO4.

NTNT has no reaction with HCl or Glacial Acetic Acid.
It is probably carcinogenic and mutagenic.

Any help in confirmation on structure or measurements of velocity/pressure or production improvements would be welcome and I freely deliver this information to the SM users for their enjoyment. I do have access to blast ranges for measurement and I can afford measuring equipment but I'm totally ignorant on how to properly measure detonation velocity practically with oscilloscopes or transducers. Particularly I have somehow been unable to measure its density with accuracy and keep getting erratic results.

The methods I have used for production are modified procedures from Lawrence Livermore synth of R-Salt. In this adaptation a slight molar excess of Nitroguanidine to Hexamine is added to HCl and the Nitroguanidine is dissolved completely before adding additional water and the nitrite is added after hexamine and Nitroguanidine have been mixed with water and crushed ice. The addition of NaNO2 causes the reaction and transformation from the Nitrimino Hexahydro Monohydrochloride to the Nitrimino tri-Nitroso which results in a significant amount of light yellow thick polymeric foam to precipitate. The foaming is greater and thicker than the foaming encountered in preparation of R-Salt. Originally, I used an overhead stirrer for this reaction but after many trials determined it wasn't necessary and that the reaction takes place between the foam layer and the aq. HCl layer and does not suffer in yield from using only initial stirring mixing or shaking and then leaving to react for ~25min -35m. The foam is then separated from the liquid and dried, recrystallized from acetone.

Despite the compounds extreme decomposition sensitivity to H2SO4 (a spoonful dropped into concentrated H2SO4 results in a fireball), I found that the highest yield and shortest reaction times can be obtained from using H2SO4 to dissolve NQ followed by dilution with H20 and addition of Hexamine to that followed by addition of aq. NaNO2. This results in a more extreme and fast reaction and what appears to be a larger yield of product. Reaction time with this method is only 5 minutes and the excess NaNO2 is added in stages over 5 minutes in order to prevent loss of nitrous. The foam precipitate has to be washed thoroughly in filtration or else the NTNT will decompose upon drying with what I assume is trace H2SO4 left on the crystals. It is also possible to recrystallize it in Acetone before it's completely dry and this eliminates H2SO4 when it is crashed out into water with Urea as scavenger.

In conclusion, this is a low temperature (110C) melt cast explosive unknown in literature that is simple to make and can be made using either NQ/HCl/Hexamine/NaNO2 or GN/H2SO4/Hexamine/NaNO2 with a total reaction time of 1 hr for NQ, and 10 minutes for the NTNT and those two reactions can be performed sequentially or separated for convenience. The procedure requires no special tools or equipment. I have produced NTNT using only a large mason jar, a pyrex baking pan and an automotive funnel with coffee filters in relatively high yield. I am still experimenting with the procedure but it is very flexible and I'm sure others with more experience can improve on it. The resulting melt-castable NTNT produced should have a better OB (-20.67) than both RDX (-21.6%) and HMX (-21.6%) and has a neutral pyro valance with respect to CO as neither fuel rich nor lean. This explosive may have similar performance to RDX or even HMX, certainly much better performance than TMTN R-Salt and has reasonable sensitivities that are less-sensitive to impact and friction than PETN.

Hopefully I have not made serious errors in reporting this information but I have no way of knowing its accuracy without review from knowledgeable people. Any help with measurements and performance data or production experiences would be very welcome.



[Edited on 4-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

boyhakan - 4-11-2022 at 10:25

It could be usefull to have a complete syntesis procedure so anyone, first of all me, could replicate and valuate it analitically

Loptr - 4-11-2022 at 10:25

Care to post some details on its synthesis?

Hey Buddy - 4-11-2022 at 11:39

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr  
Care to post some details on its synthesis?


modified LLNL synth:
(~.14mol) 14.5+g Nitroguanidine completely dissolved in 68ml hardware store Muriatic acid
(.14 mol) 21g Hexamine added to HCl/NQ solution
2 large handfuls of crushed Ice added to solution
250ml H2O added to solution
50g NaNO2 dissolved with minimum H2O, poured into reaction vessel
vessel is shaken or stirred to mix reagents, then reaction vessel left to sit
Visible color change as Nitrous acid is formed
Foaming is produced, volume expands significantly
gas is trapped by foam layer, occasionally burping
Reaction proceeds for ~30 minutes
Reaction is then stopped, pouring foam through filter then washing with water
Multiple filters and filtrate vessels help as the foam filters slowly
Collected NTNT in foam state can either be dried as foam or squeezed out in filter and then dried compressed.
I have also used a pyrex pan and poured reaction into it at end of addition of NaNO2 and stirring, allowing foaming to occur over larger area in pan, then scooping out foam with a spoon and then proceeding with filtration.
Recrystallize from hot acetone into dH2O with Na2CO3 and Urea as scavenger.
Dried in plate heater @50c until no moisture is evaporated

During reaction, dilution with water is critical. If no water is added there is a large loss on yield.

I am still working on the H2SO4 procedure but it is from the "Memorial Des Poudres- Vol 33" paper posted before on SM.
It uses a large excess of NaNO2 and a slight molar excess of NQ to Hexamine. In theory, one NQ mole equivalent is required for each mole of hexamine as the nitrimino forms in the number 2 position on the triazine anything less than one equivalent will leave hexamine to become the monohydrochloride which detonates at around 102C or so according to literature. So adding an excess of NQ is necessary to discourage monohydrochloride and ensuring the NQ dissolves in acid is probably the safest way to ensure it is mobil for availability in the reaction.
I dont have notes on H2SO4 experiments but referencing the french TMTN paper, they call for 1200ml H20 (I think I used less, around 500ml) .8mol H2SO4 and 1.2mol NaNO2, hexamine .2 mol. I then added to the procedure greater than .2mol NQ by first dissolving it in H2SO4 and then adding the listed reagents along with ~250grams of crushed ice. The hexamine is added quickly prior to addition of NaNO2 in H2O solution, which was added over 5 minutes by pouring approximately 1/5 of it into reaction every minute. Precipitation of foam is immediate.
After the addition of NaNO2 is complete the reaction is swirled minimally enough to mix then left to sit for 5 minutes.
After that the reaction product is poured through coffee filter as a thick foam and then carefully squeezed of fluid in the filter to rid excess acid.
The product is then rinsed with water well, and allowed to dry before recrystallizing from hot acetone as before.
On one trial I did not wash the filtered material well and proceeded to dry it @50c, I dry on heated glass plates then scrape off dried material.
In this instance I suppose there was residual H2SO4 on the product because as I scraped the material from the glass it became powder and occasionally as it piled onto itself began decomposing with smoke which was confusing at first until I realized it must be residual H2SO4. I have had no decomposition sensitivities when using HCl. The material is highly sensitive to H2SO4. I tried to oxidize it once in an NH4NO3/H2SO4 slurry and it instantly deflagrated on addition with a large fireball rising out of the beaker.
Hopefully this information helps.

All in all, it is a very simple and forgiving production regardless of route. I have not attempted the DNPT version of this but have tested the material in acetic acid with no reaction. I do not believe this material can be oxidized into a Nitro Derivative, I believe it is rendered into an oxidiazine derivative that is much less stable and has none of the same desirable qualities.




Below are images from lab video, it's a cheap chinese gopro so very grainy (sorry, i didnt intend for others to view it.)
The recrystallized product is on the left, you can somewhat see the sparkling quality to it. The right image is in melt phase @110c. It has no decomposition at all in melt phase and at ~68C it reverts back to the original lighter color in a more-dense casted state




NTNT.png - 1.1MB NTNT4.png - 765kB

[Edited on 4-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

NTNT5.jpg - 25kB

[Edited on 4-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 4-11-2022 at 13:05

Intersting description and procedure.
14.5g NQ + 68ml HCl +21g Hex + 50g NaNO2. It is approx 154 g of all reagents. And yield of grams after recrystallisation from acetone?....17g for example?
Maybe I'm old and blind, but I can't find it in the text.








[Edited on 4-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

Hey Buddy - 4-11-2022 at 14:07

Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov  
Intersting description and procedure.
14.5g NQ + 68ml HCl +21g Hex + 50g NaNO2. It is approx 154 g of all reagents. And yield of grams after recrystallisation from acetone?....17g for example?
Maybe I'm old and blind, but I can't find it in the text.








[Edited on 4-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]


So sorry doc, I have not recorded yield data. I immediately begin testing on it everytime I prepare it. It is improved beyond both TMTN procedures, the yield is higher for this compound, somehow additives like guanidines and ureas increase the yield. I have performed the TMTN synths so many times it is clearly observed there is a greater yield on product when preparing this NTNT versus TMTN. I would guess more than 17g. I'm still tweaking the H2SO4 procedure but the modified LLNL synth is a great place to start, very simple.

I did just realize I miswrote in earlier post, to clarify, NQ molar equivalent to hexamine controls monohydrochloride formation, if there is less NQ equivalent than the remainder of hexamine, then that remainder should become TMTN upon addition of NaNO2. The molar qty of NaNO2 controls how much monohydrochloride (2-nitriminohexahydro-1,3,5-triazine monohydrochloride) is produced. If there is not enough NaNO2, then not all of the monohydrochloride is converted into NTNT. So a slight excess of NQ in molar ratio to Hexamine is a good measure, and an excess of NaNO2 is an important measure to avoid monochloride in the final product because according to Yohngzung, the monohydrochloride explodes at 102C which is below the melt cast temp of NTNT at 110C.

The picture below helps to explain sub-reactions taking place before the formation of NTNT. These compounds can be easily produced as well though they are not new and have less stability and much less utility.

I have attached two references for polynitro compounds for NQ. These papers are where my research started and after a lot of failed experiments with strange derivitives I came to this NTNT compound and going through testing procedures found that it is very suitable as an explosive. I really need to determine velocity and pressure, but for the simplicity of production it is hard to beat.

NTNT6.jpg - 256kB

Attachment: nitroguanidine poly nitro compounds Zhuang.pdf (283kB)
This file has been downloaded 216 times

Attachment: nitroguanidine derivatives.pdf (134kB)
This file has been downloaded 213 times

[Edited on 4-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 5-11-2022 at 00:31

So the excess of both NQ and NaNO2 over hexamine is important. Apparently, 68 ml of HCl is probably not that important. Could it be 75ml? Or just 60ml? Does it only create an acidic reaction environment?

250 ml of water is clear info, but two handfuls of ice is not. How much ice is that?
500 grams? So a total of 750ml of distilled frozen water? So is this a reaction medium that is very dilute? Will it require a glass of at least 2 liters of container volume?

Your description......(I think I used less, about 500ml)....is not accurate enough. For anyone to even bother trying to repeat. If you are interested in your invention being viable (and being tried by someone) the process must be described with absolute precision. 2 handfuls of ice is not enough. 2 handfuls of distilled ice? How much acetone to recrystallize 10g of LLNL? What temperature? How many grams of LLNL should be dissolved in 100g of acetone? How much urea? How much Na2CO3? If the description isn't accurate, no one will even bother trying. Everyone will make ETN and be satisfied.....:cool:
Years of experience say this: Amateur chemists are incredibly lazy. If they don't get all the information on a golden platter, they won't even open the door to the lab.

MineMan - 5-11-2022 at 02:56

So if a little of the monochloride is formed it can explosive the whole batch during melt casting!???

Hey Buddy - 5-11-2022 at 04:35

Quote: Originally posted by MineMan  
So if a little of the monochloride is formed it can explosive the whole batch during melt casting!???


This I don't know. It appears possible from literature, so I've warned about it. I don't know how well the monochloride forms, or if the data on it exploding @102C is accurate. But for safety, I would assume it to be accurate. It would need to be tested by deliberately using insufficient Nitrite in order to create monohydrochloride then testing it with controlled heating to see if detonation occurs @102C. But I have not tested this.

The way this compound was come across was in attempting to replicate the synth of the monohydrochloride. During those work ups, I found difficulty in precipitation. I have familiarity with TMTN precipitation methods, so that immediately came to mind as a possibility because it's a triazine. The nitrosation with NaNO2 was very effective in promoting precipitation and I moved on to basic testing of the material.

I feel its properties and simplicity of production are significant enough to warrant sharing this information even at this early stage because it appears to be a very interesting and capable energetic material. It could potentially offer a great deal of velocity and pressure.

Monohydrochloride formation hazard, I feel is something that should be tested for, or at least warned of as a potential hazard as it seems to be a possible pathway in preparation of this compound if insufficient Nitrite is used.

Hey Buddy - 5-11-2022 at 04:49

Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov  
So the excess of both NQ and NaNO2 over hexamine is important. Apparently, 68 ml of HCl is probably not that important. Could it be 75ml? Or just 60ml? Does it only create an acidic reaction environment?

250 ml of water is clear info, but two handfuls of ice is not. How much ice is that?
500 grams? So a total of 750ml of distilled frozen water? So is this a reaction medium that is very dilute? Will it require a glass of at least 2 liters of container volume?

Your description......(I think I used less, about 500ml)....is not accurate enough. For anyone to even bother trying to repeat. If you are interested in your invention being viable (and being tried by someone) the process must be described with absolute precision. 2 handfuls of ice is not enough. 2 handfuls of distilled ice? How much acetone to recrystallize 10g of LLNL? What temperature? How many grams of LLNL should be dissolved in 100g of acetone? How much urea? How much Na2CO3? If the description isn't accurate, no one will even bother trying. Everyone will make ETN and be satisfied.....:cool:
Years of experience say this: Amateur chemists are incredibly lazy. If they don't get all the information on a golden platter, they won't even open the door to the lab.


With all due respect, I was simply reporting the compound, it was not my intent to deliver a recipe.


When I found that the material was melt castable, non hygroscopic and burned with greater intensity than RDX, I then moved on to hammer testing and was able to detonate it with a ~one pound hammer striking the material against a steel anvil *very hard (TMTN cannot be detonated with a hammer by hand. it is extremely insensitive to impact).

Following that, I realized there was something significantly useful here and so I analyzed the likely structure and realized its Pyro Valence features, high nitrogen content and saw that if the nitrimino structure were correct, it would have one less oxygen than RDX. The Nitrimino function eliminates hydrogen at the number 2 position and so the CHNO ratios become more favorable. If that were the case, it would seem to agree with the increased reactivity over TMTN.

The Nitrimino function tends to add quite a bit of energy to molecules as an addition. For example, some nitriminotetrazoles are reported in the 10,000m/s velocity. Amino-Nitroguanidine and ANQN and ANQ Sulfate are very energetic in themselves, so adding a nitrimino function to TMTN should in theory be much more powerful.

My hope was that someone could assist in identifying the compound or perhaps run it through theoretical software to estimate velocity and pressure. I was not trying to deliver a recipe though.

If SM would like, I can develop a procedure for preparation but it's really very simple, it is virtually identical to TMTN procedures which are probably about the simplest out there aside from Nitroguanidine preparation.

For now, I am simply excited to have located a new melt cast because they are less commonly found, so I wanted to share it with anyone interested. If chemists are too lazy to prepare compounds themselves then they can wait until a procedure is finished working up. ie. Not my problem.

Texium - 5-11-2022 at 06:02

I think LL did himself a disservice by saying that a detailed procedure should be provided because “amateur chemists are lazy.” The reason that you should write up a detailed procedure when you claim a new compound isn’t to provide a recipe for the lazy, it’s to ensure that your results are unambiguous and reproducible. This goes to an even greater extent in professional chemistry publications. Not only is a detailed procedure required when reporting a new compound, but full characterization data with IR, NMR, and mass spectroscopy, and sometimes melting point and TLC Rf, too. Obviously that full characterization is not practical for an amateur to achieve, but the percent yield should definitely be reported, and it’s nice to see at least the melting point and Rf provided. You can probably find someone here with the resources to further characterize a sample. Nobody is giving you shit here, it looks like you’ve made an interesting discovery. This is all just constructive criticism to help you report your results in a professional and reproducible manner.

[Edited on 11-5-2022 by Texium]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 5-11-2022 at 06:13

Oh yes, I understand. We thanks for your research. Procedure looks pretty easily. For RDX is necessary usually almost 100% HNO3.
For your substance are necessary pretty easy, available compounds. Also procedure looks easy. Final test require of course the comparative crater against ETN. In the lead or the aluminium block. For example 1g cast or high pressed your substance. Any way, seems it interestly.
If the substance turns out to be as explosive as ETN, or even more explosive, it would be a breakthrough in energy materials research. On amateur field.
I hope, that on picture is Nitroguanidine - NQ

As Texium said. It’s to ensure that your results are unambiguous and reproducible.

NQ.jpg - 253kB

[Edited on 5-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

Loptr - 5-11-2022 at 06:33

Well, the reason that you also provide the procedure is because the burden is on the one posting the topic. It goes against forum etiquette for one, but also as Texium mentioned.

Just because you had success after unintentionally altering the procedure, doesn't mean the next will will be as successful, especially with energetics.

[Edited on 5-11-2022 by Loptr]

Hey Buddy - 5-11-2022 at 06:42

Quote: Originally posted by Texium  
I think LL did himself a disservice by saying that a detailed procedure should be provided because “amateur chemists are lazy.” The reason that you should write up a detailed procedure when you claim a new compound isn’t to provide a recipe for the lazy, it’s to ensure that your results are unambiguous and reproducible. This goes to an even greater extent in professional chemistry publications. Not only is a detailed procedure required when reporting a new compound, but full characterization data with IR, NMR, and mass spectroscopy, and sometimes melting point and TLC Rf, too. Obviously that full characterization is not practical for an amateur to achieve, but the percent yield should definitely be reported, and it’s nice to see at least the melting point and Rf provided. You can probably find someone here with the resources to further characterize a sample. Nobody is giving you shit here, it looks like you’ve made an interesting discovery. This is all just constructive criticism to help you report your results in a professional and reproducible manner.

[Edited on 11-5-2022 by Texium]


Of course, I understand, my wife is mad at me and I cant retrieve lab notes and so I was not prepared to discuss a procedure. But I could be hit by a bus or some unfortunate circumstance and so I wanted to put out this information for other people to know it exists. I will retrieve lab notes and reconstruct the LLNL mod synth for this compound that has been successful. The Ice added has been tried at various amounts and they all yield product, I think the only experiment that I tried that didnt yield product was one without any cooling whatsoever and it became very hot and produced a lot of gas, obviously, and virtually no yield. But I stated "two handfulls" of ice because that was the note in the notes that I do have for one of the LLNL mod trials. I will pool notes and figure out where holes are and retest melt point with a thiel apparatus and determine decomp temp. reconstruct that with accuracy and report back with some more data. FYI, m.p. for me began at 104C and then had a sweet spot at 110C where it melted very easily, with no decomposition or off gassing at all. This is very different from TMTN, as TMTN off gasses in a very narrow window of its melt phase making it practically not possible to melt cast with TMTN. This compound is different entirely in that and other respects.

But I understand the complaints, I estimated there may not be much interest but if there is interest I will report back with confirmations and simplified procedure.

Laboratory of Liptakov - 5-11-2022 at 06:48

My experience is that many amateur chemists try to simplify the original procedure. And that immediately on the first try. Even if the original procedure was simplest, there will always be someone who feels smarter than the author. And he will try to simplify the process even more.
The result is a failure of the synthesis, or a tragic yield. Or some worse.
Therefore is necessary exact procedure, which bring always same results.

Louis Pasteur: One attempt, nothing attempt. 10 attempts = one attempt.
100 attempts half of truth. 1000 attepts, the whole truth.
My experience says, that 10 attempts is enough. With same results.

Hey Buddy - 5-11-2022 at 06:51

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr  
Well, the reason that you also provide the procedure is because the burden is on the one posting the topic. It goes against forum etiquette for one, but also as Texium mentioned.

Just because you had success after unintentionally altering the procedure, doesn't mean the next will will be as successful, especially with energetics.

[Edited on 5-11-2022 by Loptr]


No, in preparation of this compound the results are repeatable across a wide range of cooling conditions, so long as enough Nitrite is used to convert it from monochloride to this compound, there should be a repeat and the only difference as far as I can ascertain is the yield, depending on cooling conditions. I have performed this several times now for both HCl and H2SO4. Cold seems to improve yield. I have been unprepared for posting a procedure, as for now I have moved on to using H2SO4 but this presents other complications. So I understand these criticisms and will try to put together something more comprehensive on a procedure with HCl and report back.

Thank you for your criticisms.

If anyone has theoretical modeling software, I am interested in learning theoretical performance.

Laboratory of Liptakov - 5-11-2022 at 06:56

Quote: Originally posted by Hey Buddy  


But I understand the complaints, I estimated there may not be much interest but if there is interest I will report back with confirmations and simplified procedure.


Interest is evidently.....:D.... Caution: Keep away from bus, tram, train, open window, bridge, elevator and similarly. Do not travel anywhere, especially not to Ukraine.
If your substance had an easy DDT, it would be one of the biggest breakthroughs in the history of Science Madness.....:cool:

[Edited on 5-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

Loptr - 5-11-2022 at 09:42

Quote: Originally posted by Hey Buddy  
Quote: Originally posted by Loptr  
Well, the reason that you also provide the procedure is because the burden is on the one posting the topic. It goes against forum etiquette for one, but also as Texium mentioned.

Just because you had success after unintentionally altering the procedure, doesn't mean the next will will be as successful, especially with energetics.

[Edited on 5-11-2022 by Loptr]


No, in preparation of this compound the results are repeatable across a wide range of cooling conditions, so long as enough Nitrite is used to convert it from monochloride to this compound, there should be a repeat and the only difference as far as I can ascertain is the yield, depending on cooling conditions. I have performed this several times now for both HCl and H2SO4. Cold seems to improve yield. I have been unprepared for posting a procedure, as for now I have moved on to using H2SO4 but this presents other complications. So I understand these criticisms and will try to put together something more comprehensive on a procedure with HCl and report back.

Thank you for your criticisms.

If anyone has theoretical modeling software, I am interested in learning theoretical performance.


Sorry, but my points still stand and it wasn't provided as criticism towards you. LL said that amateur chemists are lazy. My point was that if we go look up a procedure, we can not be sure it's the same one or revision. I then concluded my response with it being understood that if you want to discuss a compound you prepared, that at a minimum, you need to include the procedure that you followed because it establishes a common reference point for others to base their work.

Now, as for the repeatability in your experience, that might be so. My experience tells me that generally the technique, reagent purity, implicit understanding of the reaction mechanisms, and unintended modifications to procedure by multiple people in multiple locations and timezones can have an effect on the outcomes. But what do I know?

Hey Buddy - 5-11-2022 at 22:09

I made a video essay to make more sense

https://www.bitchute.com/video/GuXsIe7K3SX2/

LL, the yield on this recorded video is only 33%, where as TMTN is 40% via LLNL R Salt procedure. There are other tweaks that increase yields but for starting I think it's a good baseline because it is reproducible and mirrors the LLNL procedure with the exception of the NQ @ .16 mole. Sorry I guess greater than 17g will have to come later.

Laboratory of Liptakov - 6-11-2022 at 01:40

Great video, we thanks......:cool:
12,4g is better than nothing.
The test in a solid cavity and the depth of the crater in the lead block will be decisive for the attractiveness of your substance. Or perforating a 3mm thick steel sheet with 1g of your cast substance.

Hey Buddy - 6-11-2022 at 10:41

Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov  

depth of the crater in the lead block will be decisive for the attractiveness of your substance. Or perforating a 3mm thick steel sheet with 1g of your cast substance.


What dimension of lead block?
how is cap oriented to block (side or end)?
Is the sheet steel a standard spec?

I've found some 3mm 1018-mild steel. it appears to be 3mm nominal but actual is 2.45mm. I may be able to test this week. Now I only have PETN and ETN that could be compared. I do not have any RDX or HMX prepared. I do have quite a bit of TMTN.

Is there a SM test procedure standards thread? I have not seen it if so.

Laboratory of Liptakov - 6-11-2022 at 12:25

The cavity is always perpendicular. The steel sheet is a standard sheet, or a U or D profile, 2 - 3 mm thick. 2.45 mm is also OK. In the picture, the lead block is 40 mm high and 65 mm in diameter. Which is suitable for the test of 300 - 1000 mg ETN, PETN, RDX. Pressed 400 mg ETN (50 kg pressure in ID 6mm) gives repeatedly the same result as shown in the picture. If 400 mg of ETN is used, the result should be the same anywhere in the world. Or very similar. Thread about standardized testing not exist.

ETN400.JPG - 95kB

[Edited on 6-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

ManyInterests - 6-11-2022 at 19:54

Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov  
The cavity is always perpendicular. The steel sheet is a standard sheet, or a U or D profile, 2 - 3 mm thick. 2.45 mm is also OK. In the picture, the lead block is 40 mm high and 65 mm in diameter. Which is suitable for the test of 300 - 1000 mg ETN, PETN, RDX. Pressed 400 mg ETN (50 kg pressure in ID 6mm) gives repeatedly the same result as shown in the picture. If 400 mg of ETN is used, the result should be the same anywhere in the world. Or very similar. Thread about standardized testing not exist.



[Edited on 6-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]


What about melt-cast ETN topped with (dextrinated)NHN? I hope that is good enough! :D

Hey Buddy - 7-11-2022 at 21:58

Just recorded alternate procedure for the preparation of this compound. I will add yield record to this post and add a video link later. This method is based off of the "Memorial Des Poudres" TMTN procedure translation. I prefer it over LLNL procedure and believe it's capable of higher yield. I will play with dilution for yield but as a baseline this is minimal.

NQ 21.85 g (0.21 mol)
Hexamine 28.03 g (0.2 mol)
NaNO2 68.99 g (1 mol)
H2SO4 53.94 g (.55 mol) (Desolvo Industrial Drain Cleaner 98%+?)
Ice (d) 350 g
H2O (d) 200 ml

21.85 g NQ is added to solution of 53.94 g H2SO4 + 100 ml H2O.
100 g Ice is added to this NQ/H2SO4 solution
NQ is dissolved into solution with stirring
28.03 g Hexamine is added to the solution
250 g of Ice is added to the solution
A second solution 68.99 g NaNO2 and 100 ml H2O
This second solution (NaNO2 + H2O) is added ~20ml per minute and is completed in 5 minutes, with five sets of addition, each one minute apart, totaling 5 minutes.
After final addition of Nitrite, allow reaction to stand 5 minutes
Filter and rinse reaction.
The product from this method is a polymeric consistency and can hold a lot of reaction fluid in its mass. Buchner with vacuum or hand wringing filters is necessary.
Product is recrystallized from Acetone.

Still testing metal compatibility and DDT capability, so far DDT seems unlikely. The casting ability and ease of preparation are the attraction to this compound.

/* Nov 8 2022

Returned this morning to find partially decomposed product free of water after drying @70C overnight.
Product from H2SO4 method (with 200 ml H2O + 350 g ice) decomposes spontaneously when dry.
From prior trials it was found that damp product can be recrystallized while wet in Acetone with no issues of decomposition and minimal loss in solvent.
It is probably possible to water bathe after initial filtration, then dry. This possibility should be considered.
Spray washing is not enough to prevent decomposition, material holds acidic liquid that is surface borne on material which then contacts itself on dry processing and decomposes turning black and smoking.
On review of footage of this procedure, too much Red/Brown NO2 is liberated with this ratio of dilution.

350 g Ice seems to be appropriate amount to give fully melted Ice on filtering.
Temperature threshold seems wide for conditions, any temperature <20C seems to have no effect on yield.

Next step in development of this procedure is to minimize NO2 liberation, this will be tried by increasing dilution ratio with water.
Results from that will determine if dilution ratio has effect on dry decomposition or if product requires water bath and second filtering operation prior to drying.
After that is determined and incidental H2SO4 decomp is prevented, accurate yields can be recorded. It seems certain that there is a lot more product when using H2SO4. If TMTN methods are analogous, proper H2SO4 should raise yield to 44-50% range. */



/*NOV 8 2022

Increasing water from 200 ml to 450 ml directly reduced NO2 bleed.
There is still burping but the addition of more water tames the off gassing well. Yield also appeared to increase.
Not sure if the additional dilution alone would prevent decomposition on drying.

Opted to avoid potential acidic decomposition and bathed the filtered material in water and re-filtered. Loss appeared minimal.

Assuming H2SO4 method can be tailored for high yield despite its complications, it is preferred to HCl method if H2SO4 is available.
Reaction time is minimized to 5 minutes and yield appears increased.
Other benefits are the minimizing of reagents and potential combination of Nitroguanidine preparation with this method in a continuous process which would be about one hour fifteen minutes in total and could avoid ever precipitating nitroguanidine from H2SO4.

Downsides are high reactivity of product with residual H2SO4, which could lead to fireball (or detonation) decomposition. Other potential complications are the decomposition of hexamine by H2SO4 which is eliminated or limited by adding hexamine immediately prior to NaNO2 with minimal time in solution.

Acidic liquid trapped in material during filtration could probably be helped by the use of vacuum with buchner assembly, but for now using automotive funnel/mesh sieve/ coffee filter system which is very cheap and replicated at any location with grocery store. General process for filtration of liquid entrapped polymeric product is: pour into coffee filter, allow gravity filtration until filtration becomes slowed to drip, then carefully collecting the edges of paper coffee filter and bringing them together to be pinched off, preventing escape of material from the top, then gently squeezing or "milking" bloated filter until it compresses and frees itself of entrapped liquid.

All of this will be covered in follow up video on this H2SO4 tentative procedure. It will include less successful attempt with decomp as example. Will continue preparation trials and collecting yield data concurrently building surplus for additional testing including explosive performance.

LL, sorry but it appears to not be a good candidate for DDT so far. The primary appeal of this would be:
Insensitive Melt cast>Potential of RDX+ Performance> Relative ease of preparation. */

I assume structure is this, but have no idea. I drew a picture earlier but had forgotten double bonds of nitrosamine


Attachment: TMTN_Memorial_des_poudres.pdf (87kB)
This file has been downloaded 211 times

[Edited on 8-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 8-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 8-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 8-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

ntnt.jpg - 15kB

[Edited on 9-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 8-11-2022 at 00:59

I estimate , that H2SO4 53.94g is counted as 100% H2SO4....?....It is approx 31% concentration of H2SO4 after diluting in 100g dH2O...?...
Together you use 172.81 g of all reagents. Yields for ETN are usually 11 - 12% from all reagents.
Your method should by provide similar yield. Thus 19g - 21g TMTN.
The great advantage of your method is the use of dilute H2SO4 and the absence of HNO3. Nitroguanidine can be a disadvantage. (availability - production)

MineMan - 8-11-2022 at 17:32

I still see too main issues. If any monochloride is formed using HCL then it detonated during casting. If any H2S04 is left, it could also detonate after casting.

Hey Buddy - 9-11-2022 at 10:51

It sounds more precarious than it really is, describing the H2SO4 decomposition. I see the H2SO4 issue being entirely avoidable, I believe the monochloride is known as NHHT in unrelated literature to the source literature inspiring this effort. I suspect NHHT is entirely avoided by gross excess NaNO2. NHHT explosive decomp also needs to be verified. It may not even be true because these are an obscure family of compounds with only light attention, mostly Chinese and Russian literature from 80s.

Regardless of the truth of NHHT, whether it is a dangerous possibility, I have been unable to isolate NHHT in literature process. The precipitate of the Nitrosamine foam is a quality that is only seen in by action of a nitrite, I suspect that there is no NHHT left during these reactions, and the nitrosamine is a much more strongly favored pathway.

I am at the limitation of my understanding in terms of identifying what the compound is, so at this point I will just attempt to gain some understanding of the materials comparative performance, and character, and possibly identify any incompatibilities with common materials. Then I will move on to other materials. There is also a urea based version of this in a process analogous to Keto RDX preparation. There seems to be a bit of cross over in any of this family of urea/guanidium/hexamine compounds, which makes sense. I have found literature describing preparation route of Keto RDX in high yield from mannich and nitration reactions between uroptropin and nitroguanidne.


Laboratory of Liptakov - 9-11-2022 at 14:33

Your substance still has a long way to go. I look forward to the brisance test results. If it turns out to be more brisantely than PETN, then it will be a big discovery....:cool:

Hey Buddy - 10-11-2022 at 12:00

Yield for the previous H2SO4 method is 20.8 g of a bone-dry, fluffy light lemon powder, reminiscent of freeze-dried ice cream. This should correspond to a 44.8% yield before recrystallization.

I will continue experimenting with dilution/cooling to determine if those points can be pushed up a little bit, but this is satisfactory for a field-suitable procedure without the use of ice baths or cooling the reagents themselves, simply adding a weight of ice to the reaction mixture. This 44% yield was achieved using whole ice cubes without crushing them, further minimizing processing complication.

I have been recording all of these and will put together a preferred procedure video after some more trial and error to hone efficiency. I will also test under dosing nitrite in both HCl and H2SO4 versions in order to determine how much of a potential danger residual NHHT presence is upon deflagration/casting.

Ultimately I will work on a continuous process from guanidium nitrate instead of nitroguanidine. At that point, most of the leg work will be done on preparing this substance at least enough to describe its preparatory generalities.

Only comparative testing will reveal any suitability of this material, but the prospect of high-performance is "good" based on comparative burning between TMTN RDX HMX and this substance. The ability to hammer detonate a triazine molecule could be a sign of the character of this molecule similarly to the hammer detonatable character of Keto-RDX.
This material easily melts inside an 8mm SS detonator body with the body sitting directly on a heat source @110C. The bottom on the steel body was closed with tape and in experimentation, it's so mobile in melt phase, it can leak through cracks between the scotch tape and SS. It's melt-phase impact sensitivity is low, perhaps ~10% more sensitive than when solid. It cools and solidifies at a slow speed removing it from heat source. Its surface hardness is similar to melted sugar but slightly less brittle.

The next step is field tests, I have ordered some lead and located a number of 2.45mm steel strips. My attention is now to prepare some other output materials for plate/block testing. So far in line up, PETN and ETN, I will prepare some RDX for comparison and for potential input charges will probably prepare NHN or its zinc analogue and CHP.


LL, what is preferred method for CHP? I have seen several routes and would like to know your recommended procedure, please?

NTNT5.png - 2.6MB NTNT6.png - 1.4MB

[Edited on 10-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 10-11-2022 at 14:00

Best method for CHP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F94UpYRczkc
Basic laboratory preparation of 5g CHP66 = 4,4g pure dry TACP + 0.3 g pure dry NH4ClO4 + 0.3g hexamine + a few drops of ammonia water , concentration is not important cca 10 - 25 %. Important is short drying, maximal 5 minute on hotplate at 40 - 50 C. And close in jar. Stability (reliable DDT) in close jar cca 6 months. In hermetic cavity is stability without restrict.
(CHP is basically fool-resistant primary compound)
Best way for pure TACP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfOZfhwKHjg&t=11s



[Edited on 10-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

MineMan - 10-11-2022 at 17:28

Quote: Originally posted by Hey Buddy  
Yield for the previous H2SO4 method is 20.8 g of a bone-dry, fluffy light lemon powder, reminiscent of freeze-dried ice cream. This should correspond to a 44.8% yield before recrystallization.

I will continue experimenting with dilution/cooling to determine if those points can be pushed up a little bit, but this is satisfactory for a field-suitable procedure without the use of ice baths or cooling the reagents themselves, simply adding a weight of ice to the reaction mixture. This 44% yield was achieved using whole ice cubes without crushing them, further minimizing processing complication.

I have been recording all of these and will put together a preferred procedure video after some more trial and error to hone efficiency. I will also test under dosing nitrite in both HCl and H2SO4 versions in order to determine how much of a potential danger residual NHHT presence is upon deflagration/casting.

Ultimately I will work on a continuous process from guanidium nitrate instead of nitroguanidine. At that point, most of the leg work will be done on preparing this substance at least enough to describe its preparatory generalities.

Only comparative testing will reveal any suitability of this material, but the prospect of high-performance is "good" based on comparative burning between TMTN RDX HMX and this substance. The ability to hammer detonate a triazine molecule could be a sign of the character of this molecule similarly to the hammer detonatable character of Keto-RDX.
This material easily melts inside an 8mm SS detonator body with the body sitting directly on a heat source @110C. The bottom on the steel body was closed with tape and in experimentation, it's so mobile in melt phase, it can leak through cracks between the scotch tape and SS. It's melt-phase impact sensitivity is low, perhaps ~10% more sensitive than when solid. It cools and solidifies at a slow speed removing it from heat source. Its surface hardness is similar to melted sugar but slightly less brittle.

The next step is field tests, I have ordered some lead and located a number of 2.45mm steel strips. My attention is now to prepare some other output materials for plate/block testing. So far in line up, PETN and ETN, I will prepare some RDX for comparison and for potential input charges will probably prepare NHN or its zinc analogue and CHP.


LL, what is preferred method for CHP? I have seen several routes and would like to know your recommended procedure, please?



[Edited on 10-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]


Just compare to ETN for now. Let’s get basic results fast, if promising we can compare to more.

Hey Buddy - 10-11-2022 at 19:00

Quote: Originally posted by MineMan  

Just compare to ETN for now. Let’s get basic results fast, if promising we can compare to more.


Good idea. cooking up TACP now. Colors will be violet blue and banana cream yellow. Has SM been using any form factor/load of detonators?
Ive got 8mm Ti, Al, SS and 6mm. What psi are you pressing CHP to in 8 or 6mm surface areas?
What qty of CHP input and standard load output have you tested before in past? If I can try to stick closer to a standard it will be nice and more comparable.

[Edited on 11-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 11-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

underground - 10-11-2022 at 23:52

You can get an idea about performance by checking the density when it is casted. The better the density the better the performance

For comparison

ETN 1.72
PETN 1.77
RDX 1.82
HMX 1.91

[Edited on 11-11-2022 by underground]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 11-11-2022 at 08:09

Professionals usually test 1.00 g of the substance under investigation. The smaller cavity is 6/8mm x 50mm. Which is the basic detonator for the substance under investigation. The examined material is in a cavity of 8/10 x 22 mm. Aluminum brick gives the most accurate results. But for initial tests, a lead brick is enough. Which provides good indicative results. Lead is easy to cast again and again. In the first test (examination of ETN 1g) there was an incomplete detonation. Reason unknown. (fig. 1+2) During the examination of CHP 1g, a complete detonation occurred. (fig. 3) During the second test of ETN 1g, a complete detonation occurred. (Fig. 4) For standardization and comparison, the most important result is in Fig. 4. Thus the crater cca dia. 20 x deep 10 mm. The basic detonator contains highly compressed CHP with a density of 1.45 - 1.6 g/cm3, 250 - 300mg.
The rest of the detonator is filled with CHP with a low density of 0.8 - 1g/cc. The total charge of the basic detonator is usually 1g - 1.2g CHP.



exam etn. lead.jpg - 1.7MB

Hey Buddy - 11-11-2022 at 11:47

Quote: Originally posted by underground  
You can get an idea about performance by checking the density when it is casted. The better the density the better the performance

For comparison

ETN 1.72
PETN 1.77
RDX 1.82
HMX 1.91

[Edited on 11-11-2022 by underground]


I've had a rough time with density. I have measured with erratic results. It needs a large-mass volume displacement measurement to get a solid average. I just measured a sample right now. 1.83 g/cm^3, I've gotten higher and lower. This sample had some air bubbles. It needs a good 10g melt cast displacement measurement. I may do it another time. (To be more concise, because of nature of displacement meas., 1.83 is the minimum it could be, pretty sure it's >1.83g/cm^3 due to air in sample fluffing number)

[Edited on 11-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 11-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

underground - 11-11-2022 at 22:11

So most likely its performance will be better than RDX at high density. Its OB is similar to RDX and HMX. If you achieve similar density of HMX i am sure it will perform like HMX.

Edit: From its chemical structure i could say that it may be a bit more dense than RDX but close to RDX. I believe it will perform a bit better than RDX at its max density.

Edit2. Something more interesting will be the reaction between NQ and HEX to obtain 2-nitriminohexahydro - 1,3,5 triazine then nitrate it to obtain 2-nitrimino tri-nitro 1,3,5 triazine, which is like your EM but with 3 more oxygen molecules. It will have a greater density and OB. It will be like keto-RDX but with the NQ structure instead of NU structure. NQ based keto-RDX wont have the disadvantage of decomposition with moisture like NU based keto-RDX. I have always wondering if keto-RDX can be made with NQ instead of NU and this proves that it can be made. The procedure of making keto-RDX can be followed but using NQ instead of NU will result a NQ based keto-RDX. Very interesting. NQ based keto-RDX will have the same performance as HMX without the decomposition disadvantage the classic keto-RDX got. I am sure the nitration of NQ based keto-RDX can be made with mixed acids. Holy grail?



[Edited on 12-11-2022 by underground]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 12-11-2022 at 02:12

The tested substance of this fiber should create more precise edges of the hole in the steel plate (2.45 mm) than the hole on the right. That is, with an internal diameter of the cavity of 6 mm and 300 mg of the investigated substance. I recommend assigning your substance some comprehensible (working) abbreviation. For example: Guanex, Guahex, Guanite, Hexamite, Hexagun. It looks like foam, so: Foanit, Foamit, Fluffynit. A pile of ice is used, so: Icelit, Icenit. (It will be the holy grail when we see the first holes)



holes.jpg - 119kB

Hey Buddy - 12-11-2022 at 07:01

Quote: Originally posted by underground  

Edit2. Something more interesting will be the reaction between NQ and HEX to obtain 2-nitriminohexahydro - 1,3,5 triazine then nitrate it to obtain 2-nitrimino tri-nitro 1,3,5 triazine, which is like your EM but with 3 more oxygen molecules. It will have a greater density and OB. It will be like keto-RDX but with the NQ structure instead of NU structure. NQ based keto-RDX wont have the disadvantage of decomposition with moisture like NU based keto-RDX. I have always wondering if keto-RDX can be made with NQ instead of NU and this proves that it can be made. The procedure of making keto-RDX can be followed but using NQ instead of NU will result a NQ based keto-RDX. Very interesting. NQ based keto-RDX will have the same performance as HMX without the decomposition disadvantage the classic keto-RDX got. I am sure the nitration of NQ based keto-RDX can be made with mixed acids. Holy grail?

[Edited on 12-11-2022 by underground]


See images for result of higher nitrations of NHHT. It appears to have reversion to oxadiazines or an almost Keto-RDXlike material depending on concentration and combination of HNO3/H2SO4/Ac2O.

IMO "holy grail" is accessibility, simple processing and high performance combined. This is the reason I think this compound should be known. Melt-cast, with cheap less-hazardous materials and a low intensity synthesis procedure. High performance is the only box to tick, then IMO, it could be considered by some to be a "Holy Grail".

There are complications. The combination of complications make this a slow work load to examine. It's not as simple as just loading up a test sample and detonating it. This is where I could use help. If anyone would like to help, I could use assistance and confirmations.

Im waiting on a shipment of lead for block tests, but there are a few issues.
I believe there are ionic versions being rendered here between the two methods of using HCl, which if it is producing ionic members would be a chloride variant, and H2SO4 is rendering a sulfate. I think the sulfate version is higher yielding but the product does not exhibit the same qualities as HCl version, crystal structure, melting point, density, and most importantly workability or pourability in melt phase seem different. At least, that is what I think I am dealing with here. It is difficult for me to say for sure, but they appear to decompose differently when heated with the HCl being the preferred variant for castability and burn profile. It could also be a free-ion version that is the preferable one.

Of course if ionic variants are what is being produced here, that inevitably begs for a nitrate crystallized from dilute ~40% NA. But at this point that is a digression until it can be determined which version is the excellent melt castable version.

In conclusion, my methods beginning this effort are simple because I am unexperienced in development of energetics, and so I am learning by the seat of my pants. However this inexperience has left me to make errors in failing to foresee the complications and increased work load of multiple ionic members, and so I have not kept a good enough record, nor kept proper separation of all of the samples, because I have operated under the assumption that they were all identical. They are not identical.

Unfortunately, this realization has made this effort a little frustrating and slower than I prefer. And so, I am now circling wagons and have ordered a bucket of nitrite and a propane heater for the lab because it is now turned cold. I am prepared to see how far I can get in this effort alone, but help would be welcome. Particularly in locating the excellent melt cast version.

At this point I am now trying to reproduce and isolate three versions: Chloride, Sulfate and free-ion versions, in order to identify which is best at melt cast. There is also possibility that my judgement is wrong, and there is not ionic versions, and the differences in character of samples is due to some other factor.

edit: For underground see third image. Decomposes @ 50 C, but zero OB.
NHHT or the hexahydro HCl is claimed 9000 m/sec @ 1.8 g/cc but claimed to detonate without melting @ 102 C. Hexahydro (NHHT) might be a good ddt candidate.


NTNT7.png - 27kB NTNT8.png - 32kB

NTNT9.png - 31kB

[Edited on 12-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 12-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

Hey Buddy - 12-11-2022 at 07:24

Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov  
The tested substance of this fiber should create more precise edges of the hole in the steel plate (2.45 mm) than the hole on the right. That is, with an internal diameter of the cavity of 6 mm and 300 mg of the investigated substance. I recommend assigning your substance some comprehensible (working) abbreviation. For example: Guanex, Guahex, Guanite, Hexamite, Hexagun. It looks like foam, so: Foanit, Foamit, Fluffynit. A pile of ice is used, so: Icelit, Icenit. (It will be the holy grail when we see the first holes)





lol. FDX- frustratingly developed explosive

Laboratory of Liptakov - 12-11-2022 at 08:08

F - fastest
D - detonatable
X - stands for variable unknown composition.....:D

OK....FDX is good acronym

[Edited on 12-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

Hey Buddy - 12-11-2022 at 12:56

Well, lead arrived in mail and bought a heater, designed experiment to further test potential ionic species of material. TACP is all ready for hexamine. 8x22 output casings are cut, cases are loaded with melt cast ETN. Fresh nitric acid in still. Wife mad. Too much science. have to stop for now.

edit:
hanging out at computer. I've spent a lot of time in the last couple of weeks analyzing hundreds of energetic molecules, determining their valances and oxygen balance etc. one of the tools I use is this online molecular analysis map https://www.webqc.org/mmcalc.php

I just realized that theoretically desirable explosives can be quickly visually analyzed by examining their atomic percent as a pie chart.
Ive made this graphic to give an example of what I mean.

Look at all the molecules on the left stack. I separated the pie chart divisions so you can see the pie proportions but also see the negative space. All the explosives on the left have a similar proportion which is highlighted by the negative space which sort of looks like an upside down divinci with carbon between the legs and he's holding up the nitrogen in the air. Although the molecules on the right are also high performance, they are not really exceptional, and their upside down divincis have their legs and arms uneven, they are about to drop the nitrogen or throw it in the air and they are kicking to one side or about to do the splits. This analogy is silly, but, I have performed this examination on many molecules. So far it has been incredibly consistent.

Artboard 1.jpg - 89kB

[Edited on 13-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 13-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

high energy divinci.jpg - 359kB
lol
this geometry expression appears to hold true regardless of structure. For example, ANQN is a nitrate with partially ionic bonding that is totally different than HMX for example as molecule. It's also true for radically different conformations of molecules like this 5-nitriminotetrazole, which is reported at over 10,000m/s and a tetrazole structure. Instances where it doesnt hold true are in cases like cubanes. but it does hold true for cage structures like HNIW. I suspect The divinci shape expresses geometrically the ratio of the end state of valances in total composition.

5natz.png - 27kB HNIW.png - 28kB

[Edited on 13-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

Herr Haber - 12-11-2022 at 20:52

Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov  
The tested substance of this fiber should create more precise edges of the hole in the steel plate (2.45 mm) than the hole on the right. That is, with an internal diameter of the cavity of 6 mm and 300 mg of the investigated substance.


Sorry to ask I just want to make sure. What did you use in 300mg amount that punched such neat holes in 2.45mm steel ?

Laboratory of Liptakov - 12-11-2022 at 23:50

Left is from 300mg ETN, right hole is from 300mg Cu8 or Li 8 from thread LL8...http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=158259
against 2 mm construction steel

Hey Buddy - 14-11-2022 at 19:25

Update:
Back in lab again looking for the most desirable species of NTNT also looking for potential dangers. There appear to be several NTNT species that melt cast, both the sulfate and HCl melt, but they appear to melt at slightly different windows and with a different character, either this is indicative of ionic species or there is enough of a difference in crystal morphology to cause differences in melt character, apparent decomp temp etc. There are at least two possible species from HCl so far, depending on conditions.
Tonight I am isolating NHHT (the dreaded monochloride). I suspect it's already been located in an indirect route, but not sure yet. If it is NHHT, it has not detonated at the reported 102C which is part of why I'm uncertain because that is a characteristic it would be easily identified by. I have also found report from Metelkina of a ~170mp on NHHT with no mention of explosive decomp. This conflicts with other reports so it is something that has to be explored through to see if a compound can be formed that will detonate on melt cast. Not sure how far to take it before preparing procedure but at minimum the variations need to be identified between HCl and H2SO4 so that a continuous process can be developed for H2SO4 method or H2SO4 avoided entirely and simply accepting lower yield HCl method. After NHHT is positively found then I will go back to applicable H2SO4/HCl methods and attempt to under nitrosate to simulate that mistake and learn about its results.

Pressed NTNT in caps to structural cap failure with no detonation. Melting directly into a cap or vessel requires homogenous heat conduction on vessel, or a larger mold, in small mass melts air pockets form where some material cools while other material melts when melted inside a casing. it's cold in my lab now so direct melt casting has resulted in the latter I'v found melting it then breaking the melt casting to grains, then pressing the high density grains seems to work pretty well.

EDIT: also almost forgot, the geometry analysis from the post above was driving me crazy trying to figure out why HNIW would comply, it should not, then I realized the program rearranged that molecules CHNO profile so that the colors are not corresponding correctly, HNIW as a cage molecule does not comply with this, which is further helpful because its as expected. It seems some smart kids could deep -dive and make a geomoetry analysis tool that would reveal character of energetic materials or unknown or undiscovered energetic compounds at a glance.

[Edited on 15-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 15-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 15-11-2022 at 01:23

For example, it is much easier for ETN to create a melt as a 1mm layer. Leave to cool. Break apart on pieces 10x10 mm. Crush slowly on a 2x2 mm sieve. Then press cold into the cavity. This achieves high densities. It is almost always 1.7g/cc.

I bow to tenacity and diligence on a new substance. I see at least 3 preparation methods emerging. If it were me, I would press the first batch into a detonator and detonate it against the sheet metal. And if the results showed a high brizance, then only then would I deal with a better method of preparation. But that's just my opinion, nothing more.

[Edited on 15-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

Hey Buddy - 15-11-2022 at 10:05

LL, I am not concerned with the number of ways of preparation so much. I'm concerned with firstly someone popping off NHHT trying to cast this and secondly forming a slightly different compound using the same reagents, then complaining about the material when it could in fact be a different material.

My hope is a little bit can be learned about possible mis-preparation ahead of time to identify which compound is the target compound and how to confirm the correct one. Im not entirely even sure I know which one is best I just know at minimum two come from HCl and another comes from H2SO4 (it appears). It may be that they all detonate with acceptable performance.

Plus, if I'm slow, it's only because I dont know what I'm doing. The plan so far is to collect all possible samples can be produced, keeping track of which preparation they came from, then when they are catalogued, melt test them all in a single test, then press them all and compare them too when detonating.

In preparation for detonation, lead and steel strips are secured. 6061 Al stock for is enroute. Now I need to come up with something to detonate them with. It appears you have done a lot of the photographed tests of materials on SM using CHP in the past, so I'm attempting that. But I have never used this CHP. It's a bit slow, I need to get CHP made correctly, and tested so as to not waste NTNT samples on misfires.

I attempted to prepare a large batch of CHP for all comparative testing, but I didnt understand the unique ammonation properties of the CHP, I assumed erroneously that it was analogous to a traditional pyrotechnic first fire, so I didn't follow the procedure with hydration by NH4OH. Lesson learned. I have now prepared some TACP properly, CHP and tests are next in that part of the effort. When CHP detonations are achieved to the same performance as previous tests, then I will immediately begin firing all of these samples.

Rest assured, firing tests are coming soon, but this is about as fast as I can go working with these new materials. --I don't think there will be any issues with its performance as an HE in general, the only question is how well it melts, and if it benchmarks above RDX or if it would out perform K-6. I suspect it will outperform HMX due to it's higher nitrogen relative percentage and its low hydrogen content. If it melts easily without complications of decomposition over wide melting conditions, then its usefulness is very good. If it out performs RDX, but does not melt well, then it is good, but not really excellent. If it outperforms HMX and melts, it is grail that is full of holes. Some of these micro reactions I've done on testing have produced NTNT in about 7 minutes total from reagents added to filtering. It's very fast. Regardless, I will photograph it all and you will know if it is good or not so good.

2nd picture is 500 mg NTNT sample in 8x22 casing pressed to case failure. I guess it will serve as the dead press test.

_MG_8642.JPG - 137kB _MG_8643.JPG - 155kB

[Edited on 15-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 15-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

MineMan - 15-11-2022 at 12:29

Can you just do a crude test. Seems insane to have this detailed discussion without any brisance test. Even shattering from a copper tube buried in sand will tell us much. But just put it on a plate of steel

Laboratory of Liptakov - 15-11-2022 at 14:27

Thanks for the extensive explanation. For first and reliable tests, I recommend using 200 mg of ETN. And as the primary substance SA-DS 200mg. Both can be manually pushed in 6mmdiameter of steel cavity. Convincing the whole world of amazing properties without a single proof sounds untrustworthy. I'll wait for the test results.......:cool:


Hey Buddy - 15-11-2022 at 17:28

Im sorry guys.
I was satisfied with a general report about the existence of the substance. That was not good enough. I expounded. That was not enough. I was not concerned about the requests, but I want to fit in so I complied.

Then mineman wrote
" it can explosive the whole batch during melt casting!???"
and I imagined kids blowing themselves up and I felt bad about that. So I started to look at it more to see if I could blow myself up on a micro scale to simulate and catch those pitfalls. Then mineman wrote,
"If any monochloride is formed using HCl then it detonated during casting. If any H2S04 is left, it could also detonate after casting."

^He said it was an "issue". So I was then determined to overcome this challenge and safely avoid those potential issues. In doing so, I learned there are at least three variations that can form from using HCl and at least one that can form from H2SO4. They all have different characteristics on burning and melting. To determine all this required at least 15 syntheses. One of them is NHHT whose literature procedure is two and a half days.

And I make no claim on the compound, other than that it should have Vd between 7800 and 9500, and *should be over 9000. If it's not around or above 9,000m/s something will be very wrong with either the literature or the molecule is incorrect. I mention all of these variations because I dont want someone to prepare the incorrect compound then claim I am sloppy or drunk (which i am). --But look at these compounds! These first two are from the identical reagents and the only difference is reaction temperature, they are both energetic but mp is different, color is different, they burn with different color flame and gas. Maybe it will be more accurate during testing the new explosive material if it is positive the compound being loaded into the test cap is correct? Or you could just synth it and blow some up if you have everything else ready. Its a very simple synth. I am not ready.

I have no primary prepared right now and I thought I should use what you guys are using for comparative testing which seems to be LL's CHP, so that's what I've been trying to make and get to detonate while concurrently running all of these development tests. It's a lot of work and I asked for help, no one offered to help (which is fine), I have only been able to hammer detonate CHP so far and have not been able to detonate it in a cap yet. So I currently have no primary, i'm considering just synthing some lead azide. Im still trying, not giving up, im just not that fast, I'm sorry.

_MG_8662_2.jpg - 148kB _MG_8666_2.jpg - 132kB _MG_8671_2.jpg - 166kB _MG_8677_2.jpg - 70kB _MG_8677_m.jpg - 116kB _MG_8677_mh2so4.jpg - 122kB

MineMan - 15-11-2022 at 19:36

I wrote those things because I don’t want someone blowing up firings melt cast because of sulfuric acid in the crystals.

You do fit in. You may not have noticed but you actually revived this forum which was pretty much dead. You have done great investigative work. We’re just impatient because it seems so damn promising.

The CHP works, every time. If you get the grain sizes even remotely close.

Standard tests are great. But we can also tell a lot from 1 melt cast gram in a tube placed on scrap steel. Or burying a 6mm copper tube in a 5 gallon bucket of sand and collecting the fragments.

You have done insane work, but everyone here wants a 9kms melt cast…. So you must deliver. Then we can be business buddies :) and hopefully find a way to use your invention.

Also, invite your wife into the garage with a little lab coat role play so she is more willing of your project :)))

PS. If I sound insane it’s just the genius in me

[Edited on 16-11-2022 by MineMan]

Hey Buddy - 15-11-2022 at 22:03

Quote: Originally posted by MineMan  
I wrote those things because I don’t want someone blowing up firings melt cast because of sulfuric acid in the crystals.

You do fit in. You may not have noticed but you actually revived this forum which was pretty much dead. You have done great investigative work. We’re just impatient because it seems so damn promising.

The CHP works, every time. If you get the grain sizes even remotely close.

Standard tests are great. But we can also tell a lot from 1 melt cast gram in a tube placed on scrap steel. Or burying a 6mm copper tube in a 5 gallon bucket of sand and collecting the fragments.

You have done insane work, but everyone here wants a 9kms melt cast…. So you must deliver. Then we can be business buddies :) and hopefully find a way to use your invention.

Also, invite your wife into the garage with a little lab coat role play so she is more willing of your project :)))

PS. If I sound insane it’s just the genius in me

[Edited on 16-11-2022 by MineMan]


I understand, I will try to get some testing done. Here's where I'm at as of tonight:
Prepared new CHP per LLs videos. Exact copy. In contact with LL to clarify ammonation. CHP is monochromatic crystals slightly damp, not sticking to walls of glass vessels/spoons/pan. 6mm load testing in morning, similar to LL but I only have Ti right now, I assume that should be fine for CHP (in terms of confinement properties of metal). If not, I can prepare some 6mm SS casings. Will calc in morning to determine press distance within that cavity to match density quoted, (no pressure figure was given).

If CHP cap firing is a go, will move on direct to testing melt cast samples on steel and lead. If theres a no-go issue, will recircle and focus on a quick primary to get firing. After initial comparison to ETN, can load PETN. Tonight finished fuming nitric, so will prepare the K-6/RDX quick mix. Big bottle of PETN already made. Melt casted ETN earlier tonight. So it's all on the CHP (No pressure), then after that its all on this compound (no pressure, well, hopefully >30GPa)

I dont know if it will "deliver" or not, but its a triazine that is deflagrating and melting, so it's going to be energetic and the fact that it melts means it is useful regardless of its comparative performance. Even if it's det velocity were 7000 m/s it would still be useful because TNT is difficult to prepare and ETN is too sensitive for large castings, without phlegmatizing or plasticizing or adding inerts. Other state of the art melt casts are very niche and are not applicable to amateurs, like melt azoles or propyl-Nitroguanidine. But this melt cast is immediately reproduceable by anyone with the basic materials. No triple stage nitration, nothing like that. Just throw in a big bottle and filter rinse, recrystallize and melt.

anyways, we will get to performance tests asap

Hey Buddy - 15-11-2022 at 22:11

Quote: Originally posted by MineMan  
If you get the grain sizes even remotely close.

[Edited on 16-11-2022 by MineMan]


I have steel meshed mixed the CHP into a small grain, does it need to be large grain like original TACP? Hopefully not.

MineMan - 15-11-2022 at 22:44

CHP is very forgiving… any metal confinement is fine.

Of course I have mentioned the best primary here before. Copper amino guanidine perchlorate. I am not encouraging or suggesting. Rather it’s something you will probably read about so it exists is all I am saying.

Microtek - 16-11-2022 at 00:34

Personally, I prefer the nickel variant, but copper probably produces less toxic compounds on detonation. It's mainly a matter of taste.

Anyway, I have been doing some preliminary synthesis experiments with NTNT. I did it once via sulfuric and once via hydrochloric acid. During the H2SO4 mediated synthesis (scaled down to 1/10 of the reactants) I noted that if the prescribed method is followed using pristine needle crystals of NQ, large amounts of it are recovered on filtration. I extracted the filtered mass of crystals and amorphous powder several times with acetone, neutralised the acetone soln with NaHCO3 and evaporated the solvent at room temp in an airstream. This produced 1,766 g of yellow flaky crystals corresponding to 36% yield, assuming the product to be pure NTNT. I then tested the melting point in a glass capillary, and found an onset of melting at 75 C, but the bulk of the material remained unmelted at 100 C. I haven't tested any detonics yet.

I then read the papers with the original experiments, and noted that the un-nitrosated triazine must be quite stable (the authors prepare it by heating at 50-55 C for 3 hours). I then tried the HCl mediated procedure (as per the bit-chute video, and again scaled to 1/10), but did not add ice or cool the reaction until I was about to add the NaNO2. I also used lab-grade HCl and magnetic stirring instead of intermittent swirling. The NQ was still not very soluble in aqueous HCl, but when the hexamine was added it evidently reacted and the solution turned clear after about 5 minutes of stirring. Then ice was added and the nitrite solution was added all at once. Some effervescence was observed, but only slight foaming. After 30 minutes a dense pricipitate had formed, similar to RDX in its tendency to settle. This was easily filtered (I had set up for Buchner filtration, but that would not have been necessary), washed on the filter and air dried overnight to yield 1,17 g of crude product.
The mother liquor had been set outside to off-gas overnight, and significant amounts of additional precipitate had formed in the morning. I have not had time to isolate it yet, so I don't know how much. 1,17 g would correspond to about 31% yield.

I don't quite understand why you would assume that ionic derivatives might be formed. I think NTNT must be a very weak base; even the un-nitrosated parent molecule is a weak base and its HCl salt can be converted to free base by heating with 18% HCl. Even partially nitrosated derivatives must be orders of magnitude weaker.
I find it much more likely that what you are seeing is either differing degrees of nitrosation or maybe presence of impurities such as sulfuric acid (which can be notoriously difficult to remove), or maybe unreacted starting materials in differing amounts.

Hey Buddy - 16-11-2022 at 06:34

Quote: Originally posted by Microtek  

Anyway, I have been doing some preliminary synthesis experiments with NTNT. I did it once via sulfuric and once via hydrochloric acid. During the H2SO4 mediated synthesis (scaled down to 1/10 of the reactants) I noted that if the prescribed method is followed using pristine needle crystals of NQ, large amounts of it are recovered on filtration. I extracted the filtered mass of crystals and amorphous powder several times with acetone, neutralised the acetone soln with NaHCO3 and evaporated the solvent at room temp in an airstream. This produced 1,766 g of yellow flaky crystals corresponding to 36% yield, assuming the product to be pure NTNT. I then tested the melting point in a glass capillary, and found an onset of melting at 75 C, but the bulk of the material remained unmelted at 100 C. I haven't tested any detonics yet.

I then read the papers with the original experiments, and noted that the un-nitrosated triazine must be quite stable (the authors prepare it by heating at 50-55 C for 3 hours). I then tried the HCl mediated procedure (as per the bit-chute video, and again scaled to 1/10), but did not add ice or cool the reaction until I was about to add the NaNO2. I also used lab-grade HCl and magnetic stirring instead of intermittent swirling. The NQ was still not very soluble in aqueous HCl, but when the hexamine was added it evidently reacted and the solution turned clear after about 5 minutes of stirring. Then ice was added and the nitrite solution was added all at once. Some effervescence was observed, but only slight foaming. After 30 minutes a dense pricipitate had formed, similar to RDX in its tendency to settle. This was easily filtered (I had set up for Buchner filtration, but that would not have been necessary), washed on the filter and air dried overnight to yield 1,17 g of crude product.
The mother liquor had been set outside to off-gas overnight, and significant amounts of additional precipitate had formed in the morning. I have not had time to isolate it yet, so I don't know how much. 1,17 g would correspond to about 31% yield.

I don't quite understand why you would assume that ionic derivatives might be formed. I think NTNT must be a very weak base; even the un-nitrosated parent molecule is a weak base and its HCl salt can be converted to free base by heating with 18% HCl. Even partially nitrosated derivatives must be orders of magnitude weaker.
I find it much more likely that what you are seeing is either differing degrees of nitrosation or maybe presence of impurities such as sulfuric acid (which can be notoriously difficult to remove), or maybe unreacted starting materials in differing amounts.


Microtek, I really appreciate your further development of this compound. I agree with your assessment completely. Presence of needles is indicative of unreacted NQ. For most experiments I used Metelkinas methods for small batch NHHT, and mod'd it with .072 mol (4.96 g) nitrite rounded up to excess @ 5 g. With HCl there is a rubicon, either a foam precipitate or a fizz reaction. It is possible to precipitate "m1" (see photos) which is a white powder free of the lemon color and more dense. "m1" appears to perhaps be NHHT (Im not sure yet, my NHHT control is evaporating today). This m1 was achieved by using 12.5 ml HCl / 5 g NaNO2 / 2.5 g NQ / 2.6 g Hexamine. Added NQ+Hexamine to HCl @ 10.9 C, then wetted NaNO2 to dissolve it and dripped in. Opaque foam is produced instantly then after ~2minutes turns clear. White material on filtering. Seems different color, different morphology, powder not a foam or fiber, on open flame burning the white powder burns very fast and projects (blows apart and projects out) small pieces of white material.
This and the slight differences in H2SO4 made me assume there was a possibility of ionic species but I wasnt sure, it could also be NHHT, the only problem is where did the nitrite go? it's not in rxn vessel, material is white, perhaps its in solvent? I would yield to your better judgement, you are obviously more experienced and knowledgeable in this sort of thing. If there shouldn't be ionic species there probably aren't.

On stability of NHHT, I agree it seems stable enough and seems like it could be a good candidate for thermal stimulated ddt, if it's true that it explodes at 102 C, it should have a low critical diameter of <2 mm similar to other energetic triazines. The claim of 102 C explosive decomp was found in was "Nitroguanidine Poly nitro compounds Zhuang" pdf, found in first page of thread.

[Edited on 16-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 16-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 16-11-2022 at 06:36

Microtek couldn't take it anymore and made his own synthesis......:D
By the grams I see a good yield......:cool:.....The theory surrounding NTNT is starting to become clearer.
Basically works any size of CHP grain. 0.5 x 0.5 mm, 1x1, or 2x2. Bigger grain has generally more reliable DDT. With execpt output segment, which is monolite as stone.



[Edited on 16-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

Hey Buddy - 16-11-2022 at 06:53

Quote: Originally posted by MineMan  

Copper amino guanidine perchlorate. I am not encouraging or suggesting. Rather it’s something you will probably read about so it exists is all I am saying.


I would very much like to learn more about this. Zinc is commonly used for reduction of NQ to pimagedine but it's very messy. The electrolytic reduction works very cleanly on basic lead, I've found most people are unaware of this method.

Attachment: AMINOGUANIDINE ELECTROLYTIC.pdf (599kB)
This file has been downloaded 146 times

Hey Buddy - 16-11-2022 at 11:21

Don't want to drop a nail biter, but I had failures to prime on the CHP using TiH2/Mg/KCLO4/NC firstfire and either Pyrodex or Triple based rifle powder as a prime.
I was able to initiate CHP on third cap attempt, but no-go on DDT, just deflagration. Earlier this week, I was able to detonate CHP with a hammer when it was dry but I learned that is the incorrect state, to be detonating CHP dry. It should be slightly damp with NH4OH. I thought I was going to see no issue in this regard.

I'm not saying the CHP failed, I'm sure it's my preparation that failed or some other factor, but I replicated the process as best as I could and had no luck. I should mention I do tend to have a lot of misfires generally, and the only caps I prefer are high powered M14s which are azide and RDX, but most importantly, not made by me. Everything else Ive tried besides high voltage EBW or azide, has not had good luck. So take the report of failure lightly because I have not found a primary that works for me.

Im taking the rest of the day off. Hopefully I have time to cook the rdx/k-6 quick mix tonight and consider what to try next. Maybe just stage some 8mm loads so they are all ready when I find a new primary. I have found that using 8mm SS straws with a ~1mm wall are somewhat more easily bulged than other SS tube stock. I may switch to all tube stock, but I was really hoping the straws would handle high pressure pressing as they are so plentiful and cheap. They still work excellent for hand pressing. ETN seems to press very well as LL suggested, melting, then breaking up and pressing, same is true of the NTNT.

If anyone is interested in this compound and you are set up to go and willing to accept the risk of experimental preparation of an unknown compound, you are more than welcome, this is not "my thread" or "my compound", but most of all, I don't like being on the spot for failure, (HELP ME), I'm sorry I couldn't deliver timely field tests today.

I noticed during preparation that the NTNT from H2SO4 (when crude and Un recrystallized) does not melt as easily as recrystallized HCl, it still melts to a high density but some early preparations of NTNT that I made heat up easily and can be poured like runny mustard. See video example on page 1, I was able to just slap it on a hot plate in a coors bowl and watch it melt, then roll it around in the bowl. Im pretty sure that was all NTNT from the LLNL mod synth first posted. but I wasnt separating samples at first. Hopefully HCl and H2SO4 both melt well when recrystallized.

_MG_8700_2.jpg - 130kB

B(a)P - 16-11-2022 at 11:31

Quote: Originally posted by Hey Buddy  
Quote: Originally posted by MineMan  

Copper amino guanidine perchlorate. I am not encouraging or suggesting. Rather it’s something you will probably read about so it exists is all I am saying.


I would very much like to learn more about this. Zinc is commonly used for reduction of NQ to pimagedine but it's very messy. The electrolytic reduction works very cleanly on basic lead, I've found most people are unaware of this method.



I have experimented with the nickel salt quite a bit, but Microtek would be a better source of knowledge than me on this. Check this thread out for some more information including a patent with a procedure for a large number of salts including diaminoguanidine nickel diperchlorate.
https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=158381
Well done on your work to date and thanks very much for sharing.
I am definitely watching on with interest.

Laboratory of Liptakov - 16-11-2022 at 11:44

CHP does not need any additional primary substance. It is a primary-secondary substance. The output segment is pressed to approximately 1:5 g/cc.
The rest of the resistive bridge cavity (around the bridge) is filled with low-density CHP. Estimated 0.8 - 1g/cc. The condition is, of course, a steel (or copper) cavity with a 1mm wall. And central electric ignition. The fuse only lights from one end. But a centrally placed electric bridge to all sides at once. It call hotline system, or Berta system.
Desing of bridge on page 2 of this thread. If you will use method with the fuse, it can failed often. By your picture it seems, that your cavity has thin the wall. I estimate 0.3 - 0.5 mm of aluminium or SS. It is not enough for CHP. CHP is safe to handle but requires a 1mm wall.

Next: On picture are basic value for shooting to the Lead. Especially for ETN 300mg and 1000mg.
compareETN and LTX.jpg - 2MB


[Edited on 16-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

MineMan - 16-11-2022 at 12:38

No explosive will ddt when wet

MineMan - 16-11-2022 at 12:44

Hey buddy. DM me and let’s talk on discord. Let’s get this nailed down. I see easy mistakes

Laboratory of Liptakov - 17-11-2022 at 08:10

Hey Buddy, I tried a 0.4 mm weak wall brass cavity just to be sure. The CHP operates at full capacity in this cavity. Drying was 15 minutes at 50 C. So if your CHP is not working, the problem is not a weak cavity or too dry CHP. Everything else in the picture.

Brass cavity.jpg - 1.2MB

Hey Buddy - 17-11-2022 at 12:40

Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov  
Hey Buddy, I tried a 0.4 mm weak wall brass cavity just to be sure. The CHP operates at full capacity in this cavity. Drying was 15 minutes at 50 C. So if your CHP is not working, the problem is not a weak cavity or too dry CHP. Everything else in the picture.



Thank you LL. The cavity was a Ti 1mm nominal wall, it measured in actual .8mm. I liked to try the CHP, and its simplicity for preparation as a quick solution is attractive to me for situations like this, but it is too difficult a preparation for me in overview of what is necessary in the process, and I have had trouble with understanding it's behavior dry/wet. I prefer azides, but I dont think azides are ideal and I think it means its time to find a new primary. I am going to probably try nitriminotetrazole, aminonitroguan or aminoguan salt. Guanidium and triazines are the main focus of my interest so if I can locate a good-performance primary from that family tree, it would be the best choice for simplicity and the use of reagent stock.

The NTNT preparation is very fast and a few grams can be made and dried in a couple of hours if the NQ is already prepared. I have dried it up to 80c, that maybe too high. Microtek claims a capillary mp of ~75, so maybe 60 C is a more-appropriate drying temp. Point being, a person with a primary already made and ready to fire can make NTNT faster than I can make CHP.

--Other note: I believe the NHHT is dry now and I will test that and compare it to M1 to see if they are the same. If it can be detonated at 102C, perhaps I can use it to detonate NTNT samples. Perhaps...

Laboratory of Liptakov - 17-11-2022 at 12:46

Thanks for reply, Buddy......If I ever make NTNT I will force him to DDT.....:D

Hey Buddy - 18-11-2022 at 18:33

Update on this general effort: Ive tried the NHHT HCl preparation twice now and I can't get it. Directly attempting hexahydro triazine monohydrochloride leaves me with a ~1.7 -2 g yield of a white powder that is not flammable and doesnt hammer det. Presumably the 18% HCl free base version would be easier to yield something but it wouldnt be the HCl that purportedly explodes at 102 C, which is what any concern was around the issue in the first place.

I would say that the possibility of producing either variant of NHHT during an attempted NTNT synthesis is low and when excess nitrite is used and the reaction is given plenty of time, the probability is even lower. It is still not established that NHHT HCl detonates at 102 C and literature is a bit conflicting on this.

Beyond that there is definitely a second material, (pictures earlier in thread) labelled "M1" that has different burning and melt characteristics than NTNT. This "M1" was found by beginning the HCl version of NTNT synthesis, but using no ice cooling, or additional water and only using a few ml of water to dissolve and add NaNO2. It begins forming as a white foam and then the foam contracts into an opaque liquid that then becomes clear and fizzes. While that is happening there is a bit of red gas evolved. The material is white and burns much faster than NTNT. This "M1" material doesnt melt at 110 C like NTNT. It doesn't transition to detonation confined in Al foil. I dont know what it is, because of lack of dilution, it seems unlikely to be NHHT free base, but it's beyond my ability to identify. There is a chance it could be a nitrimino version of DNPT which is the acetic acid derived version of TMTN R Salt, but in this case it would have the nitrimino that would make it whiter in color, but this is just a wild speculation. Regardless, It seems unlikely that a person would inadvertently synthesize this m1 material accidentally because the lack of cooling and dilution leads to loss of NTNT, and so the entire course of using deficient water and ice seems like it would be naturally avoided. If it were produced it doesnt decompose nor explode at the working mp of NTNT, so it seems there is no danger there for a potential accident in the production of NTNT.

I haven't tested with partially deficient nitrite yet (which is another possibility) but I think as long as three moles of nitrite are used per mole of hexamine (at minimum. excess is better though), there's not much danger there.

---

I think the only risk learned with NTNT at this point is if you drink it, or its dramatic decomposition to H2SO4 which is something already seen in other nitrososamines, Hydrazine Nitrates etc. and so is no unexpected surprise. I diverted from metal compatibility testing because of worry about these issues but now I will refocus on that, melt castability and compatibility with common metals and charcoal. To avoid H2SO4 decomposition issues, I recommend using the slightly lower yielding HCl derived version. The ratio of NQ could be lessened as there seems to always be excess unconverted NQ in the HCl method. To simplify testing, I'm going to be only the HCl derived NTNT using that for future study unless a good reason comes up to change it or try a different method.

Other developmental interests with NTNT that are way out of scope for now but possible future investigation includes mild oxidation of NTNT to an even more oxygen rich version. That could be a nitrimino/nitro/dintitroso variant or something unexpected. Avoidance of HNO3 is critical to keep the reagents as simple as possible. I seem to have had partial success oxidizing TMTN and a "keto" TMTN using AcOH/NH4NO3 in the past. Electro oxidation in a 30% ammonium sulfate solution seems like a promising unexplored possibility for these nitroso compounds. I have had success in reduction of nitroguanidine with the same method in high yield. I have not had success with perborate or percarbonate AcOH oxidation nor H2O2. Peroxynitrite might be another OTC possibility that seems mostly unexplored in energetic materials but if Im not mistaken all the right radicals are there and I believe peroxy nitrite goes through phases in reation and may even become HNO3 in later stages of some reactions but is a nitrite salt plus a percarbonate or perborate or peroxide, (at least I think, I have only made peroxynitrite once, i think once I may have even used grocery store citric acid, cant remember). Digression. Anyways, IMO there are a range of possible routes to higher oxidation of nitrosamines in general to get them into nitro ball park that are unexplored but could be very useful.

In the case of NTNT, the highest appeal is melt castability which is most likely dependent on its being a nitrosamine, so it's likely already in its most useful form and might suffer loss of that characteristic if it were altered.

[Edited on 19-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 19-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 19-11-2022 at 01:32

It seems that preparing dangerous NHHT makes considerable difficulties. This is good news. You still seem to have 10 fingers and other organs intact. After a lot attempts. The NTNT preparation appears to be sufficiently safe. When following the procedure with HCl. (Is time to tear up some iron)

Microtek - 24-11-2022 at 00:59

A small update: I redissolved the material that I had extracted with acetone from the sulfuric acid mediated process (again using acetone), and then added the clear solution to water. There was no immediate precipitate, but over the next 12 hours a yellow, crystalline product appeared. I tested the melting point of this material in a standard glass capillary. At a heating rate of ca. 5 degrees (C) per minute, the product melted cleanly at 75 C, and upon further heating decomposed at 125-140 C.
The material reacts as a typical secondary when exposed to flame, but I was unable to initiate it by hammerblow.

I also tested the material I had prepared by the slightly modified HCl mediated method (the one that didn't foam, and didn't produce red fumes). This product which in appearance is a very pale yellow amorphous powder, is only slightly soluble in acetone. I haven'tmeasured it exactly, but I would estimate around 1g per liter of acetone. This material deomposes without melting at 175-180 C, but reacts to flame in much the same way as the other material. I wasn't able to hammer-initiate this one either.

I don't know if either of these materials are the same as what Hey Buddy has produced, but they are definitely two different chemicals. I will try to get a basic plate dent test done soon. If this gives promising results, I will measure VOD.

[Edited on 24-11-2022 by Microtek]

Laboratory of Liptakov - 24-11-2022 at 04:38

If it didn't go with a hammer blow, it should go with an even bigger hammer blow. The reason I haven't tried NTNT yet is because I haven't seen a single explosion of this substance. Respectively any hole from this.
Thanks, Microtek for your examination about NTNT. Your paralel research is same important as from Buddy. We appreciate it, even if the whole effort maybe will for naught.



[Edited on 24-11-2022 by Laboratory of Liptakov]

Hey Buddy - 24-11-2022 at 06:33

Quote: Originally posted by Microtek  
A small update: I redissolved the material that I had extracted with acetone from the sulfuric acid mediated process (again using acetone), and then added the clear solution to water. There was no immediate precipitate, but over the next 12 hours a yellow, crystalline product appeared. I tested the melting point of this material in a standard glass capillary. At a heating rate of ca. 5 degrees (C) per minute, the product melted cleanly at 75 C, and upon further heating decomposed at 125-140 C.
The material reacts as a typical secondary when exposed to flame, but I was unable to initiate it by hammerblow.

[Edited on 24-11-2022 by Microtek]


This makes corroborative sense. I found a seeming mp on attempting crude melt on Thiele tube with propylene glycol media at 95 C (not entirely accurate). And an observed crude working mp at ~110 C with an observable reversion to solid phase at 68 C. A 75 C mp lines up perfectly with naked eye observation of solid phase reversion at 68 C.

This is very exciting. 75 C is a very good mp for a practical energetic material. About as ideal as can be, lower mp can become problematic in some practical situations and 75 C is low enough under boiling water temp to permit that method for melting.

I suspect the seeming inconsistencies Ive seen in getting a good melt cast off of NTNT are due to the low density state of non recrystallized material. In the unrecrystallized state, NTNT appears to loosely hold itself up out of the melt making melting more challenging where as when using dense crystal for melt cast, it falls into its own melt and melts completely. It is certainly thin enough to pour.

In my testing I was only able to initiate detonation by hammer blow by striking on a 50lb vise with a 16 oz flat face hammer. The force needed was enough to tilt over the vise when sitting on the ground. It was a pretty hard strike. Much harder than comparable force needed for ETN or PETN. In fact it was so hard that in my initial notes from early testing of the material, I wrote "no hammer det" assuming that it was not that energetic, it is simply somewhat insensitive compared to other stuff like K-6 or PETN. Assuming performance is there, this also lends quite favorably to NTNT profile.

Microtek, no pressure, but if you get the opportunity to measure density on some casted NTNT, it would be helpful confirmation measurement. I recorded density of 1.83 g/cc but there were visible air bubbles solidified in my sample.

Currently drying out some trays pf NQ for NTNT and building an electroreduction apparatus to prepare aminoguanidine (metal) perchlorates in quest for next in-house primary. NTNT metal compatibility testing soon. Will hopefully get to performance testing sometime probably after microtek arrives at his conclusions.

Things looking good. Performance tests are the only hold up at this juncture.

Microtek I'd like to more know about your method of acetone extraction that you briefly mentioned. I have only used acetone for recrystallization and so I'm curious what you found on extraction technique.

NTNT_melt_phase.png - 2.3MB

Microtek - 24-11-2022 at 23:40

The extraction I did was just adding acetone to the mix of crude product and unreacted nitroguanidine, then decanting the liquid phase (NQ is almost insoluble in acetone). I extracted three times (about 7 ml acetone on extraction 2 and 3. Number one required a little more to properly wet the crystal mass), at which point the yellow colouring of the solid phase was almost gone. The collected extracts were then poured into a dish and evaporated to dryness in the airstream from an aquarium pump.
I then later (after measuring the mp) redissolved the recovered crystals in more acetone and poured the solution into water to recover the material melting at 75C.

I agree that the mp is close to ideal for a meltcast energetic, though I would have liked the decomposition temperature to be a little higher, maybe 180C. If I can see gas evolution at 125-140C, there is a high likelyhood that the decomposition onset is lower than that. Of course, it remains to be seen if the product I have made is even NTNT at all. I speculate that the difference in product characteristics may be due to one or more of them being a linear nitrosamine rather than a cyclic one, a less nitrosated variant or maybe a combination of the two.

KNEWKID - 25-11-2022 at 08:52

There are at least 2 groups of compounds here in this mixture. I extracted yellow to orange crystals using NM and white powder was left over. Pics later

Extraction NTNT with Nitromethane

KNEWKID - 25-11-2022 at 09:17

Orange crystal fraction soluble in pure nitromethane white powder insoluble in NM. Large mass of NTNT crude about 1/2 to 3/4 lb when dry.

Note: first extraction in NM cool yielded yellow crystals. 2nd extraction heated to 100F NM product turned orange...possible secondary rxn.

Will upload Raman spectra of each material later

NTNT3.JPG - 156kB

NTNT2.JPG - 162kB

NTNT bulk 1/2 to 3/4 lb when dry

KNEWKID - 25-11-2022 at 09:20



NTNT1.JPG - 204kB

NTNT soaking in pure NM

KNEWKID - 25-11-2022 at 09:28



NTNTinNM.JPG - 115kB

Hey Buddy - 25-11-2022 at 10:39

Quote: Originally posted by KNEWKID  
Orange crystal fraction soluble in pure nitromethane white powder insoluble in NM. Large mass of NTNT crude about 1/2 to 3/4 lb when dry.

Note: first extraction in NM cool yielded yellow crystals. 2nd extraction heated to 100F NM product turned orange...possible secondary rxn.

Will upload Raman spectra of each material later




great work. --oh boy, Im going to have to bust out the NM.
What are the chances the white is NTNT, the yellow is linear, and the yellow changes color reacting with NM at temp, and the melt is funny on m.p. because the melt is a eutectic mix and the ratios are changing on the times the melt seems finicky? lol


The white looks very similar to the mysterious "m1".

If there are two materials, I think that means they are co-crystallizing from acetone.

it keeps getting stranger and stranger
[Edited on 25-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 25-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 25-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 25-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

Okay Ive got a NM separation at room temp evaporating now. I dont think my insoluble fraction looks as white as knewkid's. My fraction looks a little neon still, whiter than how it went into the NM, but it seems more yellow still than the pics he posted.-- I used H2SO4 derived NTNT and didnt use any heat, just mag stirred in NM for 10m then gravity filter. --Knewkid, I have to ask if you are yielding half pounds, have you found a high yield method to get that much sample? or are you just doing big ol batches? I'm not getting half pounds.

I really wonder if this multi-material phenomenon is an analogue the hexamine behavior in RDX/HMX or TMTN/DNPT? I suppose it could simply be some linear nitrosamines. If knew kid can come through with some raman it will save a lot of head scratching for my scalp. Hopefully someone can interpret his numbers because Im only fluent in top raman.

[Edited on 25-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

[Edited on 25-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

lol, what if he just uploaded a raman spec and it turned out to be NaCl. jk

[Edited on 25-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

MineMan - 25-11-2022 at 12:53

Knew kid, what procedure did you use and what was your yield… you might be able to give us a good density with that quantity

NTNT synthesis

KNEWKID - 25-11-2022 at 17:16

180g NQ, 680cc 32% HCL, 220g Hexamine 500g NaNO2.

Mix 180g NQ and HEX in 5 Liter beaker add HCL slight exotherm dissolves after 10 minutes. Pour into 5 gal poly bucket add 8 lbs ice. Solution is slightly transparent. Mix 500 g NaNO2 with 600cc water. Add 1/2 mix stir vigorously with foaming with ppt forming. Let settle some and add rest of NaNO2 solution with mixing. let stand and stir. Evolution of formaldehyde gas. Stir to degas solution. Let stand over night and filter through 100 micron large pp bucket filter. Even 1 day later giving off formaldehyde gas.

Letting air dry for few days

Hey Buddy - 25-11-2022 at 19:15

Post NM separation, still waiting on soluble fraction (evaporating the NM). insoluble white fraction does not melt. It decomposes somewhere in neighborhood of 170 C.

In that case, an extracted component not melting and dec. at much higher temp, I propose a hypothesis: eutectic mix making low temp melt @75 C. Crude material precipitate from reaction is a cocrystal of two different materials with different properties, together creating a eutectic. Recrystallizing from acetone is then again co-crystallizing a different higher density plate morph. That could be possible because acetone can dissolve both polar and non polar but NM is more polar.

This would make sense because it could explain the trouble in density sampling and in melt temp. It could also explain small differences between H2SO4 and HCl rendering. One acid could form more of comp a, another more heavily b. The various ratios would create a melt curve, probably traditional eutectic V curve, changing depending on the ratio.

That would be an interesting case if true because I have not heard of this phenomenon at all let alone in an energetic material. To automatically generate a low temp proportional eutectic melt from a simple reaction, that then gives confusions like what is found here. Of course that's all hunch, I suppose it could be something else.

I do not believe the white material from NM extraction is the same material found earlier as "M1". The open flame burning of "NM extracted white" is much more gentle than burning of M1. M1 also seems more "powdery" in consistency.

I think next logical step is, 1) hope knewkid can show us the boomfax 2) Begin examining this as a eutectic and that is basically the same steps as already planned, ie. material compatibility and understanding the melt. The main difference caused by this new information is that now performance testing is even more critical because additional work could be a waste of time if this material is not high performance and if it is not the target material "NTNT". Now the possibilities for identity of the materials are: 1) NTNT is not present, two other materials are formed, these are a eutectic system 2) it could be that one material is NTNT and the other is not, and therefore because all testing thus far has erroneously assumed one material, all of that testing and character is actually attributable to the eutectic system and is not a property of the target molecule "NTNT" (if it is in fact even present).

The interest in the material is based on the likelihood of it being 1) meltable and 2) high energy.
It has to be ascertained what the performance of the eutectic system is, if it is anywhere as high performance as other triazines. At this point I have to eat any performance theory and the yield data, OB and valence calculations because if there is a eutectic system it changes all the rules and none of that could possibly apply. It could still be high performance and a simple melt cast eutectic system that is simple and convenient to prepare, but none of the known comparable triazine data could help in identifying it, so if it's not a triazine it's all mystery from here. It does hammer det, burn energetically, melt at the right temp, is high density and is easy to produce. The only thing thats really changed is the material's identity.

I suppose the another exhaustive avenue would be a nitrosation in acetic acid which might produce yet again another variant, similar to RDX/HMX or TMTN/DNPT.

Wild.

--please correct anything im overlooking or simply unaware of

[Edited on 26-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]
-knewkid just goes big or goes home



[Edited on 26-11-2022 by Hey Buddy]

underground - 26-11-2022 at 00:42

Welll, can someone give a try on 2-nitrimino-5-nitrohexahydro-1,3,5-triazine? Also wondering about reacting aminoguanidine instead of NQ and nitrating it since Zrdx is unstable. So most likely the Zrdx but with an amino group instead of a nitro group would be much more stable.

A lot of energetics can be made from amino/nitro guanidine and hexamine which all of those are still unexplored.

[Edited on 26-11-2022 by underground]

Hey Buddy - 26-11-2022 at 14:35

Soluble fraction dries as yellow powder. Is melting at ~75 C. It is most likely containing the nitroso groups because of its yellow color.

MineMan - 3-1-2023 at 11:04

Updates?

Hey Buddy - 3-1-2023 at 17:50

Quote: Originally posted by MineMan  
Updates?

Ive got sample loaded for testing but Im searching for a good primary t ogo with, So far it looks like cmc lead azide/ptfe. As I search the labyrinth unfolds from one room to the next. Trying to get a handle on AGu perchlorates and see what they hold but AGu preparation is a bit more annoying than hydrazine so I might just go with azide. Wherever I arrive will be used for testing this failed-NTNT substance. I havent been as interested in it since learning about glycine perchlorate melting properties. I will compare both at some point.

MineMan - 4-1-2023 at 02:25

But you said this outperforms HMX. Glycine perchlorate does not.

Hey Buddy - 4-1-2023 at 08:41

Quote: Originally posted by MineMan  
But you said this outperforms HMX. Glycine perchlorate does not.


I said, *If the molecule is correct*, it should out perform RDX, possibly HMX. The density seems to support that but now that it's learned that it is two unidentified molecules, it's a wild card, probably not a triazine so the comparative chemical makeup cant be relied on to predict its performance.

GlyClO4 performance is really still unknown generally, but if it is >8000m/s it is close to PETN/RDX and can melt just over 100 C. So to compare the two meltable explosives, "NTNT" requires H2SO4/HCl/GuNO3/Hexamine for 30-40% probable yield versus GlyClO4 requires Glycine/NH4ClO4 at near quantitative yield requiring no acid. That is why my interest shifted to GlyClO4. Both need to be tested on firing. I think the mysterious NTNT will still do okay, but I'm not as excited now that I know it could be a linear nitrosamine.

MineMan - 4-1-2023 at 20:48

Oh. I see :)