Sciencemadness Discussion Board

MHN Soluability

freedompyro - 22-6-2011 at 01:52

Anyone know what MHN is soluble in besides Acetone? Perhaps ethanol or methanol heated to 60C might also do?

70C is probably the limit on what you would want to heat that stuff to during recrystallization. Beyond that I have read it gets more sensitive than NG.

quicksilver - 22-6-2011 at 06:32

What are the various sources you have looked through & what were the results thus far?

freedompyro - 22-6-2011 at 22:35

Well... Everyone I have talked to is using Acetone recrystallization via evaporation.

I just looked through COPAE again and it specifies that it is only soluble in "boiling" alcohol. :o That explains a lot... However, rumor going around is that hot acetone recrystallization yields the highest sensitivity crystals possible that can nearly DDT from a fuse... I can't see how hot ethanol vs hot acetone would yield different sensitivity crystals... Hmmm

Never synthesized it myself yet. A year ago I discovered a way to get ETN recrystallized at upto 59C to DDT from a fuse with confinement. MHN might provide a more reliable primary alternative.

[Edited on 23-6-2011 by freedompyro]

quicksilver - 23-6-2011 at 04:39

Neither are primaries however. Whether a material will under go a DDT is a multi-faceted phenomenon which, frankly, cannot be relied upon. In a sensitive secondary, energy must be transmitted in some form that provides shock initiation. This is why a common design EBW cap uses a high (Joule) energy level to "snap" that bridge-wire. To observe the bridge-wire itself receive that amount of energy, you may even hear a slight pop just from that wire alone.
Flame initiation is actually a slow format. The transmission of energy w/ flame must take advantage of surrounding physical elements to reach a threshold of energy dump. That why the heated test-tube exploded. The surrounding areas of glass, the air within, & the principal (secondary) itself all came together to form an avalanche of surrounding heat.

The WiZard is In - 23-6-2011 at 07:30

Quote: Originally posted by freedompyro  
Anyone know what MHN is soluble in besides Acetone? Perhaps ethanol or methanol heated to 60C might also do?

70C is probably the limit on what you would want to heat that stuff to during recrystallization. Beyond that I have read it gets more sensitive than NG.




MHN-1-800.jpg - 261kB MHN-2-800.jpg - 173kB Calvin-and-Hobbs-library-800.jpg - 110kB

holmes1880 - 23-6-2011 at 11:00

@silver

Simply put, the fuse isn't hot enough to rapidly create DDT reaction in ETN or MHN- with reliability, that is. One k3wl on YT was using sparkler with MHN wrapped in Al foil. Very k3wl, but demonstrates the principle.

I am 90% positive a magnesium strip used as a fuse will cause DDT in pressed MHN with a high degree of reliability. Ideally you'd want to have it in the center of the mix, but it can be on the side of the pressed mix, to make pressing easier. This may work with ETN too, but unlikely to be as reliable. Another important detail to note is the density of your base mix- it cannot be loose. If the powder is too loose it will melt faster creating more air space within, reducing confinement, which can result in burning, i.e. not what you want.

You don't need an extra sensitive MHN or ETN using magnesium strips.

freedompyro - 23-6-2011 at 11:43

Quote: Originally posted by holmes1880  
@silver

Simply put, the fuse isn't hot enough to rapidly create DDT reaction in ETN or MHN- with reliability, that is. One k3wl on YT was using sparkler with MHN wrapped in Al foil. Very k3wl, but demonstrates the principle.

I am 90% positive a magnesium strip used as a fuse will cause DDT in pressed MHN with a high degree of reliability. Ideally you'd want to have it in the center of the mix, but it can be on the side of the pressed mix, to make pressing easier. This may work with ETN too, but unlikely to be as reliable. Another important detail to note is the density of your base mix- it cannot be loose. If the powder is too loose it will melt faster creating more air space within, reducing confinement, which can result in burning, i.e. not what you want.

You don't need an extra sensitive MHN or ETN using magnesium strips.


Depends... I use to use "American Visco" fuse to reliably DDT ETN every time. It of course requires VERY thick casing... And the fuse has to run through half an inch of the loosely compressed ETN crystals... Which are then followed by half an inch cast ETN in front to insure proper pressurization/power.

All this talk has got me to thinking about slow magnesium flash powder without heavy confinement...

[Edited on 23-6-2011 by freedompyro]

holmes1880 - 23-6-2011 at 12:39

Well, your copper detonators were working on a different principle of DDT reaction. Instead of causing DDT in the immediate area of the contact of fuse and powder, the powder ETN would burn, and being strongly confined, it would undergo detonation transition. I am talking about a DDT reaction that causes dense ETN that is in contact with the fuse to undergo this process immediately, without much deflagration occurring.

About a week ago I did a test where I threw tiny ETN pieces on the stove, and when the stove was almost red, ETN detonated instead of the usual rapid deflagration. This is what is desired in a DDT system. Immediate detonation due to rapid overheating. I believe magnesium ribbon can deliver that without building up too much pressure.

freedompyro - 23-6-2011 at 14:21

Quote: Originally posted by holmes1880  
Well, your copper detonators were working on a different principle of DDT reaction. Instead of causing DDT in the immediate area of the contact of fuse and powder, the powder ETN would burn, and being strongly confined, it would undergo detonation transition. I am talking about a DDT reaction that causes dense ETN that is in contact with the fuse to undergo this process immediately, without much deflagration occurring.


95% of the time I would use 50mg of flash powder and only a quarter inch of fuse into the ETN. I can assure you there was little to no delay as the flash was able to pressurize and superheat the inch of loosely compressed etn in milliseconds.

Not really sure there would be any improvement in switching to magnalium or magnesium flash...

What I need to test is placing a quarter gram of magnesium flash in the center of 2 grams of etn/mhn... It may DDT with the mere confinement of being wrapped in a couple layers of tape...

Sigh... I don't have any E or M Sugar at the moment! :(

[Edited on 23-6-2011 by freedompyro]

holmes1880 - 23-6-2011 at 14:32

I encourage you to test magnesium ribbon because it is a sounder principal than expecting magnesium FP to thermally shock the mix every time. Ribbon is widely available on ebay and other places.

I could be off, but there is a reason FP is not used for igniting thermite.

freedompyro - 23-6-2011 at 14:40

A little magnesium powder sprinkled around a fuse ignites thermite every time for me. :) To make a hot magnesium burn you can do more along the lines of 20-40/70 Oxidizer/Mg.

Rosco Bodine - 23-6-2011 at 14:40

Cyanoguanidine, dicyandiamide, reportedly has excellent stabilizing effect upon nitromannite according to US2616920 Betaine may also work well but no data is available.

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=12623&...

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/files.php?pid=195117&...

There are patents by Sylvester Large which would be of interest involving coprecipitation of nitromannite
with other nitrated materials which results in mixed crystals having improved DDT characteristics. Also nitromannite has been used in mixed compositions with tetracene or DDNP. There are probably other similar mixtures which may have useful properties.

holmes1880 - 23-6-2011 at 15:01

Mg powder for me took quite some time to ignite CuO/al thermite. In addition to that, because of fine particle size, it burns more violently. I tired Mg on top of ETN like 8 months ago with remarkably failed results.

That's why I recommend mg ribbon through densely pressed powder. My 2 cents on this matter.

quicksilver - 23-6-2011 at 15:12

Our discussion posits a variety of variables. This is the difficulty; taking a leap of heat energy vs shock energy that would produce similar results. Our sensitive secondary must conform to a specific physical composition (as would or experiment as a whole) to bring about CONSISTENT DDT. While shock may provide a greater flexibility*

Primaries conform to a wonderful utilitarian usable wherein a single crystal may result in heat induced detonation. Several years back a member who specialized in using very minute amounts of materials made an interesting presentation on what would result from (nearly) single crystal introduction to hydrocarbon-fed flame. His materials were consistently primary. DDT's have enormous flexibility in scope of detonation. Fluids dropped upon a heated metallic plate. The act of dropping the fluid induced a further variable. It appear (empirically) that slow transition to a heat with no drop induced energy transfer was not consistent in result. Chlorate based energetics reach a self containment. Even when flame inducement appears to violate this the increase in mass/ volume demonstrated a further variable. The same per / chlorate based composition showed greater variables
"Transitional" primaries (TACC & others) were assessed as being primaries, yet demanded enclosure. Commonly conditions for the study of the DDT phenomenon make documentation of a single material difficult to define. One classic being Diazodinitrophenol, which often demands enclosure for flame initiation However this is not frequently the case for shock based initiation.

On a secondary basis TNP, while displaying DDT explosions on occasions appears difficult to flame initiate. It is very wise to practice safety procedures but all but the purest Picric Acid does not pop with impact (within a foil enclosure; steel to steel impact). It's DDT phenomenon is well known in some very serious accidents, yet conditions must be met. Of the esters, NC also shows a proclivity for conditional agenda to achieve DDT. In fat this was an old "quick & dirty" method of determining the purity of a TNP, as those w/ a high % of DNT will NOT pop when struck as a few mg fold of foil against an anvil.

The enclosure of the capsule partially came about via this transitional study. A very wide ranging issue.
I was going to put up some links to Roscoe's and Wizard's materials on this very subject but couldn't find them.

* Theory of Combustion of Powder & Explosives - Aleksei M. Lipanov, editor 1996 (much of it Russian translation).



[Edited on 23-6-2011 by quicksilver]

The WiZard is In - 23-6-2011 at 17:10

Quote: Originally posted by freedompyro  
Anyone know what MHN is soluble in besides Acetone? Perhaps ethanol or methanol heated to 60C might also do?

70C is probably the limit on what you would want to heat that stuff to during recrystallization. Beyond that I have read it gets more sensitive than NG.


Ye Old Thorpe 4th ed. 1940. P. 500-01

.... disolves in hot alcohol, ether, acetic acid, and acetone.

He also sights US Patent 1 878 652 of 1932.

PROCESS OF INITIAL DETONATING EXPLOSIVE MATTER AND FOR
THE MANUFACTURE OF DETONATING CAPS IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH

Byda most references I have consulted borrow heavily from
Nao├║m, the book has been reprinted. Wow a book I own,
albeit a reprint not available from Google.com/books !







Attachment: 1878652.pdf (150kB)
This file has been downloaded 722 times

holmes1880 - 23-6-2011 at 17:39

@silver

Flexibility as in being less prone to failure given different parameters of the detonator? I guess, since you can throw a tiny stash of any primary in a plastic straw and it will work. Heat induced detonation is extremely promising with all usable nitric esters(MHN, ETN, PETN) and I believe may even go as far as cyclonite. Remember me asking about RDX deflagration point? Aha.....

freedompyro - 23-6-2011 at 22:51

Does anyone know if MHN has any reported reactions to common metals? Copper, Al, Magnesium, etc?

Have not seen anything on it anywhere...

In fact, I have only seen info on peroxides reacting to metals...

[Edited on 24-6-2011 by freedompyro]

quicksilver - 24-6-2011 at 04:47

Quote: Originally posted by holmes1880  
@silver

Flexibility as in being less prone to failure given different parameters of the detonator? I guess, since you can throw a tiny stash of any primary in a plastic straw and it will work. Heat induced detonation is extremely promising with all usable nitric esters(MHN, ETN, PETN) and I believe may even go as far as cyclonite. Remember me asking about RDX deflagration point? Aha.....


No actually heat is the least promising because it has attendant variables. If you read the post over, you'll see that it's shock that has the greatest promise of consistency. in the widest selections of materials.
however.....an amine is different than an ester and it's not appropriate science to make a sweeping generalization in any area. But heat per se' has attendant demands for initiation. This is actually another issue that can be learned from the "exploding test-tube" affair. If the same heat levels were applied via a water bath we may not have seen the detonation. There were many issues that drove that heat application (in that example) which may not have been there in a bath (as an example).
What's more a single focused heat source may function for a DDT or it may not; yet this depends on still other variables such as density level, form design,defusment of heat, etc.

holmes1880 - 24-6-2011 at 08:04

An extreme heat even in weak confinement can be as effective as a shock. By extreme heat I mean like a jump from 25C to 500C in 1 second and then to 1000C in 2 seconds. Even most stable secondaries may not tolerate, especially confined.

Rosco Bodine - 24-6-2011 at 08:24

As a practical matter it is unlikely that any heat gradient can be produced more suddenly more conveniently and simply than by the impact caused by a primary explosive. The closest thing to the action of a primary would be an electrical discharge, and that scheme requires as an external component an electrical source as well as the conductors and some nearly instantaneous means of switching. The shock of such stimuli peaks in microseconds where potential energy is released as kinetic energy then transformed to heat at the event horizon for impact on the target material.

holmes1880 - 24-6-2011 at 09:52

I will say that ETN or MHN cannot handle a 300C/second jump in temperature 99.9% of the time, when confined. Been verified. As far as convenience goes, sure, it is most convenient to put a tiny amount of LA or any other primary and skip along without any worries. The price of that is a risk of static or some minor mechanical accident. I don't want to get ahead of myself just yet, but RDX or HMX may not be immune either to these thermal onslaughts. A solely RDX based initiator - you can afford to be careless.

Rosco Bodine - 24-6-2011 at 10:39

Using primary explosives correctly in an intelligently designed firing train
is not careless. I have said it before and I will say it again, the so called
"safety detonator" concept which is predicated on the idea of a primary explosive free firing train is to a very large extent and in a highly qualified way a sales pitch for a solution in search of a problem to solve .....but it is a "problem" that actually isn't a problem. If the idea is to make explosives idiot proof well good luck on that one.

[Edited on 24-6-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

holmes1880 - 24-6-2011 at 11:59

How long have you been in denial, ever since you failed to come up with it yourself? Why do you think the first EBW inventors came up with the idea- nobody likes to work with primaries. I remember clearly reading that they "thought it was a problem needed solving". Why are there NPED caps, patents, etc?

It comes down to your nervous system. If you blast quite a little bit, then being alert all the time will take its toll. It's never a pleasant feeling inserting the cap into the booster when it has a primary in it. It's not a comforting feeling. It's kinda like holding a loaded gun to your head- it won't go off without reason, but still makes you anxious. You catch my drift?

Rosco Bodine - 24-6-2011 at 12:30

Fear sells. Look at the world we have and you will know that is true.

Do you think all the fears which can have a basis predicated on a really unlikely
event are well reasoned and valid or are many such fears basically bullshit paranoia?

With regards to primary explosives firearms ammunition is a good example.
How often does a cartridge of ammunition "fire itself" during any normal
storage or handling? Okay ...the same is true for a detonator of the original
compound variety having a primary and a base charge. They are remarkably reliable and well proven when handled properly. The idea of an NPED is
to sell something much more expensive to address exaggerated fears in
response to unlikely scenarios. It is exactly the kind of crap that gets
regulated into existence by people who really don't know what they are doing
and don't care what it costs. Such a philosophy is a lot more burden on
my digestion and my nervous system and has its collateral costs in the
unintended consequences that seem to always appear sooner or later.


gregxy - 24-6-2011 at 12:31

There are many differences in what is useful to the amateur and in the industry. A "thermal initiation" mechanism without a primary or strong electrical input like EBW will require much more secondary since the DDT ramp up will be slower. If you are making thousands of caps you will want to minimize the explosive content since it will reduce the cost and make them safer to store. In some applications detonation with millisecond timing is needed. Finally the cap needs to perform reliably and predictably. There are already patents >50 years old on pyro type mixtures to replace the primary. This is a well researched field, the best solutions are already being used.

As far as the amateur is concerned, there is still plenty of danger with secondaries. I seem to recall a member that lost his hand and eye making NG. (I think he was fairly careful and experienced too). I don't see why ETN is any safer than NG.

holmes1880 - 24-6-2011 at 13:18

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

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

@rosco

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

[Edited on 24-6-2011 by holmes1880]

quicksilver - 25-6-2011 at 07:27

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




Source: Journal of Explosives Engineering (isee.org)

[Edited on 25-6-2011 by quicksilver]

holmes1880 - 25-6-2011 at 08:26

Thanks for the info, silver. The labor is therefore the largest cost factor. Makes sense since it's a regulated, dangerous industry.

freedompyro - 29-6-2011 at 20:54

After recrystallization in boiling ethanol and boiling acetone...

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

All I have been able to achieve is highly sensitive low density white fluff and higher density granular white fluff... LoL! It may not be possible to get MHN to crystallize anything like ETN.