Sciencemadness Discussion Board - nitroglycerin - Powered by XMB 1.9.11 (Debug Mode)

Hi Lord Emrone, mixed acid is normally used for the nitration of liquids.
For erythritol, according to Davis, the sugar is first dissolved in HNO3 and H2SO4 is added to precipitate the product; it's done dropwise to prevent a temperature-spike that might cause runaway.
Liquids are simply added dropwise to the mixed acid.
When preparing mixed acid H2SO4 should be added to HNO3, not the other way round.
This is important when using 68% HNO3 because the water-content in 68% HNO3 can lead to unwanted heating of the solution.

So I can add all the erythritol to the HNO3 at once ? That would speed up the process a lot, but since the mixture, while adding H2SO4 must be kept < 10°C it's still takes a lot of time.

I did a methyl nitrate synth last summer and it worked by adding HNO3 to H2SO4. I will do it reversed from now on. But the last months I failed to make methyl nitrate and EGDN, even though I use the same acids, 60% HNO3 and 96% SA.

hissingnoise - 6-2-2010 at 07:35

Quote:

So I can add all the erythritol to the HNO3 at once ?

No! That would lead to runaway very quickly!
Heat is produced when organic substances are added to HNO3 and if the temperature passes a certain point runaway is likely to occur.
Mixing the acids first and adding erythritol a little at a time with constant stirring would speed things up but the reaction mixture thickens as the reaction proceeds and efficient mixing becomes difficult.
It might be a good idea to have a look at "The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives" by Davis - it's in the site library.
You should always use 98% H2SO4 for nitration and your HNO3 should be 68% or better.
An excess of H2SO4 should be used with 68% HNO3 to bind up the 32% water it contains!

[Edited on 6-2-2010 by hissingnoise]

Lord Emrone - 8-2-2010 at 04:40

It might be a good idea to have a look at "The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives" by Davis - it's in the site library.
You should always use 98% H2SO4 for nitration and your HNO3 should be 68% or better.
An excess of H2SO4 should be used with 68% HNO3 to bind up the 32% water it contains!

Ok, thanks, I also tried it with AN, failed too. Strange.

The WiZard is In - 6-4-2010 at 07:15

Quote: Originally posted by Microtek

When doing the hammer test, the NG must be absorbed into a piece of toilet paper. Otherwise, the hammerblow will more likely just scatter the NG as little droplets.

------
You could boil it.

Nitroglycerin — Ascanio Sobrero

" On one occasion a small quantify of an ethereal solution of nitroglycerin as allowed to evaporate in a glass dish. The residue of nitroglycerin was certainly not more than 2 or 3 centigrams. On heating the dish over a spirit lamp a most violent explosion resulted, and the dish was broken to atoms.

On another occasion a drop contained in a test tube was being heated when it detonated with great violence, and pieces of glass cut my face and hands severely and also injured others standing some distance away in the room."

Ascanio Sobrero "Some New Fulminating Products Obtained by the Action of Nitric Acid on some Vegetable Organic Substances." Torino. Mem. Acad. (1847), 195-203.

In: GW McDonald "Historical Papers on Modern Explosives." Whittaker & Co. 1912

Byda ... I have an original copy, you can DL McD's book from the obvious site.

NUKE - 23-4-2010 at 06:38

Here I will publish some of my findings:

Nitro isn't even remotely close as sensitive and super duper dangerous as people say it is. So stop being "NG racists"...

I have tried synthesizing nitroglycerin with both >99.5% HNO3 and 65%. And I have to say product is identical! Density is very close to 1.6 in each case only the yield is slightly increased with use of 99.5% HNO3.

200mL >99.5% HNO3
300mL 96% H2SO4
112mL glycerine

Yield was ~180-190mL of nitro both times.

100mL C3H8O3
454mL 96% H2SO4
318mL 65% HNO3

Those ammount yield approximately 100mL of NG.

From my experiences... NG does not detonate as a liquid when struck with a hammer it only splatters around. It must be absorbed in some material in order to detonate by hammer blow and even then it needs a much stronger blow than most primary explosives (namely HMTD, lead azide, silver azide, lead styphnate).

When NG is dropped on hot metal plate an interesting and rather amusing effect is observed. Lovely blueish white flames are observed with small ammount of sound evolution. NG on flat thin Al surface only burns. When small ammount of it is put in Al foil and folded it explodes on heating.

Ok here I will describe an example of H2SO4, HNO3 (>99.5% and 65%) synthesis.

H2SO4 and thermomether (-30°C to 150°C interval) were placed in 1L flat bottomed florence flask and put into the salt/ice bath untill temperature reaches approximately -5°C.

HNO3 is added in portions with occassional swirling so the max. temperature mixture reaches is 35°C. After all the HNO3 is added temperature is allowed to drop to 10-15°C.

Glycerine is added (10-20mL at a time) temperature is kept at approximate interval of 15-21°C while constantly vigorously swirling and immersing the reaction mixture into ice bath to prevent localised overheating. All the glycerine can be added (no matter the ammount) in as little as 15 minutes if good enough ice bath and vigorous swirling is employed. And temperature would never exceed 21°C (industrial processes use higher temperature anyway, and runaway in small batches don't present significant detonation hazard). After all the glycerine is added mixture is swirled for some time and put into a seperatory funnel (at temperature ~15°C). Mixture is left there for hour, two or however long neccessary for acid layer (bottom) to seperate from NG layer (top) and above mentioned temperature is kept during the seperation process. As much acid layer as possible is seperated from NG.

When NG is almost "acid free" warm (45°C) NaHCO3 solution is added and swirling is used (to increase the surface area of NG) without closing of the seperatory funnel (*cough*, *cough* tried that too but got a "headbursting" NG/solution fountain).

After some time when bubble evolution decreases NG is washed again with similar solution until it contains even less acid remains.

After letting it settle on bottom of seperatory funnel a NG equivalent volume of acetone is measured into a beaker and few mililiters of 25% NH3 solution is added to it and stirred.

NG is seperated directly into the beaker with as little leftover water as possible. Whole mixture is thoroughly stirred using a glass rod. And pH paper is used to determine if it's in alkaline range.

Clear but slightly yellowish solution is formed and small ammount of heat is evolved.

Whole mixture of acetone/NH3/NG is dumped into approximately 5 times it's volume of distilled water and whole thing is violently shaken so as much acetone,NH3 as possible is seperated from NG (I used HDPE vessel for that purpouse). Mixture is let to sit for a hour or two so as much NG as possible settles on bottom. As much clear layer as possible is decanted off and NG is again transfered into a seperatory funnel.

As much warm distilled water is added to NG in seperatory funnel and violent swirling is employed untill yellowish NG changes colour to "milky white". After that happens NG is let to settle down, seperated with as little water as possible and transfered into a vessel for drying purpouses.

NG is left for approximately 24h on a warm place (40-50°C) and it's milky appearance dissapears. After "drying" process it's completely colourless.

No need for dessicator...

hissingnoise - 23-4-2010 at 09:55

Or acetone solution, strictly speaking - dispensing with acetone and dH2O just means extra swirling in a few changes of tap-water after neutralisation. . .

quicksilver - 23-4-2010 at 10:43

Quote: Originally posted by NUKE

After letting it settle on bottom of seperatory funnel a NG equivalent volume of acetone is measured into a beaker and few mililiters of 25% NH3 solution is added to it and stirred.

NG is seperated directly into the beaker with as little leftover water as possible. Whole mixture is thoroughly stirred using a glass rod. And pH paper is used to determine if it's in alkaline range.

Clear but slightly yellowish solution is formed and small ammount of heat is evolved.

Whole mixture of acetone/NH3/NG is dumped into approximately 5 times it's volume of distilled water and whole thing is violently shaken so as much acetone,NH3 as possible is seperated from NG .........

As much warm distilled water is added to NG in seperatory funnel and violent swirling is employed untill yellowish NG changes colour to "milky white"...........

Avoid your swirling with a glass rod. I had Emailed (back & forth) a fellow who lost a thumb and eye to NG in that being a liquid within a liquid (not acetone solution which is a wise move), it is difficult to see the small droplets which - when impacted, "train the other NG" within the vessel to mass ignition. The proximity was less than six inches from the flask of 40 ml NG & at that distance the violence of over an ounce of NG will tear tissue and the glass shards had come up under the goggles to sever cornea and eyelid. This fellow was NOT a jackass or unskilled. He was simply negligent of the issue of glass to glass impact on a droplet.
A Sep-funnel's petcock should never be dry or even "sticky". If a proper Teflon petcock is used the device should have solutions drawn through it prior to the introduction of NG supported solutions.

There IS a profoundly realistic set of reasons why NG was feared over the decades. It's liquid form made it difficult to contain & easy to get between bearing surfaces. This is NOT to say that it has the sensitivity of Iodine "fly-killer", but that it does present a difficulty in visually determining it's whereabouts. What's more as NG moves from temp to temp and from flat - to containing bubbles, it's level of sensitivity changes. We have all heard how when NG is frozen and thawed it becomes uniquely sensitive; there is more to that issue than "meets the eye".
Another issue that's tricky is accurate assessment of ph. The problems made me invest in a digital meter. The issue with NG is to avoid getting anything BUT the NG on the paper - lest you get a false reading from the surrounding alkali solution (while the proper NG remains slightly acidic).

As a nitric ester it's imperative that it be neutralized and the fact that the "original batch" of NG is "cleaned up" every so often gives rise to the question of it's demand for proper climate control, etc. Glycerin was dropped from industrial blasting in favor of Ethelyn Glycol for some very good reasons.
Ethelyn Glycol offers much wider safety margins & is really worth the effort to use it instead.
There is a difference between being reasonable with regards to respect for energetic materials and overly fearful. In either end of the spectrum; being overly confident or overly fearful is not a great place to be. Discussions of safety procedures are never a "put-down" but often meant to illustrate how to avoid stepping into the "dark side".

The guy who lost an eye still gets around with the hobby. But he freely tells the story so that other folks won't make that mistake. He once said something I really take to heart....He said that if he doesn't "feel sharp" & knows what he's going to be doing exactly, etc....He puts off any synthesis till he's on target.

[Edited on 23-4-2010 by quicksilver]

The WiZard is In - 23-4-2010 at 13:41

Quote: Originally posted by Lord Emrone

I did a methyl nitrate synth last summer and it worked by adding HNO3 to H2SO4. I will do it reversed from now on. But the last months I failed to make methyl nitrate and EGDN, even though I use the same acids, 60% HNO3 and 96% SA.

High technology terrorism - L. Paul Bremer address - transcript
US Department of State Bulletin, July, 1988
Statement before the Subcommittee on Technology and the Law of the Senate Judiciary Committee
on May 19, 1988. Ambassador Bremer is Ambassador at Large for Counter-Terrorism.(1)

"In some cases, the bombs themselves have changed. The Czech plastic explosive Semtex, more
powerful and less detectable than traditional explosives, is becoming very popular with those groups
which can gain access to it. Lebanese terrorist Mohammed Ali Hammadei, accused of helping direct
the hijacking of TWA #847 in 1985, was captured last year trying to enter the Federal Republic of
Germany with the volatile liquid explosive methyl nitrate concealed in liquor bottles."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2136_v88...

--
djh
------
Tuez-les tous, Dieu
reconnaîta les siens.

Amalric Arnaund
(?-1225),
Abbé of Citeaux.
At the the sack of Béziers (1209)

[Edited on 23-4-2010 by The WiZard is In]

hissingnoise - 24-4-2010 at 03:06

Yeah, I can see someone with bottled methyl nitrate acting jumpy.
It's more brisant and more powerful than nitro and its high volatility adds an extra dimension. . .

quicksilver - 24-4-2010 at 04:25

The history of methyl nitrate in WWII was a tragic and nightmarish one. Slave labor was used to man the production facilities in Nazi Germany; the explos. being used in landmines and aerial bombs. The production facilities were segregated from the management and over-seers, allowing the mistakes to take their toll undisturbed.

The WiZard is In - 24-4-2010 at 06:04

The history of methyl nitrate in WWII was a tragic and nightmarish one. Slave labor was used to man the production facilities in Nazi Germany; the explos. being used in landmines and aerial bombs. The production facilities were segregated from the management and over-seers, allowing the mistakes to take their toll undisturbed.

"Before inventing his Dynamite in 1863, Alfred B. Nobel (1833-1896)
proposed a rather safe method of transporting liquid NG. He mixed it with
15-20 parts of anhydrous methyl alcohol and transported the resulting
non-explosive mixture in tanks to places of work. There NG was precipitated
by adding water and the supernatant dilute methanol removed by decantation.
As this method was time-consuming and rather wasteful (because it did not
pay to recover methanol), it was seldom used in the USA.

"Here, where everything is done in a hurry and as cheaply as possible, it
was preferred to transport NG in liquid form, although it was more
dangerous, Many accidents occurred and many live were lost in connection
with NG and as long as most of the workmen were foreigners, especially
Chinese, the industrialists, who care only for profits, did not introduce
any safety regulation until the were forced by the Government after
establishing in 1910 the Bureau of Mines, at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania."

PATR 2700

The WiZard is In - 24-4-2010 at 06:44

A description of the use of Myrol (methyl nitrate — methyl nitrate/methanol) of which during the 2nd half of
WW II German production was "as high as 20,000 metric tons a month" can be found in :—

DICTIONARY OF EXPLOSIVES, AMMUNITION AND WEAPONS (GERMAN SECTION)
Fedoroff, Basil T Aaronson, Henry A Clift, George D Reese, E...
PICATINNY ARSENAL DOVER NJ
Page Count: 359 page(s)
AD Number: AD0160636
Report Date: 07 JUL 1958

In theory you can DL this from the obvious US Gov. web site. Search for AD160636.

quicksilver - 24-4-2010 at 14:45

[rquote=176472&tid=949&author=The WiZard is

In theory you can DL this from the obvious US Gov. web site. Search for AD160636.
[/rquote]

Unfortunately I couldn't find it. That would make for pretty interesting reading.

The WiZard is In - 24-4-2010 at 15:28

[rquote=176472&tid=949&author=The WiZard is

In theory you can DL this from the obvious US Gov. web site. Search for AD160636.
[/rquote]

Unfortunately I couldn't find it. That would make for pretty interesting reading.

I have never-ever had trouble finding it. HOWEVER, I have
never even after a dozen attempts succeeded in DL'ing a PDF
that could be opened!

I have had others that took 4-5 DL's before they could be opened,
this one ..... never.

Had a series of failure to connect this AM, then I could connect.
If I knew who to complain upon I would.

The WiZard is In - 24-4-2010 at 16:05

Quote: Originally posted by andrea

Hi guys, I'm gonna make some nitroglycerin for the first time. I've got only 65-70% concentrated HNO3 and 96-98% concentrated H2SO4. In the megalomania's procedure they use 98% HNO3 and 98% H2SO4 in a 2:3 ratio. I wanna know if using a nitrating mixture with a different ratio of HNO3/H2SO4 I will be able to get successfully some NG. If yes what ratio of HNO3/H2SO4 should I use (with 65-70% HNO3)? Thanks for your answers

Me again, you know the analogue guy with all the books.
This from one of four that I own that I am amazed I have
never seen mentioned. One of them is in the
library, however, if I were king, it would not be!

Someday when I have time I'll figure out how to DL
JPS or same such here, therefore the PDF.

Attachment: NG.pdf (203kB)
This file has been downloaded 942 times

J Putman a self-made man who had no use for theorists, among whom he classed all chemists

The WiZard is In - 24-4-2010 at 16:13

Quote: Originally posted by andrea

"[Egbert Putman] a self-made man who had no use for theorists, among whom he
classed all chemists [b. 9 August 1812 patented Giant Powder No. 2* in
1873] was a self-made man who had no use for theorists, among whom he
classed all chemists. Although he was the proprietor of the largest chemical or
acid works in San Francisco, he never employed one of these creatures. Since
the first Judson powder was rather sticky and would not run readily down bore
holes, he conceived the idea of dryin the grains or "driving the nitroglycerine
into the grains" by heating them to about 200o F. He built a jacketed iron pan, about
5 by 12 feet in size which held about a ton of powder and was heated
by steam to the desired temperature. The powder was then shoveled into the
pan with wooden scoops and stirred by a white man with a wooden
rake until the grains appeared dry. Next it was shoveled out on the floor to cool.
Several charges had been made when the workman who was doing the work
was taken sick with a headache, caused, so he said, by the red fumes coming
from the powder. As he was alone, Judson having just gone, be went to tell
Judson and get some fresh air. This saved his life. He had not gone two hundred
feet when there was a flash. All that remained of the building was the iron pan."

As one wag noted in the past - a chemist would have also destroyed the iron pan.

* 40pts NG , 40 sodium nitrate, 6 rosin, 6 sulphur 8 kieselguhr.

franklyn - 24-4-2010 at 16:52

you can DL this from the obvious US Gov. web site. Search for AD160636.

Unfortunately I couldn't find it. That would make for pretty interesting reading.

If I knew who to complain upon I would.

Dictionary of Explosives, Ammunition & Weapons ( German Section )
Links available here if you have access _
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=7518&a...

.

franklyn - 25-4-2010 at 13:59

Unfortunately I couldn't find it. That would make for pretty interesting reading.

This could be why _
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=7518&a...

.

Formatik - 29-4-2010 at 10:48

Quote: Originally posted by NUKE

I have tried synthesizing nitroglycerin with both >99.5% HNO3 and 65%. And I have to say product is identical! Density is very close to 1.6 in each case only the yield is slightly increased with use of 99.5% HNO3.

200mL >99.5% HNO3
300mL 96% H2SO4
112mL glycerine

Yield was ~180-190mL of nitro both times.

100mL C3H8O3
454mL 96% H2SO4
318mL 65% HNO3

Those ammount yield approximately 100mL of NG.

That's a big difference in yield. Though pure nitric acid can be used itself to nitrate the glycerin, it requires a large excess. The sulfuric acid will completley convert the nitric acid to nitronium ion (NO2+), which is the nitrating species. Selenic or perchloric acid do the same, but I wouldn't use those in an ester nitration. When combined with pure nitric acid, other dehydrants have been used in place of H2SO4, like P2O5 or Ca(NO3)2, yielding more or less pure NG as described by Tenney Davis. Oleum will reduce the water content even further, and so some of the highest yields have been reached as mentioned by Urbanski.

Quote:

... runaway in small batches don't present significant detonation hazard

Maybe not, maybe so. A poster in this thread lost a hand and an eye from a mere 10ml of nitroglycerin runaway reaction
despite noting adequate temperature control.

Quote:

Whole mixture of acetone/NH3/NG is dumped into approximately 5 times it's volume of distilled water and whole thing is violently shaken so as much acetone,NH3 as possible is seperated from NG (I used HDPE vessel for that purpouse).

Shake it violently in an insolubilized (suspended) state? I'd rather not.

... using an acid/glycerine ratio of approximately 6.

Federoff states a mixed acid of less than 80g per 10g glycerin tends to give an explosively unstable waste acid. The ratio given by Stettbacher is just under this (7.5 parts acid per part glycerol).

Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack

Drain cleaner? Technical grade materials too much?
For nitroglycerin?

Urbanski mentions the H2SO4 (or oleum) should be free from Fe- and Pb- sulfates, since these make separation of nitroglycerin and acid difficult. Drain cleaners and car battery acid likely contain such contaminants in significant amounts.

NUKE - 30-4-2010 at 00:33

@Formatik

I was being very approximate at estimation of the yield. There was a difference tho. I believe it could be attributed to HNO3 not being completely free of dissolved NOx (long storage).

Regarding the runaway hazard: A friend of mine purpousely remotely dumped few 10mL of glycerine at once into a room temperature acid mixture and nothing but a large evolution of NO2 and boling of mixture resulted. No detonation occurred.

Even after shaking NG always contains fair ammount of acetone so it's not entirely pure NG that's being shaken.

Formatik - 1-5-2010 at 09:58

I know about the harmless runaways: nitrogen oxides, heat, no detonation. That's when it goes "good".

In the small scale, the violent runaway probably depends on how much nitro has already accumulated. At the start of nitration or dumping all the glycerin in at once might not allow the nitro to form, or decompose as or before it has even formed, alongside a vigorous oxidation of the glycerin.

Notice the example, from the poster I gave, it was towards the end where there was a runaway, so that means it was actually about 10ml which had formed, and detonated. Whereas your friend dumped all the glycerin in at once. That's not to say this will happen predictably, just my thoughts on the differences.

For: HNO3 + 2 H2SO4 = NO2+ + H3O+ + 2 HSO4-

Water is disadvantageous because of the protonation it causes (NO2+ and H2O form HNO3), and for which the sulfuric acid compensates. Sulfuric acid protonates the HNO3 which is what forms the NO2+. In pure nitric acid there is little NO2+, which is why it's combined with H2SO4. The hydronium sulfate is no good for the conversion to NO2+. With more water and more sulfuric acid, there will be less nitronium.

[Edited on 1-5-2010 by Formatik]

Cloner - 25-10-2010 at 11:56

Is it feasible to use a solvent such as DCM or petroleum ether during the synthesis of NG, to dilute it to inertness during the later stages of the reaction and the workup?

rbick - 28-10-2010 at 07:30

Thats a good question. Could you been more specific though? At what point would you dilute it? After it has formed on top of the nitrating mixture?

I know that NG can be transported more safely by diluting it with Acetone to a point where it is extremely hard to detonate, which I think starts somewhere around 70% NG to 30% acetone. I've never thought about trying it during a synthesis though. Sounds like a fun project.

Maybe you could add the acetone or whatever solvent with the NG to dilute before extracting it from the nitrating mixture with your separatory funnel. It could then be washed, neutralized and evaporated for a nice clean product. Being diluted and therefore less sensitive, it could make the synthesis and handling much safer. Any thoughts?

Microtek - 28-10-2010 at 13:27

Supposedly, DCM is a very good medium for aromatics nitration. I read somewhere that toluene was quantitatively nitrated to TNT by adding anhydrous nitric acid to a solution of it in DCM at 0 C. I haven't tried it myself though.

The WiZard is In - 28-10-2010 at 13:35

Quote: Originally posted by rbick

I know that NG can be transported more safely by diluting it with Acetone to a point where it is extremely hard to detonate, which I think starts somewhere around 70% NG to 30% acetone. I've never thought about trying it during a synthesis though. Sounds like a fun project.

"BEFORE INVENTING his Dynamite in 1863, Alfred B. Nobel (1833-1896)
proposed a rather safe method of transporting liquid NG. He mixed it
with 15-20 parts of anhydrous methyl alcohol and transported the
resulting nonexplosive mixture in tanks to places of work. There the
NG was precipitated by adding water and the supernatant dilute
methanol removed by decantation. As this method was time-consuming
and rather wasteful (because it did not pay to recover methanol), it
was seldom used in the USA. Here, where everything is done in a hurry
and as cheaply as possible, it was preferred to transport NG in
liquid form, although it was more dangerous. Many accidents occurred
and many lives were lost in connection with NG and as long as most of
the workman were foreigners especially Chinese, the industrialists,
who care only for profits, did not introduce any safety regulations
until they were forced by the Government after establishing in 1910
the Bureau of Mines at Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania."

PATR 2700 me thinks.

Microtek - 29-10-2010 at 05:53

Surely, it must be possible to initiate a 15:85 mix of methanol and NG with a suitable detonator (I realize that the technology of detonators weren't very advanced at the time).

The WiZard is In - 29-10-2010 at 07:09

Quote: Originally posted by Microtek

Surely, it must be possible to initiate a 15:85 mix of methanol and NG with a suitable detonator (I realize that the technology of detonators weren't very advanced at the time).

Nobel added methanol to prevent an accidental an explosions.

It wouldn't have been used mixed as an explosive... that would
have required larger bore holes to correct for the expanded
volume. Assuming it could have be detonated, which was
accomplished in the early days by flame only. Black powder
mixed with NG was also used.

Hudson Maxim
Dynamite Stories 1916
(A reprise can be had from www.fireworksnews.com )

HOISTED WITH HIS OWN PETARD
LIQUID nitroglycerin is still used to torpedo the oil-wells when they get old, in order to
give them a new lease on life.

There was one teamster in the old days who had become notorious as a hauler of the
dangerous explosive. The law does not permit the shipment of the liquid by freight or by
express, and for that reason this teamster had plenty to do in hauling nitroglycerin for long
distances. He was a great smoker and his old pipe was always alight, though he might be
riding on a ton of nitroglycerin with a few kegs of black gunpowder clinked into the load.

One day he was carrying, on runners, about two tons of nitroglycerin and a few odd
kegs of gunpowder, when something happened. There had been a fall of several inches of
light snow the evening before, and the scene of the eventuation was an open field which
he was crossing.

There was an enormous crater in the ground; the light snow around the crater was
besprinkled with a few shreds of horse and harness and a sliver or two of sled, but not a
trace of the driver was ever found.

Vist :—

Tallini Tales of Destruction www.logwell.com
..an amazing collection of historical stories involving nitroglycerin use in the oilfields.

For historical info on the early use of NG in the oil fields
consult the every suspenseful/interesting

VAn Gelder & Schlatter
History of the Explosives Industry in America
IME 1927
1132 well indexed pages.

I own a 1972 Arno Press reprint.

rbick - 29-10-2010 at 07:16

Microtek,

I bet it is too. If I'm not mistaken they were using compressed black powder to initiate dynamite until later in the 1800s?

Although I've never read about using Methanol, I know that a 70% NG/30% Acetone can be detonated although a booster must be used. I'm assuming it would be similar with Methanol since NG is listed as miscible with both Methanol, Acetone, and other organic solvents on the MSDS.

I read either a patent or an article (can't remember which if it was an actual patent or not) discussing the use of Acetone to dilute NG for safety reasons but the link and information was lost along with Rogue Sci

. If anyone has the link, I'd like to see it!

EDIT: The Wizard and I posted at the same time. Looks like he found the info for the use of Methanol. Nice... :cool:

[Edited on 29-10-2010 by rbick]

The WiZard is In - 29-10-2010 at 07:58

Quote: Originally posted by rbick

EDIT: The Wizard and I posted at the same time. Looks like he found the info for the use of Methanol. Nice... :cool:

Actually I found it years ago ...

Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: "donald j haarmann" <haa...@mail.idt.net>
Date: 1997/06/01
Subject: Re: expendable labor!

"Before inventing his Dynamite in 1863, Alfred B. Nobel (1833-1896)

The WiZard is In - 29-10-2010 at 08:09

Quote: Originally posted by rbick

Microtek,

I bet it is too. If I'm not mistaken they were using compressed black powder to initiate dynamite until later in the 1800s?

Eric Twitty in his book "Blown to Bits in the Mine: A History of Mining &
Explosvies in the United States, dates usage of RR powder [which version?]
from 1876 to 1930.

A curious version was made by the Giant Powder Company. Twitty cites
US Patent 183,764 of 1876 for the following:-

"Egbert Judson, on the of Giant Powder Company's visionary founding fathers,
duly noted the performance of the mixture of a small volume of nitroglycerine
absorbed in blasting powder, and its possible applications. In 1876 he patented
"Judson Powder", which consisted of a modified blasting powder thinly coated
nitroglycerine. The difference between Judson's product and earlier NG-coated
blasting powder formulas lay in the manufacturing process. Judson melted
the sulfur, added the other powder ingredients to the melt, cooled it, crushed it,
and classified the grains. Melting the ingredients made their surfaces glassy,
decreasing porosity and facilitating an even coat of nitroglycerine. In the making
of true blasting powder, there was no melting of ingredients. Judson's formula
required the grains be coated with 5%, 10%, or 15% nitroglycerine by weight."

Bismuth - 8-1-2011 at 05:19

I'm aware of the safer alternatives of NG (namely, EGDN/PGDN) but at one point or another, I want to synthesis some nitroglycerin. I simply deflagrate the secondaries I produce, so I'm not after making a large quantity at all. It's more just the experience and notoriety of synthesizing a little NG, so I can add a little first hand experience onto the knowledge I have accumulated from reading about it.

I began to think, nitrating 1ml of glycerin may pose more threat than a larger quantity. Not the consequences obviously, but an increased risk of an accident occuring. It would mean if I manually stirred it, there would probably be an increased chance of stirring rod to side of beaker contact. While I am definitely more inclined to use an aquarium pump, with these quantities it may prove to be a little annoying to do so. It also makes the whole experiment in colloquial language, "more fiddly".

It then brings me to, what glassware would be most suitable? Small beakers that could occupy such a small mix well aren't really abundant in a lab that usually does larger synthesis. I'm not keen to use a 25 x 150mm test tube, either. I gladly will go out and buy smaller beakers and other equipment to do the synthesis safely as I much rather pay with money than with eye loss or digit loss.

I've got my opinion in mind, but another from someone with a more practical knowledge couldn't hurt. I already know if I were to nitrate 20ml of glycerin, I would just use a suitable beaker, an aquarium pump to blow air over to create a whirlpool effect and all the other necessary precautions outlined in this thread and in literature. But for an amount where I only want to use 1ml? Would it just be an easier and safer process increasing it to 3, 4 or 5ml, just to make the whole procedure less of a nuisance?

hissingnoise - 8-1-2011 at 05:41

I use a thermometer as stirring rod and I flinch at every glass-on-glass clink!
Going at it as if you're beating eggs in a bowl is not the way to go.
Gentle (and I mean gentle) stirring shouldn't throw up "surprises" . . .

Mixell - 8-1-2011 at 10:18

Can anyone please post a link to the nitroglycerin producing method that was mentioned in the first post?
I can't manage to find it via the search option...

The WiZard is In - 8-1-2011 at 11:58

Eric Twitty in his book "Blown to Bits in the Mine: A History of Mining & Explosvies in the United States, dates usage of RR powder [which version?] from 1876 to 1930.

Snelling and Storm
Bureau of Mines Bulletin 51
The Analysis of Black Powder and Dynamite
1913

GRANULATED NITROGLYCERIN POWDER.

When ordinary dynamite is used in blasting any material of a
consistency resembling that of earth or clay, little of the energy of
the explosive does useful work, because the soft and compressible
nature of the material blasted allows the greater part of the
energy of the explosive to be used in compacting the material and
in producing a cavity. Consequently, gunpowder has been largely
used in all places where earth, clay, or other soft material was to
be dislodged. In the blasting of the banks of railroad cuts there are
often places where a soft, but somewhat consolidated material,
intermediate between earth and hard rock, has to be blasted. Such
a material might be a soft shale, for example, or a friable and
easily crumbled sandstone, and for dislodging it neither ordinary
blasting powder nor ordinary dynamite is particularly suitable. In
the year 1876 E. Judson patented an explosive consisting of a low-
grade gunpowder made by heating and mixing together coal,
sulphur, sodium nitrate, etc., granulating the mixture, and then
coating this nonabsorbent granulated dope with a small amount of
nitroglycerin. The proportion of nitroglycerin used—often as little
as 5 per cent— was such that had it been absorbed by the grains
of explosive it would not have been capable of detonation, but by
remaining wholly or largely upon the surface of the grains the use
of a detonator brought about its explosion and the simultaneous
ignition of the gunpowder base which it covered. Such an
explosive, as a result of the detonation of the nitroglycerin,
produces an initial blow sufficient to crack and fissure the partly
consolidated material in which it is placed. The action of the
gunpowder mixture that forms the larger part of the explosive so
heaves and moves the broken-up mass as to make easy its
removal with steam shovels.

Granulated nitroglycerin powders, or "free-running" explosives,
have been very much used in the excavation of earth and are
commonly known as Judson powder (after the inventor), bank
powder, or railroad powder. In the analysis of low-grade granular
powder, moisture is determined by the standard method, and the
usual method of extracting with ether is followed. In the ether
extract are usually found large proportions of sulphur, rosin, etc.,
besides the nitroglycerin. The proportion of sulphur commonly used
in low-grade granular powder is so considerable that usually it is
not all removed by extraction with ether.

Explosive-Judson-Powder-V&S-338.jpg - 441kB

Explosive-Judson-Powder-V&S-681.jpg - 448kB

Attachment: 141455_MPROVEMENT_IN_EXPLOSIVE_COMPOUNDS (1).pdf (101kB)
This file has been downloaded 616 times

Attachment: 183764_IMPROVEMENT_IN_EXPLOSIVE_COMPOUND.pdf (173kB)
This file has been downloaded 676 times

Attachment: 227601_EGBERT_W.pdf (71kB)
This file has been downloaded 547 times

DuPont is from the 1928 Edition of DuPont's Blasters Handbook,
the oldest edition I own. It is also in the 1934 ed. Not in the
1942 and following editions.

V&S is Vangelder and Schatler, History of the Explosives Industry
in America. IME 1927.

V&S

"[Egbert Putman] Judson [b. 9 August 1812 patented Giant Powder
No. 2* in 1873] was a self-made man who had no use for
theorists, among whom he classed all chemists. Although he was
the proprietor of the largest chemical or acid works in San
Francisco, he never employed one of these creatures. Since the
first Judson powder was rather sticky and would not run readily
down bore holes, he conceived the idea of drying the grains or
"driving the nitroglycerine into the grains" by heating them to
about 200o F. He built a jacketed iron pan, about 5 by 12 feet in
size which held about a ton of powder and was heated by steam to
the desired temperature. The powder was then shovelled into the
pan with wooden scoops and stirred by a white man with a
wooden rake until the grains appeared dry. Next it was shovelled
out on the floor to cool. Several charges had been made when the
workman who was doing the work was taken sick with a headache,
caused, so he said, by the red fumes coming from the powder. As
he was alone, Judson having just gone, be went to tell Judson and
get some fresh air. This saved his life. He had not gone two
hundred feet when there was a flash. All that remained of the
building was the iron pan."

* 40pts NG , 40 sodium nitrate, 6 rosin, 6 sulphur 8 kieselguhr.

As one wag noted some years ago when I posted this in
Sci.Chem... A chemist would have blow up the iron pan.

NG neutralization

Zinc - 12-1-2011 at 05:47

I have noticed NG can be difficult to properly neutralize.

Two times have I put NG under a NaHCO3 solution (once for 12 h, and once for more than 24 h, I have posted about the first attempt in this thread some time ago). After the time has elapsed I tested both the solution over NG, and the NG itself with litmus paper. The solution was basic but the NG was still acidic. Both times was the NG periodically swirled under the solution (not too much but quite a bit).

The second time I tried, after 12 h of staying under the NaHCO3 solution, I removed most of the solution, and added cca. 60 ml of acetone to the cca. 17-18 ml of NG and a small amount of the solution that remained over the NG (cca. 10 ml). The acetone and NG mixed and formed a layer that floated above the aqueous solution. After that I added cca. 150 ml of a NaHCO3 solution, swirled a minute or two, noticed some CO2 evolving, and added 500 ml of water. The water removed some acetone from the NG, but some (around half the volume) still remained mixed with the NG, so I added again the same amount of water. This removed almost all of the acetone. Then the third wash with half the volume of water was performed and the NG was tested with litmus paper, showing that it is non-acidic. After that I put the NG under an almost saturated NaCl solution to remove the water dispersed in the NG (it is milky-white). I forgot to write that all the water washes were performed with relatively warm water (hot tap water, how hot is it? Around 50 C?), in the hope that the extra heat would remove at least a small amount acetone through evaporation, and that the NaHCO3 solutions were both times moderately concentrated (don't know the exact conc. because I didn't weigh the NaHCO3), in the second attempt they were luke-warm, in the first room-temperature. I would also like to say that all of the washings reduced the final yield of NG (I don't know how much exactly because I never measured it, only eyeballed it. After the nitration I had around 20-23 ml (the batch was 200 ml of conc. H2SO4, 100 g of AN and 25 ml of glycerin), after the washings around 15-17 I believe.

All in all I can say that NG if more difficult to neutralize than I thought.

Are there some more effective methods? I do believe that constant stirring of the NG while under the basic solution would be much better, but I don't have the equipment for that. Perhaps simply letting it sit under the solution for several days would also work, but I would take a long time (not that I'm in a hurry but still

)
Maybe it the problem where to dilute NaHCO3 solutions?

hissingnoise - 12-1-2011 at 06:28

Quote:

Are there some more effective methods? I do believe that constant stirring of the NG while under the basic solution would be much better, but I don't have the equipment for that.

What lack of equipment could possibly prevent you swirling the mixture by hand?
Wash water won't worm its way into the interior of the nitro by itself, you know!
And the bicarbonate solution should be no more than 5% . . .

Zinc - 12-1-2011 at 08:36

What lack of equipment could possibly prevent you swirling the mixture by hand?

Indeed, but don't think I could hand swirl it for several hours. It seems at the moment that the best thing to do would it be to leave it under a NaHCO3 solution for several days with periodic swirling.

And the bicarbonate solution should be no more than 5% . . .

Interesting. I thought the concentrated the better. Why is diluted better (I know strong bases would hydrolyze NG, but I don't think even a saturated solution of NaHCO3 is enough to do that, but I could be wrong)?

hissingnoise - 12-1-2011 at 13:25

Low bicarb concentrations lessen the possible contamination of nitro!
In practice, it's about 3%!
When you're swirling, time slows to a crawl . . .
Just reconnect with your dogged side and don't let your attention wander!

Microtek - 12-1-2011 at 14:02

Many kitchen appliances are made precisely for stirring, so I suggest that you buy a cheap hand mixer and use that. Just make sure that the rotating bits don't hit the sides of the vessel (mount the mixer in a fixed position eg. a drill press) and use a relatively soft plastic vessel just to be safe.
According to Urbanski, an emulsion of NG in relatively little water (on the order of equal volumes of water and NG IIRC; this is not a stable emulsion obviously) cannot be initiated even with a strong blasting cap.

Simply letting the NG stand under a bicarb soln is an excercise in futility. Try looking up diffusion and random walk. Even though you probably can't find diffusion coefficients for acid residue in NG, you can still get an idea of how long it could take. Depending on the batch size and the geometry of your vessel, it could take months or years for it to approach a neutralized state.

Jimbo Jones - 13-1-2011 at 10:18

…..or just use ordinary & improvised magnetic stirrer and soft plastic vessel.

quicksilver - 13-1-2011 at 10:34

I use a thermometer as stirring rod and I flinch at every glass-on-glass clink!
Going at it as if you're beating eggs in a bowl is not the way to go.
Gentle (and I mean gentle) stirring shouldn't throw up "surprises" . . .

Get an aquarium aerator and use those bubbles! Safe and will still keep your mix appropriate. In fact, if you take your time and bring your hose to the bottom of the beaker allow it to form a semi-circle around the bottom-base and you'll get a tiny gentle Whirlpool: perfect for continued mixing. By bringing the tubing to a smaller opening you can make a bubblier into a mild jet.
Take a few dollars and invest in a digital thermometer - much safer: sharper results.
Or take some tape and put VERTICAL & THIN stripes on a glass thermometer (all the way to the bulb!) to keep that banging from becoming a tragedy.

Never glass to glass because even if you're the "genteel hand in the West" the thermometer may weigh enough so that an accidental drop from your paw may do enough to start the train rolling; especially those real long ones because they naturally focus (in the bulb) at a point of sorts. Tape won't throw your readings off if you use very thin (vertical) strips.

If you should use a magnetic stir device - periodically examine the stir-bar. Occasionally the Teflon will wear down to the metal. A small piece of tape there is a good "peace of mind" utility.

[Edited on 13-1-2011 by quicksilver]

User - 14-1-2011 at 03:05

Ive always wondered about the potential effect of the stirbar..
2 of my stirrers carry very strong magnets, some scratching effect may occur.
Probably not enough to do serious damage , still there is no real way of actually knowing.

[Edited on 14-1-2011 by User]

quicksilver - 14-1-2011 at 08:57

Air has been used in plant production for decades and is more than just a "peace of mind" issue for most. It's a very flexible methodology and is "wear resistant".

We know that the majority of these materials are not as sensitive as characterized but both the fluids and the solid polyols / esters CAN provide a gateway to a tragedy from their very characteristics: fluids can seep into tight places, particulate can grind against itself.
If I were ever to synthesis NG I would ALWAYS err on the side of over-caution.

[Edited on 14-1-2011 by quicksilver]

Zinc - 16-1-2011 at 05:37

My NG has now been 4 days under the NaCl solution. Already after the first day it almost completely cleared.

But I notice there are quite a lot of bubbles in the NG. How much do they sensitize the NG? And what would be the best way of removing them?

I was thinking perhaps simple swirling and decantation to an another container would work?

hissingnoise - 16-1-2011 at 07:06

I'd be a bit concerned if I saw lots of bubbles appearing . . .
I'd wash it further; simply tilting the container, which could be fairly large, so that the blob of NGl rolls around the bottom is probably as good as swirling, not to mention safer.

Zinc - 16-1-2011 at 12:05

I washed the NG with an another portion of conc. NaCl soln. and transported it with a syringe into a measuring cylinder. Final yield is 23.5 ml, much more than I thought. A few ml were lost during washing, so it is possible that the yield was over 25 ml. Also I doubt that there is acetone left from the neutralization, the NG has a weak smell, I believe if there is some acetone left, the smell would be much stronger.

Almost all of the bubbles were removed by the final washing and during transportation from the jar to the measuring cylinder. Although a small amount of some powder like material remained on the surface of NG, perhaps some salt (a small amount of water could have evaporated from the NaCl soln. causing some NaCl to precipitate), but the quantity is extremely small (I don't think it is more than a few mg).

Also I have tested it again with litmus paper, it is still neutral

Zinc - 21-1-2011 at 11:04

Sorry for the double post, and if the question is too "practical".

I was thinking about trying NG/DNT mixture (perhaps with some paint grade Al powder), and I know NG mixtures often contain a small amount of CaCO3 to neutralize any acid that may be in the mix.

As I don't have access to pure CaCO3, and don't like the idea to use impure ground rocks, could perhaps NaHCO3 be used instead of it?

I believe that NaHCO3 is a stronger base than CaCO3, and that it can react with AN quite easier than CaCO3 (to form NaNO3 and ammonium bicarbonate, that easily decomposes to NH3 and CO2), so is perhaps that the reason that it isn't used (at least I didn't find any information on it being used)?

As the NG/DNT (perhaps some Al) doesn't contain AN, could NaHCO3 be safely added (perhaps 1-2 %) to the mixture?

And I know that Al can react with bases, but I don't think that NaHCO3 is a strong enough base to penetrate the Al2O3 layer on the surface of the Al (and my Al seems to be coated with some form of resin or "plastic", don't know how much of that is on it) especially if it is so "diluted" with NG and DNT.

Microtek - 21-1-2011 at 14:15

Why don't you just make some CaCO3? Surely you must have access to a soluble calcium salt (CaCl2 or maybe Ca(NO3)2). Then just combine the solutions with stirring and if it doesn't precipitate right away (depending on the exact nature of the salts you may get a gel at first) just keep stirring (or boil the mix) until you get a suspension of fine precipitate. Filter, wash, dry.

maxidastier - 22-1-2011 at 10:32

Honest answer: Is it really so dangerous when I stir with a glass thermometer that it even could explode?

hissingnoise - 22-1-2011 at 11:16

I've stirred the reactants with a thermometer on a few occasions but I'll not do it again!
When it comes to nitro you can't be too careful . . .

Jimbo Jones - 22-1-2011 at 12:00

http://img11.imageshack.us/i/15129161.jpg/

http://img812.imageshack.us/i/43034.jpg/

I have no problems with this setup. The “addition funnel” is very handy, because you can mesure the alcohols directly in the syringe.

[Edited on 22-1-2011 by Jimbo Jones]

Zinc - 24-1-2011 at 03:24

Yesterday I tried to set off a mix of 40g DNT, 30g NG and 5g paint-grade Al powder and cca. 1g of NaHCO3 (I don't know how safe it is to use NaHCO3 instead of CaCO3, but as the time from mixing to the time of detonation was only around 1.5 h I took the risk). When prepared the mixture is a very dense and viscous shiny liquid.

Unfortunatley, I had no better primary than MEKPAP/AN.

My MEKPAP was contaminated with unreacted acetone/MEK, so it wouldn't DDT alone in a small glass test-tube (volume 5 ml), forcing me to mix it with AN and put it in a small plastic bottle (the bottle is 15 ml, filled with cca. 2.5g of AN and 4 ml of MEKP/AP). Even then it detonated quite weak compared to pure MEKPAP/AN, but I thought that as the mix contains so much NG it would be enough.

Well it wasn't and the mix went low-order. I know that the VOD at wich NG detonates is very dependent on the strenght of the detonator, but as I didn't have anything else, and didn't want to store the NG/DNT/Al mix I used what I have.

maxidastier - 25-1-2011 at 10:18

Quote:

I've stirred the reactants with a thermometer on a few occasions but I'll not do it again! When it comes to nitro you can't be too careful . . .

Again, glyceryl trinitrate is quite sensitive, no doubt, compared to PETN oder RDX.
But I insist it will never detonate when a glass rod hits the beaker...
And I've also NEVER read about that so far in any reliable sources, but you still should bear in mind proper safety precautions.

But you can still convince me with data about what energy releases a glass rod hitting a beaker and if that is enough to detonate NG regarding to the given sensitivity data.

[Edited on 25-1-2011 by maxidastier]

hissingnoise - 25-1-2011 at 11:53

Quote:

But I insist it will never detonate when a glass rod hits the beaker...

You're making a very dangerous assumption here, maxidastier!
It's the kind of attitude anyone handling these compounds should guard against . . .
Much better to err wildly on the side of safety at all times!

maxidastier - 26-1-2011 at 06:15

You are right. But I just can't believe that something like a little "cling" from a glass rod can make NG to explode. If that's the point, I would never handle with it again.

Jimbo Jones - 26-1-2011 at 09:35

Very interesting! Maybe a remote controlled old kitchen mixer and some big ass stirring rod will solve the problem. This is impossible for me, but anyone with nice place for tests is wellcome. Some things like the NG sensitivity in acid suspensions and the temperature are very interesting to me, because in the beginning I heavily used the thermometer for stirring rod. Then I totally switched to the magnetic stirrer & teflon bar combo. So, can “a little "cling" from a glass rod make NG to explode”. It’s time for some mythbusting…….

[Edited on 26-1-2011 by Jimbo Jones]

maxidastier - 26-1-2011 at 11:14

Veery funny!

DNA - 27-1-2011 at 02:10

Yes I also think this should be tested because I am also of the opinion that NG wont detonate from a glass rod hitting the wall of a flask.
Neither will a stirrbar detonate NG.

If you see how much force is needed with a hammer to detonate NG when it is placed on an anvil....

quicksilver - 27-1-2011 at 08:55

I would have thought that I would NEVER have to consider saying this but we are talking about safety and ethics so.....

It's NOT just the impact of glass to glass but friction as well.; what's more there can be issues of hot-spots sensitizing minute droplets moving about the acid bath w/ it's possible temp fluctuations. We are also speaking to the phenomenon of the "expls TRAIN" concept where in a small pop sets off the rest. MY GOD! There is no correlation between an active nitration and a competed synthesis and during any nitration that has consistently provided documented proof a hideous disasters from what is termed a "run-a-way", if that phenomenon were to be examined it would be clear to some who has low levels of knowledge in chemistry that NG (as an example) has certain anomalies that can render it hyper-sensitive. The level and amount of unintended explosions has been documented to such a degree that if ANYONE wanted to venture into this with an open mind they would find EVERY reason to employ EVERY safety precaution available.

Anyone who has professional level chemical training does not dismiss safety issues with a "first person all encompassing statement". Just because something had not happened to you yet, does not mean it cannot occur. First hand single level experiences are just that: experiences. That is NOT science.

There is a great difference between a product that is in the process of nitration and one that has been completed, washed, stabilized, cooled, neutralized, & isolated. The correlation of an actively nitrated material's impact sensitivity and one that is currently being nitrated is dissimilar.

The warning of "glass to glass" impact during NG synthesis is VERY old and has been the course of many tragedies. (I actually can't believe I'm writing this.....)
One of the MAJOR rules of energetic synthesis is that you 1st minimize the possible sources of ignition stimulation. Hasn't ANYONE EVER STUDIED THIS? There is NEVER any valid reason for testing the limits of safety.

The two major areas wherein tragedies have happen were when someone "forgot" a simple procedure (i.e. grounding oneself and related areas to minimize static) and when they IGNORED those safety precautions ("I've done this all the times I've made it and it never........")

Let's just cut right to the chase here. Let's stop the bullshit. If anyone wants to CUT DOWN on their safety precautions (for whatever reason) make a sworn promise with yourself that you WILL come back and post what had happened when you had a tragedy! Remember.....it's NOT an "accident" it's negligence: as you have been amply warned about impact, friction, static, & other forms of stimulus. Not some post that I did this and nothing happened; but when you went to the Emergency Room!
I have heard too many of these things. I have confidence in one thing; unpredictability if formats of consistent precautions in the face of potential injury are ignored. It may not happen for 3x or 100x but eventually, if a person works with energetic materials CUTS DOWN on their safety procedures, they will eventually pay a price.

Ask yourself WHY even manual stir rods are coated with Teflon? Then ask yourself what is the pay off for LIMITING safety precautions rather than tightening them? Then ask yourself how many times you are willing to experiment with the possible loss of sight and limbs, finger, tendon tissue, etc?

Frankly I am very surprised & disheartened to read this thread. I had thought with so MANY years of history of tragedies behind it, that energetic synthesis would have simply been a standard [example of] EVERY lab precaution possible. And to find I was WRONG on that point makes me VERY leery of ever contributing an active, workable synthesis to this section of the Forum again. I would be willing to bet I am NOT alone in this thinking as well!
If what I have just written doesn't make sense to someone or someone wants to "debate" the issue; I simply won't go there but I will leave one statement of fact that should be considered ASIDE from the loss of eyes,, limbs, & flesh. The very idea of REDUCING safety measures when working with energetic materials would actually get you FIRED from most every vocational position dealing with any aspect of this subject.

Some folks wants to diminish their safety precautions: be my guest! I am VERY curious how many would be man enough to come back and speak to typing w/ one hand, or loosing their depth perception AND ESPECIALLY - HOW THEY WERE DEAD WRONG in not taking advise on the side of safety!

I say this with such emphasis because rationalization & intellectualism have caused SO much harm.....there IS NO getting through that emotional defense mechanism. Logic DOESN'T HELP.......So go for it.

[Edited on 27-1-2011 by quicksilver]

maxidastier - 27-1-2011 at 09:12

I'm sry.
Will it be ok then, when I wrapp my glass thermometer with some Teflon coil? Will it give valid temperatures?
Can I also use a magnet stirrer with PTFE rods?

quicksilver - 27-1-2011 at 09:29

The use of a thermometer is generally to be a stationary tool. Your best readings are made when it consistently it set up to encompass the fluid, gas etc; it's movement may cause more poor readings than anything else. It is NOT designed to BE a stirring utensil.

The common method of stirring NG both in plant-level and lab was with the use of air. There was a VERY good reason for that. It disbursed the material for better nitration and it made no contact of surface to surface agenda. I had already written that however. So I suppose I'm repeating myself.

[Edited on 27-1-2011 by quicksilver]

maxidastier - 27-1-2011 at 09:52

But since I'm not the owner of a pump to blow air trough the mix, what can I do?

The WiZard is In - 27-1-2011 at 10:20