Katie
Harmless
Posts: 35
Registered: 12-11-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
Texpak liquid binary explosive
There is a company that markets a binary liquid explosive called TexPak that is very similar to PLX, except it uses diethylenetriamine (DETA) instead
of ethylenediamine to sensitize nitromethane (NM). Here’s the video: https://youtu.be/cicPe8cT3Cc
I looked up the two amines, and it seems the diethylenetriamine used in TexPak is more expensive than the ethylenediamine used in PLX so I was
wondering why they use it. I have some ideas:
1. DETA might create a more powerful explosive.
2. Less DETA is required to sensitize NM, so it might cost less in the end.
3. The company just wanted to make something new so they could patent it (like drug companies do to artificially extend their patents).
Unfortunately, I can’t find any data on TexPac regarding the proportions of chemicals used or it’s explosive power. So I’m looking to the
community for answers.
Also, in the video they place the explosive inside a jar of water, does anyone know what the point of that is?
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 998
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Katie  | There is a company that markets a binary liquid explosive called TexPak that is very similar to PLX, except it uses diethylenetriamine (DETA) instead
of ethylenediamine to sensitize nitromethane (NM). Here’s the video: https://youtu.be/cicPe8cT3Cc
I looked up the two amines, and it seems the diethylenetriamine used in TexPak is more expensive than the ethylenediamine used in PLX so I was
wondering why they use it. I have some ideas:
1. DETA might create a more powerful explosive.
2. Less DETA is required to sensitize NM, so it might cost less in the end.
3. The company just wanted to make something new so they could patent it (like drug companies do to artificially extend their patents).
Unfortunately, I can’t find any data on TexPac regarding the proportions of chemicals used or it’s explosive power. So I’m looking to the
community for answers.
Also, in the video they place the explosive inside a jar of water, does anyone know what the point of that is? |
Industry trend is going more towards DETA, I assume all of your assumptions are right. Some claim 7000m/s... seems hard to believe though.
|
|
|
Katie
Harmless
Posts: 35
Registered: 12-11-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
B(a)P
Since posting this, I believe I’ve found the answer to my own question! Thanks to this paper brought to me by B(a)P, I found that peak detonation
velocities are reaches with as little as 0.2-0.5% by weight diethylenetriamine. Compared to ethylenediamine (5%) this means you need up to 25x less
DETA to sensitize nitromethane, while DETA is only about twice as expensive (and even less).
One mystery is why TexPak uses much more than 0.5% DETA. I can only guess from the video, but the smaller liquid they mix with the NM looks like
it’s at least 5% of the volume of the NM.
It might possibly be diluted with something (methanol) because 0.2% would only be a few drops and it’s hard to add a few drops of a liquid without
spilling a large portion of it. If they do indeed add pure DETA, maybe it’s because although 0.2-0.5% has the greatest detonation velocity, it might
be too insensitive to be detonated with commercial caps and/or det-cord.
I’ll be experimenting with NM/DETA soon and will come back with my results!
EDIT: Here’s the link to the paper: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4971463
[Edited on 22-4-2020 by Katie]
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
