| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Weeblordd
Harmless
Posts: 20
Registered: 6-8-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: high power <3
|
|
I know I overcomplicated things a little but I wanted it to be reliable on another level, it has to be failproof. But yeah, those are cool chems
|
|
|
OneEyedPyro
Hazard to Others
Posts: 279
Registered: 7-10-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Weeblordd  | | I know I overcomplicated things a little but I wanted it to be reliable on another level, it has to be failproof. But yeah, those are cool chems
|
Without very specific cap design the detonation of ETN via thermal shock is more fail prone than fail proof. I can understand not wanting to deal with
dangerously sensitive primaries but surely a person can do better than paper tubes and duct tape.
|
|
|
dettoo456
Hazard to Others
Posts: 179
Registered: 12-9-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yea, a >1kg, amateur-made UXO with a janky ETN cap is not something I’d want to deal with.
Primaries can be made safer (by orders of magnitude) with some binders, wetting agents, and basic PPE. An initiator made to ‘burn real fast and
hopefully DDT’ is asking for unreliability.
NAP, although not fully explored, could be reliable enough to meet the req’d criteria. Same with CHP, or even a piperazine-Na-ClO4 perovskite.
|
|
|
OneEyedPyro
Hazard to Others
Posts: 279
Registered: 7-10-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by dettoo456 | Yea, a >1kg, amateur-made UXO with a janky ETN cap is not something I’d want to deal with.
Primaries can be made safer (by orders of magnitude) with some binders, wetting agents, and basic PPE. An initiator made to ‘burn real fast and
hopefully DDT’ is asking for unreliability.
NAP, although not fully explored, could be reliable enough to meet the req’d criteria. Same with CHP, or even a piperazine-Na-ClO4 perovskite.
|
Even a good quality flash powder is reliable for pressed ETN with good confinement. Maybe flash seems a bit rudimentary but it's generally accessible
and certainly safer to handle than the usual acetylides, azides, peroxides etc.
I've never messed around with the perchlorate complexes much but from what little I did was impressed. I've wondered why they don't see commercial
use, especially when lead azide is the standard to beat.
|
|
|
Weeblordd
Harmless
Posts: 20
Registered: 6-8-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: high power <3
|
|
I bet thermal shock detonation of cast or pressed ETN with good confinement using blackpowder would be fairly reliable on its own, should have fairly
high chances of detonation, and in the worst case scenario, DDT is guaranted, combined with a second melt-cast ETN
| Quote: Originally posted by OneEyedPyro |
Without very specific cap design the detonation of ETN via thermal shock is more fail prone than fail proof. I can understand not wanting to deal with
dangerously sensitive primaries but surely a person can do better than paper tubes and duct tape. |
My main goal is to produce reliable detonators as cheap as possible, paper tubes and various kinds of glue* should be cheap enough. Other materials,
are rather expensive for hundreds of detonators tbh. Will do as much testing as I possibly can.
can you suggest some binders and wetting agents?
|
|
|
DennyDevHE77
Hazard to Others
Posts: 149
Registered: 15-9-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
By the way, I don't understand). In fact, such detonators are dangerous only in direct contact with fingers. That is, if you simply do not let
yourself touch them, then their danger is leveled. The military hardly needs such detonators, but home lovers can be forgiven for such caution.
The question is what is considered reliable. You probably know that lead azide in detonators is not used in its pure form. Either a few percent of
tetrazene is added to it (if you need to increase sensitivity to pricking), or a little teneres (tricinat) is pressed on top to increase sensitivity
to the ray of fire. But this was not always the case, before the Americans (it seems) tried to use black powder instead of tricinat. It provided 99%
reliability. It seems to be a lot, but for the military it was completely unsatisfactory
The simplest thing that comes to mind from effective bundles is mouse glue based on synthetic rubbers. But I still can't figure out what use it is in
detonators?
All detonators without a primary explosive usually work as follows: a low-density charge of a sensitive secondary substance (PETN or ETN) is affected
by a heat flux from a high-temperature pyrotechnic composition (thermite / powder / something else). As a result, layered combustion begins in the
charge of the secondary explosive, then it quickly turns into convective (gorenje gorenje gorenje between the particles of the explosive), and then
the combustion breaks down into a detonation wave. Therefore, the charge must be low-density in order to accelerate the transition of combustion to
detonation. Strong pressing or adding a bunch, on the contrary, will slow down this process.
[Edited on 12-2-2024 by DennyDevHE77]
|
|
|
dettoo456
Hazard to Others
Posts: 179
Registered: 12-9-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wetting agents are just things like water or diluted IPA, to help keep primary EMs far less sensitive in storage or during transport. As a good rule
of thumb, all EMs should be kept ‘wet’ (assuming they won’t hydrolyze), except when they are immediately to be used - then they can be dried at
RT in a room with good ventilation.
Binders for primary EMs are usually dextrin (like dextrinated LA), guar gum, or xanthan gum. They are usually added to water and mixed with the
insoluble primary EM to coat. No more than 5% by weight is needed IMO.
Binders for secondaries (to be used as the output charge in a detonator) could include the same binders as for primaries or something simple like
paraffin wax, to reduce friction and impact sens but not drastically affect performance.
Detonator design has been discussed on this forum in great length, I’d recommend strongly against finding the cheapest option for the sake of saving
money. Safety and reliability is more important, especially in chemistry and in energetics in general.
A high density output EM, initiated by a low density transfer EM, initiated by a low density primer mix, ignited by a fuse, in a metal case, is all
you need.
Industry has used RDX, LA, LS, and an E-match, in an Al tube for decades with no issues. These can be replaced by PETN, low density PETN, low density
AgNTz, and an E-match in a metal tube, with practically identical results. Or even, stabilized (by a NOx scavenger) ETN (lightly pressed), low density
stabilized ETN, NAP, and canon fuse in a hard plastic tube.
It’s not hard to ‘design’, but don’t lose your fingers in the process or go blind.
|
|
|
OneEyedPyro
Hazard to Others
Posts: 279
Registered: 7-10-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by DennyDevHE77 |
By the way, I don't understand). In fact, such detonators are dangerous only in direct contact with fingers. That is, if you simply do not let
yourself touch them, then their danger is leveled. The military hardly needs such detonators, but home lovers can be forgiven for such caution.
[Edited on 12-2-2024 by DennyDevHE77] |
You can't compare industrial detonators that use well tested and proven materials and manufacturing methods to ones using homemade EMs and improvised
detonator bodies/components.
Let's not forget that in reality, literally nobody uses detonators without at some point physically manipulating them during manufacture,
transportation and insertion into the main charge.
Given the potential consequences of an accidental detonation, it only makes sense to mitigate any unnecessary risk over what amounts to a simple
fascination or hobby for most people.
[Edited on 12-2-2024 by OneEyedPyro]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
