| Pages:
1
2 |
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Safely Testing Energetic Materials
I was wondering about ideas of safely testing energetic materials. I live in a very rural area so I have little problems but there are those who do
not and have come up with techniques that work well.
Testing energetic materials can be a problem if noise will distrub others and if th possibility of flying material or soil will inhibit examination or
retrieval of the material. The solution is a testing container of some sort. The conditions met must be safety and consistency. The reduction of noise
is always a benefit.
The concept is defusment of expanding air or gases which result in noise.
The concept of a "Test Box" or blast box is an old one. I once actually found a very large one at the site of an old fcatory. Thus this concept is not
original in any way. but it does work. For the testing of energetic materials in both safety and relative quite one constructs a sort of "silencer"
for the blast. The use of baffles is a good idea as it keeps any materials from spraying around, however the most important thing is that the gasses
or air generated from whatever explodes inside is defused. This concept DOES work. It can reduce the overall sound to a very unique degree. The
average #8 cap simply makes a thump when a heavy steel box is baffled with wet rags. A VERY simple subsitute is to obtain a heavy container (like a
schedual 40 6" pipe) and jam the ends with wet rags at the ends. In one side place a small length of paper tubing to hold the rags up and allow the
insertion of the material to be tested. The blast will blow the rags out of the container with vertually very little noise and the material will be
safe and not subject to flame or impact. The container will stay put. Heavy walls are amust but high strength pipe can be excellent (no seam).
[img]null[/img]
[img]file:///C:/container.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
hinz
Hazard to Others
Posts: 200
Registered: 29-10-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I've tested some blating caps in my garden in the middle of the village.
I burried them in a large bucket of damp sand, it was not too loud, the only sound was like if you throw a sandbag on the ground, something like a
"blop". It's imprtant that the sand is damp, it will prevent the formation of a cloud of dust in case the charge isn't burried deep enough.
I think the noise emitted from it isn't bad as long as noone associates it with some kind of detonation.
|
|
|
ethan_c
Hazard to Others
Posts: 104
Registered: 5-6-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by hinz
I've tested some blating caps in my garden in the middle of the village.
I burried them in a large bucket of damp sand, it was not too loud, the only sound was like if you throw a sandbag on the ground, something like a
"blop". It's imprtant that the sand is damp, it will prevent the formation of a cloud of dust in case the charge isn't burried deep enough.
I think the noise emitted from it isn't bad as long as noone associates it with some kind of detonation. |
Beware of this idea.
I did almost the same thing my very first explosive of this type, except it was buried five inches or so in pile of damp sand and about a quarter mile
away from any houses in the 'open space,' albeit on the face of a hill. It was a small detonator with a 150g secondary. Instead of a muffled thump and
sand spray, which is what I was expecting, there was a deep *BOOOOM* that felt like it rattled my brain- I didn't so much hear it as feel it, sort of
stunned me -and echoed off nearby hills for around 11 seconds. Immediately, about 8 dogs started barking, and I ran back from behind the small hill I
was hiding behind to look at what happened. There was no pile of sand anymore, just a little bit strewn around a superficial crater, and I ran the
hell out of there. It was in the newspaper the next day, and I have always been a liiiiittle more careful as to the location of my 'tests'.
Long story short, damp sand does not ensure muffled blast.
[Edited on 18-9-2006 by ethan_c]
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Geez, I wouldn't light off 150g of confined black powder willy-nilly, let alone a true explosive!
Tim
|
|
|
Boomer
Hazard to Others
Posts: 190
Registered: 11-11-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
For testing small cap numbers, a simple pipe bomp made from 1.5" steel pipe with threaded end caps works well. To increase the pipe's life, a shorter
piece of 1" pipe is put inside, without end caps. Into this comes a piece of 1/2" pipe with the blasting cap in it, the pipe working as a witness
'plate'. The cap and the inner pipes are wrapped in paper towels to keep them centered.
The whole construction is wrapped in old towels, since sooth and hot gasses escape the hole for the cable. The bundle is placed in my bed.
Some dozen tests, some after midnight, have never disturbed a neighbour. You hardly hear a plop. At around 250mg MHN the small pipe gets deformed, at
500mg it gets torn open. This is where I stop doing it inside, and start digging holes.....
BTW a 2g-cap once blew a bucket of sand all over the room, so better use a sturdy box with a lid.
|
|
|
nitro-genes
International Hazard
Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
Hehe, another method that I use occasionally is using the sink in the kitchen filled with water. You need a good deep sink for this, at least 15+ cm.
The water requires electrical firing though, but this is easy work for most here. But be carefull, depending on the explosive used, half a gram,
suspended in the middle is somewhat the limit...(Without wetting the ceiling that is  )
[Edited on 19-9-2006 by nitro-genes]
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
At one point I used a box of sand in the basement, at another I would wrap the witness plate in a towel, put it under a beanbag chair, and cover the
chair in couch cushions. Rather small caps though. Havent done any of this in a few years now.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
There are some damn good ideas here! It always seems a pity to have to drive some distance to make a little test, so I thought this thread may
generate some thought but I had no idea that that others had met the same challenges so effectivly.
The bouncing of sound in an area of a valley can be a very difficult thing to control.
The acoustic signiture (sp?) of such a thing is often amplified by the echo. If the air (or gases) is forced streight up there is less chance of
inappropriate noise. However in studying this whole issue I have determined that the sound (gases) need to be channeled generally. And that the use of
burying the material must be deep enough for defusment. One idea that worked quite well with sand was to obtain a paper tube of the type used for
paper towels (approx 12") and burying that pointing upward. The soft sand is carried with the blast and the sound muffled to an extent.
What appears to be consistently viable is the use of the blast to preform work such as to blow out wet rags (or sand, etc). This
slows the air surrounding the intiial blast and deadens the overall noise. If baffels can be constructed, even temporary ones, they lower the noise
signiture to a great extent. A suppressor on a firearm works when it defuses the blast behind the projectile. The better the design of defusment, the
lower the noise signiture.
....Worked with this idea to the point that a significant difference is noticed when a gas generting energetic material is used than when a true
detonation is used. If a deflagrating material is contained and exploded (a perchlorate / chlorate based salute or BP) the gases are vastly greater
and much more noise is needed to be contained than when MHN, ETN, or primaries are used. Frankly, even though the work preformed is lessened, the
noise generated by deflagrating materials is much greater, IMO.
[Edited on 19-9-2006 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Taking this concept a bit further, I found an old well pipe on the land that is a 2" pipe with several short elbows making a series of "7"'s until it
streightened out to a 5' length. It was placed into the earth and a small deflagarant (firecracker) was tested. The elbows acted as baffles and the
resultant sound was quite muted, even though a lot of gases were released. If the elbows are short the object falls right down to the bottom. This is
also a simple example of the above. The only problem being that retrieval is difficult and the whole point is to examine the resultant material.
The two witness plates, if they are heary enough could be an indoor answer; placed benieth a mattress, there whould be no damage to the mattress when
wrapped in rags or old towels.
[Edited on 20-9-2006 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
Chris The Great
Hazard to Others
Posts: 463
Registered: 29-10-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I've fired some hugeass charges in the open before (the last one my brother heard very clearly 4km away). I've never made the papers yet... hmmm (Got
to try harder)
Usually I just stick the shovel into my lawn, pry a bit to open a hole, drop in my charge and the stomp the ground back together and fire it. 3-4g
methyl nitrate is about the most, even than there is a significant *thump* that travels through the earth. Not a ton of noise though.
|
|
|
froot
Hazard to Others
Posts: 347
Registered: 23-10-2003
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: refluxed
|
|
I suppose muffling a detonation basically involves impeding the shockwave as much as possible without harming the baffling. We're dealing with a rapid
gas sepansion and a shockwave.
Looking at Quicksilver's diagram, any container with some sort of adequately sized vent will be sufficient for an appropriate size detonation, as long
as it releases the pressure slower than what the gas expansion is, it will have a muffling effect.
So, if I may thumbsuck, if the test substance is expected to produce 1 cubic meter of gas, the chamber needs to release it at about 10 times slower
than it was produced and you will have sufficient muffling, and it will have to sustain the interim pressure generated for that instant.
Problem is, if you overconstrain the pressure release of your vessel, you'll damage it unless you overdesign it with superthick steel. Same effect if
you test too much explosive in one go.
The chamber in which the test substance will detonate will need to be alot (I'm not sure how much) larger than the volume of gas that particular test
substance will produce otherwise the chamber may distort/burst and the test results may be tainted. I would also place the test chamber insode another
bigger chamber on soft rubber supports to help muffle it and place the whole bangshoot on a shock absorbing suspension system to prevent shockwaves
from being transmitted through the ground.
Now you can play 'fire in the hole' while your mom watches Desperate Housewives in the very next room and it will sound like you're bouncing a soccor
ball.
We salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who remove themselves from it.
Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously. - www.darwinawards.com |
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
I actually saw a box made for this type of testing from the Austin Powder Company. It was not only huge but VERY heavly walled; about 3/4" thick). I
do not know how or what was being tested in it. It was at the site of the old powder works and was in a rusted condition but the top had a wondeful
logo like an old safe (which is what I thought it was at first glance). I wanted to cart it home but the thing weighed much more than I would attempt
to manipulate. It was about the size of a phone booth. The design was very similar to the above.
You mentioned one of the keys here, the slower release of gases! I had just stumbled on something in experimenting with this concept. Imagine a
container strong enough to withstand an explostion with a hinged door on the top that only opens outward. If that "door" has weight added to it to
conform to th amount of air / gases moving against it - it will slow the release of these gases. Gravity keeps the "door" in place until the
explostion proforms the work of attempting to push it outward.I have actually proven this to my satisfaction and the resultant sound was so muted as
to be indistinctive as an explostion. I do not know if it's 10x exactly but the concept you mention is correct in terms of effectivness.
[Edited on 23-9-2006 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
h0lx
Hazard to Self
Posts: 69
Registered: 31-12-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
Actually damp sand works really well, you just have to "feel" what the right amount is. I detonated 300 grams of secondary under about 50cm of sand,
the noise was just like something heavy was dropped on the ground, but the sand flew like hell. A few tests should get you the feeling of the correct
depth. if you go too deep you just hear a faint pop and the sand hopping up about 2 cm(dig this up, the sand near the epicenter is so pleasurably hot)
while too shallow will make quite a noise. Brisance plays a great role in noise too.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
The actual techniques here are very valuable. If one is to use damp sand for instance is it more effective to cover the witness-plate directly or to
create a chamber of sorts from some non-ridged material like paper? Does the sand touch the explos material directly and if so will this have an
effect on the results of a test? I can clearly see how using techniques like damp sand are both safe and effective from a noise reduction stand-point.
Illustrating the technique indepth gives those people who are considering a test more options.
However 300 grams is a pretty big charge....what was it?
|
|
|
h0lx
Hazard to Self
Posts: 69
Registered: 31-12-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
It was 210 grams of CO2 and H2O balanced Flour/ammonium nitrate mix with 90 grams of EGDN IMO, it was quite a long ago so I might be wrong. I bet
burying a beer keg or something with loose top cover should simulate atmospheric conditions pretty well if you could somehow suspend the charge in the
middle.
I never had the material touch the sand, in a plastic bag or a cardboard tube usually.
About the effect of moisture, Ive no experience as the sand is always the same, dry layer on top and the rest damp.
Oh and a fascinating effect can be achieved, when burying a bit deeper than required and placing some big round rocks on top. No sand movement, but
the rocks hop and roll apart.
edit: My technique of burying is to hand dig the desired approximate depth, place the charge, inserting cap carefully, then while holding everything
in place slowly pouring some 10 cm of the damp sand on top, patting more compact with hand, then pushing the damp/dry mix on top and sometimes piling
an extra 20-30cm on it. from the noise reducion side the depth is rather insensitive. The approximate depth is made up on previous experienc, IE
approximately how did some size of charge at some depth perform. I rather aproximate on size than brisance.
[Edited on 15-10-2006 by h0lx]
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
LABORATORY DETONATION CHAMBER
I could use one of these in my apartment 
http://www.ozm.cz/detonation-chambers/pdf/DC-Laboratory.pdf
By the way, if you have not seen Wikipedia on explosives lately,
it has a very concise primer overview of energetic science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive
.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
UPDATE
to the post immediately preceding
http://www.ozm.cz/en/detonation-chambers
http://www.ozm.cz/en/laboratory-detonation-chambers
.
|
|
|
The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have an original of this, sorry to say it does not appear to be available on line.
Accession Number: ADP004856
Full Text (pdf) Availability:
Size: 0 KB
Handle / proxy Url: No Full Text PDF Available
Citation Status: A - Active
Title: Interim Total Containment Test Fire Facility, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas,
Corporate Author: MASON AND HANGER-SILAS MASON CO INC AMARILLO TEX PANTEX PLANT
Personal Author(s): Papp, A G Nunley, J L West, G T
Report Date: Aug 1984
Media Count: 44 Pages(s)
Organization Type: 4 - INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL
Identifiers: Containment chambers, Component Reports
Abstract: This report documents the results of a test program which consisted of a series of explosive tests within a confinement chamber called the
Interim Total Containment Test Fire Facility. The chamber was designed for maximum explosive charge of 29 lb of TNT. The purpose and
objective of the testing were to determine the effectiveness of the chamber to contain the blast loads and hazardous fragments generated by the
largest HE charge expected to be fired within the chamber.
Distribution Limitation(s): 01 - APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Source Code: 387099
Document Location: 1 - DTIC AND NTIS
Supplementary Notes: This article is from 'Minutes of the Explosives Safety Seminar (21st) Held at Houston, Texas on 28-30 August 1984. Volume 1,'
AD-A152 062, p721-764.
-------
Oh no doubt you will be A. Astounded and B. Amazed to
know there was a small expls. test chamber for sale on
eBay some years back.[
Then there do be THE ULTIMATE EXPLOSIVE CONTINENT VESSEL
JUMBO
http://www.fullbooks.com/Trinity-Atomic-Test-Site.html
Lying next to the entrance of the chain link fence that still
surrounds Trinity Site are the rusty remains of Jumbo. Jumbo was the
code name for the 214-ton Thermos shaped steel and concrete container
designed to hold the precious plutonium core of the Trinity device in
case of a nuclear mis-fire. Built by the Babcock and Wilcox Company
of Barberton, Ohio, Jumbo was 28 feet long, 12 feet, 8 inches in
diameter, and with steel walls up to 16 inches thick.
The idea of using some kind of container for the Trinity device was
based on the fact that plutonium was extremely expensive and very
difficult to produce. So, much thought went into a way of containing
the 15 lb. plutonium core of the bomb, in case the 5,300 lbs. of
conventional high explosives surrounding the core exploded without
setting off a nuclear blast, and in the process scattering the costly
plutonium (about 250 million dollars worth) across the dessert. After
extensive research and testing of other potential containment ideas,
the concept of Jumbo was decided on in the late summer of 1944.
However, by the spring of 1945, after Jumbo had already been built and
transported (with great difficulty) to the Trinity Site by the
Eichleay Corporation of Pittsburgh, it was decided not to explode the
Trinity device inside of Jumbo after all. There were several reasons
for this new decision: first, plutonium had become more readily
(relatively) available; second, the Project scientists decided that
the Trinity device would probably work as planned; and last, the
scientists realized that if Jumbo were used it would adversely affect
the test results, and add 214 tons of highly radioactive material to
the atmosphere.
Not knowing what else to do with the massive 12 million dollar Jumbo,
it was decided to suspend it from a steel tower 800 yards from Ground
Zero to see how it would withstand the Trinity test. Jumbo survived
the approximately 20 kiloton Trinity blast undamaged, but its
supporting 70-foot tall steel tower was flattened.
Two years later, in an attempt to destroy the unused Jumbo before it
and its 12 million dollar cost came to the attention of a
congressional investigating committee, Manhattan Project Director
General Groves ordered two junior officers from the Special Weapons
Division at Sandia Army Base in Albuquerque to test Jumbo. The Army
officers placed eight 500-pound conventional bombs in the bottom of
Jumbo. Since the bombs were on the bottom of Jumbo, and not the
center (the correct position), the resultant explosion blew both ends
off Jumbo. Unable to totally destroy Jumbo, the Army then buried it
in the desert near Trinity Site. It was not until the early 1970s
that the impressive remains of Jumbo, still weighing over 180 tons,
were moved to their present location.
|
|
|
The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)
A test which combines impact and friction consists in hitting the
substance a glancing blow with a mallet or the end of a broom-stick.
Arthur Marshall
A short account of explosives
1917
[Google.com/books]
djh
-------
Tramp explosives or detonators are like
poisonous snakes — usually strike when least
expected. More often than not, they badly maim
or destroy the eyesight or other parts of the
body of their victims.
US Bureau of Mines
IC7038
|
|
|
twelti
Hazard to Others
Posts: 217
Registered: 20-2-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
update 2019
Just wondering if there are any updates to this discussion. I have been wanting to make a test "box" of some sort, or at least find a way to minimize
noise. I saw vids of LL testing det caps in what looks like a low walled compost box full of sawdust. I suspect if I tried that, I'd get a house
full of sawdust!
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 996
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by ethan_c  | | Quote: | Originally posted by hinz
I've tested some blating caps in my garden in the middle of the village.
I burried them in a large bucket of damp sand, it was not too loud, the only sound was like if you throw a sandbag on the ground, something like a
"blop". It's imprtant that the sand is damp, it will prevent the formation of a cloud of dust in case the charge isn't burried deep enough.
I think the noise emitted from it isn't bad as long as noone associates it with some kind of detonation. |
Beware of this idea.
I did almost the same thing my very first explosive of this type, except it was buried five inches or so in pile of damp sand and about a quarter mile
away from any houses in the 'open space,' albeit on the face of a hill. It was a small detonator with a 150g secondary. Instead of a muffled thump and
sand spray, which is what I was expecting, there was a deep *BOOOOM* that felt like it rattled my brain- I didn't so much hear it as feel it, sort of
stunned me -and echoed off nearby hills for around 11 seconds. Immediately, about 8 dogs started barking, and I ran back from behind the small hill I
was hiding behind to look at what happened. There was no pile of sand anymore, just a little bit strewn around a superficial crater, and I ran the
hell out of there. It was in the newspaper the next day, and I have always been a liiiiittle more careful as to the location of my 'tests'.
Long story short, damp sand does not ensure muffled blast.
[Edited on 18-9-2006 by ethan_c] |
You did 150g under 5 inches of sand... should have used 2 feet.
I am sorry. But this is not a warning to be heeded.
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 996
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
5 gallon bucket filled with damp sand.
|
|
|
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
Posts: 1334
Registered: 2-9-2014
Location: Technion Haifa
Member Is Offline
Mood: cool.gif
|
|
Big building bucket with wet sand is enough for testing up to 1g. ( I have house full of sawdust)........ ....LL
Development of primarily - secondary substances CHP (2015) Lithex (2022) Brightelite (2023) Nitrocelite (2024)
|
|
|
twelti
Hazard to Others
Posts: 217
Registered: 20-2-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
So, your house is already full of sawdust! That IS funny!
Does that include only metal det caps taped to a plate? Or just any charge?
|
|
|
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
Posts: 1334
Registered: 2-9-2014
Location: Technion Haifa
Member Is Offline
Mood: cool.gif
|
|
Only metal det caps up to 2g. Any bigger charge around 10g destroy plast container. My research is det caps. Not something bigger.......LL
Development of primarily - secondary substances CHP (2015) Lithex (2022) Brightelite (2023) Nitrocelite (2024)
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
