| Pages:
1
2 |
joseph6354
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 21-6-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Good and easy way to gelatinize PLX?
I like to play with PLX when I have the time to. I've been doing this for about 10 months now.
I read on wikipedia that it is possible to gelatinize PLX, but it didn't get too specific on the instructions.
How do I do it?
Will the PLX in its plasticized/gel form change its detonation sensitivity?
I like to detonate my PLX with a very fine flash powder, but it takes some work to get the powder very fine.
Isn't there a better way to detonate it?
When I make thermite, I start the reaction by using magnesium ribbons, and it just crossed my mind the idea of using those magnesium ribbons to
detonate PLX since magnesium burns at a temperature of 5610 ºF. That is VERY HOT.
My concern about this idea is that the PLX would burn instead of actually exploding (its a different reaction). It still would burn pretty vigorously
but not explode.
[Edited on 21-6-2017 by joseph6354]
|
|
|
Chisholm
Hazard to Self
Posts: 62
Registered: 2-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What kind of container do you use? And which amine sensitizer do you use?
Pure nitromethane can be gelatinized with nitrocellulose, erythritol tetranitrate, PETN, mannitol hexanitrate, or a similar nitric ester, but this
would be attacked by the amines used to sensitize NM.
I'm skeptical of the flash powder initiation method; PLX (at least the standard mix of 95:5 NM:EDA) requires a very strong blasting cap or small
booster for proper detonation. What kind of flash composition are you using?
[Edited on 6-21-2017 by Chisholm]
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
Fumed silica?
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
joseph6354
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 21-6-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Chisholm  | What kind of container do you use? And which amine sensitizer do you use?
Pure nitromethane can be gelatinized with nitrocellulose, erythritol tetranitrate, PETN, mannitol hexanitrate, or a similar nitric ester, but this
would be attacked by the amines used to sensitize NM.
I'm skeptical of the flash powder initiation method; PLX (at least the standard mix of 95:5 NM:EDA) requires a very strong blasting cap or small
booster for proper detonation. What kind of flash composition are you using?
[Edited on 6-21-2017 by Chisholm] |
Thats unfortunate. So there is no practical way to make PLX jelly by a hobbyist?
I use 92/8 NM/EDA and I have no idea how safe this proportion is, but I still use it.
The flash powder I use is simple KCIO4/Al (425 mesh), but I make a pipe bomb to confine the explosion. Sometimes it doesn't work. I would say 7 out
of 10 times it detonates with no problem, I promise.
I hate when it doesn't work because I lose all the PLX in the explosion (it gets absorbed by the dirt).
I've never messed with any booster charge. Can you give me any tips about it?
The main reason why I want to gelatinize PLX is if the detonation fails again, I wont lose any.
I like to detonate large amounts of PLX, and it gets expensive when it doesn't work. 
All these proportions and the flash powder pipe bomb were my friend's idea.
[Edited on 21-6-2017 by joseph6354]
|
|
|
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
Posts: 1334
Registered: 2-9-2014
Location: Technion Haifa
Member Is Offline
Mood: cool.gif
|
|
I estimate it is time to stop unsuccessful attempts without a detonator. A started study how to make relatively safety detonator. Entire is described
here on S-M. ...LL...
Development of primarily - secondary substances CHP (2015) Lithex (2022) Brightelite (2023) Nitrocelite (2024)
|
|
|
joseph6354
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 21-6-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov | | I estimate it is time to stop unsuccessful attempts without a detonator. A started study how to make relatively safety detonator. Entire is described
here on S-M. ...LL... |
Im tired of wasting $100 every time the pipe bomb trick doesn't work.
Can you link this topic here?
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 996
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Bert, your back! My heart has skipped a beat, my buddy Bert!!
Jo to the Seph. PLX with FP is not a good idea... I cant even kick that stuff with a #8 cap... Using hexamine as the amine.
I am in a secret sharing mood today... so, actually I changed my mind, I am not.
No, dont use thermite man. Your best bet is AN mixtures with NM, I have one where I can get a high order det with 2grams of FP in a plastic shell!
magnesium powder is superior to sensitizing ANNM than AL
Also remember, contrary to what they taught us in school OB=0 mixtures are not the most sensitive to initiation (yes I was actually taught that in
rock excavation... what a shame it was false) Especially to FP.
alrright buddy, you should be on your way to high order dets.
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 996
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Also man, your FP sucks, 425 mesh. IDK, I want to help you out but you have three posts... and with increasing terror these days I just hate putting
this stuff online.
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 996
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
And yah LL pretty much has the best amateur detonator ever, or at least of the ones that have been shared and we know of. I still wonder if the TACP
with Hex co-crystallization, was that your idea LL... because it is a fantastic one. Hexamine is one of the best fuels for explosives out there. In
other words was LL the first to introduce hexamine into TACP?
|
|
|
joseph6354
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 21-6-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I don't get it.
What is the point of having an amateur experimentation forum for mad people if you won't share knowledge?
It's pretty much like a secret society. Newcomers aren't welcomed, knowledge is secret, and circlejerking.
Seriously, if I wanted to blow up people and disregarded for my life or other people's life, I would just synthesize TATP, which is extremely easy.
What stops me from making 10kg of TATP and killing a lot of people?
Its PLX, guys. PLX.
I am not some crazy muslim with an ak47 and 10kg of explosives attached to my body.
Its understandable, of course. Its is also sad that we have to fear death on our own country. But it totally defeats the purpose of this forum.
I am just a guy that like to blow things up.
Next time I'll record a video of me blowing up stuff (trees, steel plates, maybe an old car), and maybe you guys will accept me in your secret society
so we can circlejerk our secret knowledge and feel special about it.
[Edited on 21-6-2017 by joseph6354]
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 996
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
wow bro lets chill
but what do you want to know. I told you you cant use FP for PLX. But if you read the high order Flash Powder Forum you might get some serious
stuff. LL told you about his det which i confirmed too
And there is something stopping you from making 10kgs of TATP and that is the fact it would blow up before you got to that quantity.
|
|
|
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
Posts: 1334
Registered: 2-9-2014
Location: Technion Haifa
Member Is Offline
Mood: cool.gif
|
|
Haha...Thanks, MineMan. TACP - Hexamine clathrate is in basically one from best choice for detonators. Respectively his lower friction sensitivity
and only burning on air are a big advantage during handle operations. Every days are testing different charges, diameters, stability in time and
similar values. Almost Every day and 5 years. My hands still there 10 fingers. But exist also different, other compounds for relatively safety
shockwave generator. Last times are for example testing as primer silver acetylide - double salt (SADS) with plasticizer. This combination show on
very low sensitivity, while maintaning shockwave energy for ETN. Advantage is using thin cavity from aluminium, plast or paper. Against TACP, (CHP)
which requires solid tube for D-D -Transfer. First question in this thread is slightly weird especially using "very fine flashpowder" for initiation.
Well Joseph, is necessary take entire your forces and looking for on science madness some threads about initiation systems. Because plastification of
PLX is not way for full detonation. Whatever for anything.
Dr.
Development of primarily - secondary substances CHP (2015) Lithex (2022) Brightelite (2023) Nitrocelite (2024)
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 996
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks LL... I do have a professional crush on you btw. Yes SADS is the best primary I know of. My theory is that the crystal sizes are so small...
it is like flour when rubbed between the fingers. Does anyone have a 900x microscope so we can figure out the particle size of SADS??
Plasticized SADS is a great idea, have you added potassium perchlorate to that for extra oxygen?? ETN, LL, I have found TACP/CHP to be much safer
than ETN and there is no dealing with acid and neutralization.
LL, what is the new things you have been working on, I am excited to hear? Have you been using the Plastic SADS reliably? Big breakthrough if so!
I know of a plastic that DDTs with simple ingredients that is very safe and easy to make (no synthesis).. LL shoot me a U2U if you want to know... it
has been under your nose the whole time haha!
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 827
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
@Joseph:
- For gelatinizing PLX, nitrocellulose (NC) is the obvious choice. If you are unable to synthesize NC yourself, maybe you have access to smokeless
powder, which is the same thing, plus some nitroglycerine usually (but really, if you are having trouble with such a simple synthesis, you should work
on your chemistry skills).
- Thermite will never work, it will just set your PLX on fire (unless maybe if you are using improbably large amounts of PLX in a very strong
container).
- As others have said, you should use a proper detonator in place of flashpowder. I prefer using stronger primaries than those that have been
mentioned here (SADS, TACP), for instance lead azide or nitrotetrazolate based compositions, but that is mainly a question of personal taste (unless
you are working with very small charges, in which case the large TACP caps are impractical). IMO, a proper detonator should have a base charge (a
powerful, relatively sensitive secondary explosive such as PETN or RDX), but it is possible to use the primary by itself.
- A booster is just an intermediate charge that is relatively easy to detonate (pentolite, a castable 50:50 mix of PETN and TNT is popular, but you
could use many others as well)
- Finally, gelatinizing the PLX will not prevent it from scattering if the charge does not detonate from the explosion of the detonator, especially if
you use a large detonator (unless the main charge is truly huge)
|
|
|
Chisholm
Hazard to Self
Posts: 62
Registered: 2-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by MineMan | | Also man, your FP sucks, 425 mesh. IDK, I want to help you out but you have three posts... and with increasing terror these days I just hate putting
this stuff online. |
Terrorists are broke AF, and impatient morons to boot. There's a reason they use black powder in a pressure cooker or TATP as their main charges. PLX
might as well be liquid goddamn gold to them. Even McVeigh had to steal his caps and booster charges.
Anyway, back on topic:
Nitrocellulose dissolved in acetone, mixed with flash powder, and allowed to dry, makes a pretty impressive bang under confinement. I'm sure, however,
that I don't need to remind you of the considerable danger of static electricity with any powder that contains aluminum.
[Edited on 6-23-2017 by Chisholm]
|
|
|
Chisholm
Hazard to Self
Posts: 62
Registered: 2-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I left the forums in 2013 and only recently came back (I lost my password in the interim, so I'm under a new name). Has there seriously been a huge
breakthrough in primary compositions while I was away? I assume TACP is tetrammine copper perchlorate, so why would trapping hexamine between the
molecules in some kind of clathrate improve performance? Or is it purely a safety thing?
|
|
|
Chisholm
Hazard to Self
Posts: 62
Registered: 2-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by joseph6354 |
The main reason why I want to gelatinize PLX is if the detonation fails again, I wont lose any.
I like to detonate large amounts of PLX, and it gets expensive when it doesn't work. |
Also, one other thing you could try is, rather than attaching the initiator directly to the container that holds all of the main charge, you could
attach it to a thin hose containing PLX that then leads to the main charge. All you need to do is ensure the hose is wider than the critical diameter
of PLX so that the explosion can sustain itself as it travels down the tube.
That way, if the initiator fails, you only lose the contents of the tube.
[Edited on 6-24-2017 by Chisholm]
|
|
|
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
Posts: 1334
Registered: 2-9-2014
Location: Technion Haifa
Member Is Offline
Mood: cool.gif
|
|
1) Good idea making shockwave tube from PLX filling. I estimate 8 - 12 mm cavity, long minimal 20 cm for safety distanc from main charge. 20 cm will
easy filling. Any way, is necessary using quality detonator. Also is possible testing only tube 20 cm on full transfer of shockwave. On output side
can be steel plate 3 mm. If will this assemble working reliability, follow next step connect all together.
2) TACP + 7% hexamine has zero OB. In wet way preparation basically arises copper hexamine perchlorate, which has still better (much better) DDT
properties than pure TACP.
3) Some attempts with plastic SADS was tested, but too less attempts for relevant results.
Development of primarily - secondary substances CHP (2015) Lithex (2022) Brightelite (2023) Nitrocelite (2024)
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 996
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by MineMan | Thanks LL... I do have a professional crush on you btw. Yes SADS is the best primary I know of. My theory is that the crystal sizes are so small...
it is like flour when rubbed between the fingers. Does anyone have a 900x microscope so we can figure out the particle size of SADS??
Plasticized SADS is a great idea, have you added potassium perchlorate to that for extra oxygen?? ETN, LL, I have found TACP/CHP to be much safer
than ETN and there is no dealing with acid and neutralization.
LL, what is the new things you have been working on, I am excited to hear? Have you been using the Plastic SADS reliably? Big breakthrough if so!
I know of a plastic that DDTs with simple ingredients that is very safe and easy to make (no synthesis).. LL shoot me a U2U if you want to know... it
has been under your nose the whole time haha!
|
OH OH! just found a picture, the needles that make up SADS are .5microns in width and 10 microns long. nearly nano!!! This partly explains the low
sensitivity, I bet the acidic solution and temperature mainly have to due with particle size which highly affects sensitivity???
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 996
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes, the CHP is a BIG breakthrough Chisolm. It DDTs in 4mm tube, I have never had a failure, I can make dets that are 4mm x 30mm it is amazing.
This stuff goes like flash in the open... much different than TACP.
It is about as safe as PETN also. LoL is really on to something.
|
|
|
MineMan
National Hazard
Posts: 996
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Microtek. SADS is a somewhat weak primary... but TACP certainly is not. CHP is essentially the same power as NHN, except that it works haha.
TACP is an excellent choice for a base charge. With PETN acid can be left in the product... no chance of this with TACP and CHP. Just saying, I
think TACP is much better than ETN.
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 827
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Let me just clarify that when I say "stronger", a better word may be "unequivocal", that is, a primary that cannot go low order, and cannot
deflagrate. Also, it should be capable of initiating insensitive secondaries with just a few milligrams of primary. A number of materials can do this,
and I happen to prefer these since I mainly experiment with very small main charges (on the order of a single gram), but as I said, that is mostly a
matter of taste. The original poster said he uses large charges, so he can use larger detonators without issue.
|
|
|
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
Posts: 1334
Registered: 2-9-2014
Location: Technion Haifa
Member Is Offline
Mood: cool.gif
|
|
TACP - CHP
Best sentence of this page:
SADS is a somewhat weak primary... but TACP certainly is not. CHP is essentially the same power as NHN, except that it works haha.
The main problem with new things in general is the fact that it takes years, than someone others believe that it works. If you look into history, is
it with almost all the invents a same. Phone, Diesel engine. First reaction is derision. After time Ignoring and overlooking. And after a 2 - 3 years
is apperaed first someone, which belive in a new thing, compound and his good properties. Is it a natural law. Is it a 5 years, when was firstly
observed deflagration - detonation transfer in TACP with output pressure 25 GPa. Firstly in wet TACP with 7% ammonia water. Later with wet (5%) mix
with hexamine. Thousand attempts was tried. Result is a new compound for easy orientation called as CHP. Is it not precise, but crystallographic
examination was not.
Any way, any called, .....works, unlike NHN..............Huhaha......................LL
Development of primarily - secondary substances CHP (2015) Lithex (2022) Brightelite (2023) Nitrocelite (2024)
|
|
|
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
Posts: 2893
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Laboratory of Liptakov | Best sentence of this page:
SADS is a somewhat weak primary... but TACP certainly is not. CHP is essentially the same power as NHN, except that it works haha.
The main problem with new things in general is the fact that it takes years, than someone others believe that it works. If you look into history, is
it with almost all the invents a same. Phone, Diesel engine. First reaction is derision. After time Ignoring and overlooking. And after a 2 - 3 years
is apperaed first someone, which belive in a new thing, compound and his good properties. Is it a natural law. Is it a 5 years, when was firstly
observed deflagration - detonation transfer in TACP with output pressure 25 GPa. Firstly in wet TACP with 7% ammonia water. Later with wet (5%) mix
with hexamine. Thousand attempts was tried. Result is a new compound for easy orientation called as CHP. Is it not precise, but crystallographic
examination was not.
Any way, any called, .....works, unlike NHN..............Huhaha......................LL |
You can stil try a centesimal composition analysis... so you would know the amount of Cu, C, N, H, O into the compound...it is basic chemistry from
old times...all what you need is a specific set of tubings some reactants and a good scale.
PH Z (PHILOU Zrealone)
"Physic is all what never works; Chemistry is all what stinks and explodes!"-"Life that deadly disease, sexually transmitted."(W.Allen)
|
|
|
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
Posts: 2893
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic
|
|
As exposed by Chisholm...
PLX is not suitably gelatinized by NC...because PLX is not only nitromethane what would be no problem...but also a very basic material ethylenediamine
(1,2-diamino-ethane).
The later is uncompatible with nitric esters...that being nitrocellulose, nitroglycerine, PETN, ETN, MHN, ....
R-ONO2 + H2N-R' + H2O --> R-OH + R'-NH3NO3
So the sensitizing effect of the basic material onto nitromethane due to nitronate formation will be lost by addition of a nitric ester.
R-NH2 + H2O --> R-NH3OH <--==> R-NH3(+) + OH(-)
CH3-NO2 + OH(-) <--==> CH2=N(O)-O(-) + H2O
Gellification may stil happen but with loss of sensitization...
If excess NC is used over EDA then you have a mix of:
-NM, NC, partially hydrolysed nitrocellulose, EDA dinitrate
If excess EDA is used over NC then you still have sensitization and maybe partial gelification/thickening; into the mix:
-NM, EDA Methylnitronate, Cellulose, EDA dinitrate
[Edited on 23-6-2017 by PHILOU Zrealone]
PH Z (PHILOU Zrealone)
"Physic is all what never works; Chemistry is all what stinks and explodes!"-"Life that deadly disease, sexually transmitted."(W.Allen)
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
