TNT equivalencies

[Hazmat]

I've been looking around for a table of TNT equivalencies but don't seem to be able to find such a creature, or at least one that contains the data for explosives including HMTD, TATP, etc. Does anyone know of a good reference source for this type of info.

Hazmat

[Rosco Bodine]

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.engr.explosives/msg/8f6df23698ffa679?q=table+group:alt.engr.explosives&hl=en&lr=&rnum=5

[Diabolique]

A paper by Paul W. Cooper (SAND-94-1614C - Comments on TNT Equivalence) of Sandia labs explains why many explosives tests are no longer used, and why TNT equivalence has fallen out of general use with the explosives labs in the US.

Basically, tests like the Trauzl Lead Block Expansion test use up a lot of energy in heating the lead instead of pushing it outward. What is used instead is the C-J pressure (Chapman-Jouguet), which is the pressure immediately behind the detonation front. This is a better way to compare the brisance of explosives. It is also easily used in the Gurney equations to predict the velocity of metal containers when fragmented by an explosion.

Unlike AMCP 706-177 - 'Properties of Explosives of Military Interest', the newer "LLNL Explosives Handbook" and "LANL Explosives Performance Data" do not list this info. I have these, if someone can tell me where and how to post them (I'd likely have to split them into smaller sections - 20, 15 and 14 Mbytes)

[akinrog]

Unlike AMCP 706-177 - 'Properties of Explosives of Military Interest', the newer "LLNL Explosives Handbook" and "LANL Explosives Performance Data" do not list this info. I have these, if someone can tell me where and how to post them (I'd likely have to split them into smaller sections - 20, 15 and 14 Mbytes)

You may upload it to TMP's FTP. However, I have nowadays difficulty to upload anything over there. HTH.

[blasterx]

Explosive Name Abbreviation Detonation Velocity (m/s)
Aromatic explosives
1,3,5-Triazido-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene TNB 7,300 1.71
Trinitrotoluene TNT 6,900
Trinitroaniline TNA 7,300
Tetryl 7,570
Picric Acid 7,350
Dunnite 7,150
Methyl Picrate 6,800
Ethyl Picrate 6,500
Picryl Chloride 7,200
Trinitrocresol 6,850
Lead styphnate 5,200
Triaminotrinitrobenzene TATB 7,350
Aliphatic explosives
Methyl nitrate 6,300
Nitroglycol 7,300
Nitroglycerine NG 7,600
Mannitol Hexanitrate 8,260
Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate PETN 8,400
EDNA 7,570
Nitroguanidine 8,200
Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine RDX 8,750
Cyclotetramethylene Tetranitramine HMX 9,100
Tetranitroglycoluril Sorguyl 9,150
Inorganic explosives
Mercury Fulminate 4,250
Lead azide 4,630
Silver Azide 4,000
Ammonium Nitrate AN 5,270

[blasterx]

Tnt=1.00
Tetrytol=1.20
C3=1.34
C4=1.34
Ammonium Nitrate=0.42
Petn=1.66
Tetryl=1.25
Rdx=1.50
Comp B=1.35
Amatol=1.17
Military Dynamite=0.92
Straight Dynamite=0.83
Ammonia Dynamite=0.53
Gelatin Dynamite=0.72

[stagefivedrift]

This link is to the IME, Institute of the Makers of Explosives, TNT equivalence calculator.
www.ime.org/dynamic.php?page_id=9

[Diabolique]

I uploaded the Sandia paper to the ftp site: /UPLOAD/Diabolique/Explosives/Properties/Testing.

Check the LLNL Explosives Handbook, and there is very little about TNT equivalence. This is due to the way different exposives detonate. Some release their energy in the C-J zone immediately behind the detonation front, making it very brisant, while others, particularly those containing powdered metals, release their energy well behind this zone, producing more blast, all things being otherwise equal.

When you read this report, look closely at the close-in shock wave profiles for different explosives. Comparing these is very difficult when selecting an explosive for a particular use. Using straight equivalence can be misleading. Using the Pc-j (roughly, detonation pressure) and density in the Gurney equations is much more meaningful.

NASA studied flake aluminum in rocket propellant, and found it took 10-15 milliseconds to fully burn, and much longer to pass that energy on to the exhaust gasses. Keep in mind that NASA also uses two well known ingredients to SLOW DOWN the burning rate of rocket fuels - RDX and HMX! Interesting.

IME may be a good source of general info on explosives, but they are behind the times on TNT equivalence. Try using the equivalent amount of TNT in place of ANFO when quarrying, and the blasting results will be very unsatisfactory. Too much shatter, too little heave.

[cutefix]

I don’t understand how powerful nitramine explosives slow down the burning rate of composite propellants used primarily by NASA in booster rockets.
AFAIK the two nitramine energetics are even added in high velocity tank munitions propellant compositions.
In fact there are certain artillery propellants formulations that contains RDX as an energetic component aside from the double base component, NG and NC.

[Diabolique]

I believe that the grains of RDX/HMX have a slower burn rate than the ammonium perchlorate fuel, and form a layer at the burn face on the propellant. This slows the effective burn rate. There is not enough RDX/HMX present for a DDT to occur. Here at or.org, we think of detonation velocity, not buring rate.

I've used C-3 to heat C-rations in Viet Nam. It burns so slowly that a small piece will last long enough to heat the entire can. You have to open the can or you will have an explosion - the can, not the c-3 or C-4.

[nbk2000]

www.or.org is a medical research company/

Are you saying you work for them? If so, how does that have any bearing on detonation velocities?

[Diabolique]

Missed that one, nbk. A typo and dyslexia combined. I edit those things out before posting, then re-reread after posting to further edit out those critters. I also apologize to everyone at roguesci.org for the error.

[cutefix]

I believe that the grains of RDX/HMX have a slower burn rate than the ammonium perchlorate fuel, and form a layer at the burn face on the propellant. This slows the effective burn rate.

Look the combination of oxidants and an already" oxidized rich fuel( nitramine like RDX ) should result in faster burning...

[Bert]

Could you post the exact formulations with the nitramines, and name the rocket engine type(s) they are used in.

Does anyone know the pressure exponent and specific impulse of these materials?

[Diabolique]

There is no specific fuel composition or engine mentioned. The manual on the principles of formulating rocket fuels is: NASA SP-8064 - "Solid Propellant Selection and Characterization"; June 1971.

It appears to be from a microfilm converted to a pdf converted back into print, so it does not scan well. This is also where I found the info on flake aluminum burning. I bought it from http://rocketsciencebooks.home.att.net/ for those who cannot wait. Many very nice texts on rocketry and safety are available there.

[cutefix]

Bert wrote;

Could you post the exact formulations with the nitramines, and name the rocket engine type(s) they are used in.
.

I have seen some experimental formulations of modified or hybridized composite propellants enhanced in the performance through the addition of powerful nitramines, namely RDX, HMX and lately the CL-20. But I doubt if they were used actually in big boosters for launching rockets to space.
These recipes don’t exactly fit the strictly category of the composite or double based propellants but more of a LOVA gun propellants but with the metal fuel.
One basic formulation range I recently "re discovered" from my files.

AP, 80-100um( oxidizer) 18-22
AP 10-15 um ( oxidizer) 18-22
RDX/CL-20 1.7-3.0um( oxidizer) 8-10
AN( oxidizer) 10-15
Polymeric binder 6-65
Aluminum fuel 20-24
Plasticizer 4-16
Cure catalyst 0.03-0.06
Burn Rate Catalyst 0.2-0.5
Bonding Agent 0.06-0.12
Stabilizer 0.3-0.4
Curative 0.9-1,9
Cross Linker 0.3-0.35


A basic nitramine containing LOVA gun propellant look like this.
HMX(2 microns particle size) 75
HTTP( block copolymer) 11.867
Of Propylene oxide& Ethylene oxide
Trimethylolpropane 3.167
Lysine diisocyanate methyl ester 9.9675
Titanyl acetyl acetonate 0.025

BTW the reason why RDX is suggested to be added to composite propellants was the desirable attribute of RDX in propellant
A low cost primary high energy adjustment component with particularly desirable attributes.
It was observed that the replacement of part of AP with cyclonite was said to give substantial improvement in energy release
1) These include the ability to increase overall propellant impetus or performance and also to
2)Increase the density of the propellant grains which allows for greater bulk loading density in the shell case as compared to conventional propellants in similar geometries.

The critical part of using nitramines in propellants is to use the finest and uniform particle size possible so that the burning rate will be faster and even. This is contrast with PBXs explosives and even melt cast explosive formulations where multiple particles size of the base explosives are commonly used( bimodal)and the particle size of the energetic material is not as critical as for high energy propellant application.
The only problem is AFAIK this method was not used in Space shuttle boosters is because nitramine containing composite- doublebase hybrids never passed the card gap test...( i.e They are prone to detonate therefore regarded as unsafe for space missions )

[Diabolique]

I have a lot to learn on propellants before I can catch up to you, cutefix. That's why I am reading that manual. I'll try to scan it, and the others from NASA.

When I was stationed in an 8" artillery unit, I picked up some other interesting facts. PETN that is deadpressed and then flaked, has been used as gun propellant, usually mixed with a stabilizer. Guanidine nitrate has also been used, but is highly disliked - it produces a stench like fermenting urine when the gun was fired. I was down-wind of a Korean artillery unit that was using guanidine nitrate based propellant about 4 kilometers away.

By AP I take it you mean ammonium perchlorate. Replacing some of the AP with cyclonite (RDX) would make sense as it has a greater crystal density, increasing the propellant density. The AP propellants can be detonated, or at least HEVR, with sufficient shock.

I am not certain, but I believe that the inclusion of RDX helps to stabilize the burn rate over pressure. At least this was hinted at. The Pershing I missile was originally a single stage, but they has problems with burn oscillation, and broke it into two engines.

When the guidance system sensed there had been enough boost, it triggered a linear shaped charge to cut the motor open, ending the burn. Obviously, the fuel does not have all that much shock sensitivity. It is an AP, Al, polyisobutylene fuel with a ferro-organic burn catylist, if my memory serves me after 30 years. Do you have any info on that?

[cutefix]

When I was stationed in an 8" artillery unit, I picked up some other interesting facts. PETN that is deadpressed and then flaked, has been used as gun propellant, usually mixed with a stabilizer.

I think that is reasonable if we consider LOVA type propellants which follows the same way , just as I mentioned above but if its only flaked, the particle size is just too coarse to be considered to ignite and burn consistently . Presumably they need a powerful igniting composition to initiate the propellant combustion.

I have read some World War 2 explosive propellant called nipolit which was developed by the Germans ; composed of roughly 50 % PETN,30%NC and 20% DEGDN.
In fact There were some old specimens of it in the lab in the past which was interesting as when it was disposed it was "played upon "and it explodes with the power of plastique and ignite like a double base propellant.

But PETN in solid state is difficult to ignite and even if dead pressed it will not even reach DDT and that makes sense if (theoretically) some people want to ( think if not make) improvised propellant based on PETN but I doubt about its efficiency of performance compared to singe NC or double base NG/NC composition.

In fact RDX is said to ignite faster than PETN hence its applicability in the aforementioned LOVA propellants. I have not seen PETN used even in the latter mentioned propellant, if its not RDX then its HMX.

By AP I take it you mean ammonium perchlorate. Replacing some of the AP with cyclonite (RDX) would make sense as it has a greater crystal density, increasing the propellant density.
The AP propellants can be detonated, or at least HEVR, with sufficient shock


I insist that for rocket propellant terminology, AP means ammonium perchlorate.
AP in crystal form dispersed in polymer propellant is less likely to detonate than RDX dispersed in the same manner . Say for example you shoot at it with high velocity munitions or even explosive munitions its less likely to undergo sympathetic detonations if compared if RDX or related nitramines are present.
Unmanned rockets and missiles would be permissible to have some of its oxidizers be replaced with these nitramines due to improved performance but manned rockets like the space shuttle, the risk is just too high a price for the improved performance.

I am not certain, but I believe that the inclusion of RDX helps to stabilize the burn rate over pressure. At least this was hinted at. The Pershing I missile was o[Qoute
Obviously, the fuel does not have all that much shock sensitivity. It is an AP, Al, polyisobutylene fuel with a ferro-organic burn catylist, if my memory serves me after 30 years. Do you have any info on that?1/Qoute ]
riginally a single stage, but they has problems with burn oscillation, and broke it into two engines.

Yes,that was claimed by experts as one of its function, as long as the particle size of RDX is less than 10 microns and of uniform in size. It was found out that the combustion of micro particles of cyclonite is more stable than with the same particle size of PETN which is likely to undergo DDT. Maybe one reason why penthrite was never used in LOVA type and hybrid propellants the difficulty to ignite it in solid form.


Qoute:
Obviously, the fuel does not have all that much shock sensitivity. It is an AP, Al, polyisobutylene fuel with a ferro-organic burn catylist, if my memory serves me after 30 years. Do you have any info on that?

AFAIK the earlier composite propellants were made with Potassium perchlorate as the oxidizer and rubber or asphalt serves as fuel and binder. It was only after the war (WW2)that ammonium perchlorate replaced it and the fuel evolved from rubber to various elastomers such as polysulfides,polyurethanes etc.
IIRC the earliest successful solid fuel for shuttle booster was based on PBAN-Polybutadiene Acrylic Acid AcryloNitrile terpolymer having the following base line composition :AP =69.60,PBAN =14,Al=16,Fe2O3 =0.40
Yes Ferrous oxide was the burn rate accelerator.

[Diabolique]

I was going by a textbook from the early 60's that mentioned that the prefered propellant for rockets was ammonium perchlorate, aluminum and polyisobutylene. The poly-sulfides, such as thiokols, were still expensive. They also mentioned energetic binders, such as polymerized glycidal nitrate, but it did not mention their actual use. Some of the binders are now used as binders in some PBX's.

The DDT burn distance for confined PETN is on the order of 0.1 mm. RDX is several mm's. This is likely why RDX and HMX are used in rocket fuels, and not dead-pressed PETN, the danger of a particle not being dead-pressed is too great.

The info I have on the Fe combustion catylist is that it is an organic-iron compound to aid in more even dispersion through the grain than with finely divided Fe2O3 (rouge). I know some compositions for blasting agents contain iron oxides/compounds.

The use of dead-pressed PETN propellant in guns is for small caliber guns, under 75 mm. I do not believe it ever was widely used, cheaper materials are available.

I encountered Nipolit as a sabotage explosive; German agents had overshoes and raincoats made of it to bring through security checkpoints. Do yo have any info on its physical and explosive properties? I cannot find much more than its composition here or elsewhere. I'm still working my way through the math for single component (pure) explosives' estimated physical and detonation properties. It will be a while before I can work mutiple compound explosives.

[cutefix]

I was going by a textbook from the early 60's that mentioned that the prefered propellant for rockets was ammonium perchlorate, aluminum and polyisobutylene. The poly-sulfides, such as thiokols, were still expensive. They also mentioned energetic binders, such as polymerized glycidal nitrate, but it did not mention their actual use. Some of the binders are now used as binders in some PBX's.

Hydroxterminated polybutadiene is more widely used in PBX and propellants than polyisobutylene.
Energetic plasticizers like PGN or polymerized glycidyl nitrate are still tested on experimentals stage in PBXs but is unlikely to be used in composiite propellants .
So far there were plenty of energetic plasticizers/binders, such as PolyNIMMO, GAP,BDNPA/F, etc but never heard that they were tested in composite propellants

The info I have on the Fe combustion catylist is that it is an organic-iron compound to aid in more even dispersion through the grain than with finely divided Fe2O3 (rouge). I know some compositions for blasting agents contain iron oxides/compounds

I think what you had in mind are the ferrocenes...well they have been used in the past as burn rate improver in liquid fuels for liquid propellant rockets...
In recent years there were some ferrocene derivatives such as the catocene(IIRC (cyclopentadienyl iron?) which were actually tested in experimental composite propellant compositions but as due to their propensity to migrate or segregate from the propellant matrix and the tendency to oxidize AFAIK they are still undergoing further study. The inorganic oxides of iron, aluminum and chromium are more reliable.

The use of dead-pressed PETN propellant in guns is for small caliber guns, under 75 mm. I do not believe it ever was widely used, cheaper materials are available.


Well as long as the improvised propellants are likely coarse particles size and are not suited for small arms they might work for smaller cannon type ammunition.but with a abetter igniting compositions..So far I have not seen any evidence that it was really tried. There are much surplus ammunition around that improvisation is unlikely to be done.

I encountered Nipolit as a sabotage explosive; German agents had overshoes and raincoats made of it to bring through security checkpoints. Do yo have any info on its physical and explosive properties? I cannot find much more than its composition here or elsewhere.

Never heard about it ,,,but is unlikely that Nipolit can be fabricated into clothing like materials as its firm and rigid.
The informationa about its detonation properties is scanty, I think you can have better luck if you can have access to the old Picatinny Arsenal Transaction papers.
The one in my notes listed the detonation speed range of 7000-7500 m/s and it had an impact sensitivity like cast TNT.

[Diabolique]

The use of combustion catylysts in liquid fuels is new to me. To smooth the burn, what is usually done is to cool the propellant. This works quite well with u-dimethylhydrazine.

The smallest round that I have heard of that used deadpressed PETN was 20 mm. IMO, the pressures required for dp-ing PETN make extrusion of more conventional formulations more economical. Extrusions can be easily perforated during extrusion, allowing a far better control over the burn of the propellant.

As for improvising propellants, the group I was in did some work there. We developed a way of loading pistol ammunition so it required a _lot_ less powder, but retained a high subsonic velocity, at least for .45 cal that we tested. It also had a startling side effect - greatly reduced muzzle blast. We called it "quiet ammunition." According to the current laws, it is not a silencer, as it is a modification of the ammunition that reduces the amount of powder required. It isn't practical, it takes about half an hour or more per round in a home workshop.

That is more info than I have on nipolit, thanks. When I had access to those papers, I was more interested in the early development of shaped charges. Using a NC binder, I would expect it to be not very flexable. That is likely why it was made into boots, belts and raincoats for their agents.

British SOE used a mixture of 50/50 RDX and flour to hide and smuggle explosives past the Germans. I understand that they could actually bake the stuff into loaves of bread. Sort of like the old cartoon of dynamite sticks burning on a cake, only the cake is the explosive, and the "candles" are fuses burning down into detonators.

[cutefix]

The use of combustion catylysts in liquid fuels is new to me. To smooth the burn, what is usually done is to cool the propellant. This works quite well with u-dimethylhydrazine.

It was added to petroleum based fuels and never in hypergolic propellants ( dimethylhydrazine/Nitrogen tetroxide etc). It was said to have been added in certain jet fuels also.

The smallest round that I have heard of that used deadpressed PETN was 20 mm. IMO, the pressures required for dp-ing PETN make extrusion of more conventional formulations more economical. Extrusions can be easily perforated during extrusion, allowing a far better control over the burn of the propellant.

Makes sense to me

As for improvising propellants, the group I was in did some work there. We developed a way of loading pistol ammunition so it required a _lot_ less powder, but retained a high subsonic velocity, at least for .45 cal that we tested. It also had a startling side effect - greatly reduced muzzle blast. We called it "quiet ammunition." According to the current laws, it is not a silencer, as it is a modification of the ammunition that reduces the amount of powder required. It isn't practical, it takes about half an hour or more per round in a home workshop.

BTW reducing the powder charge will concomittantly reduce muzzle velocity and so will be noticeable in reduced muzzle flash butI think using a propellants containing nitroguanidine can do the job better without reducing muzzle velocity which is important for such a heavy bullet like what is in caliber 45 pistol..

That is more info than I have on nipolit, thanks. When I had access to those papers, I was more interested in the early development of shaped charges. Using a NC binder, I would expect it to be not very flexable. That is likely why it was made into boots, belts and raincoats for their agents.

IIRC. Munroe the originator of shape charge did discover it from a guncotton explosiion. You can find more about the history of Munroe effect.

British SOE used a mixture of 50/50 RDX and flour to hide and smuggle explosives past the Germans. I understand that they could actually bake the stuff into loaves of bread. Sort of like the old cartoon of dynamite sticks burning on a cake, only the cake is the explosive, and the "candles" are fuses burning down into detonators.

RDX/Flour?

I am not sure about that...during the second world war RDX is still new and very expensive and they are having difficulty in meeting the demands for bomb and other blast munition fillers therefore its unlikely that it will be squandered for other purposes that can be fillled up by other explosives..
Mebbe PETN/flour.....

BTW....IIRC
The Brits popularized the EDNATOL blocks( EDNA/TNT)
I am thinking that it might be another explosive such as ethylenedinitramine etc which was said to be more accessible?

[Diabolique]

I have encountered the use of RDX/flour by the French Maquis, supplied by the SOE, many times. All were quite specific about the use of RDX. The one account I read in highschool was their use of it to bake loaves of "French bread" that they walked by the German guards into a submarine base, and did some serious damage to the sub pens. I have read in Black Books vol 3 that recommends 80/20 RDX/flour, and gives "recipes" for "pancakes" and "biscuits." That should redefine heartburn, ala the movie "The Mask."

Special ops has never been bothered by cost, as long as they deliver the goods. I have heard a rumor that today they may have used CL-20 based explosives.

I fell in love with EDNA (Haleite) back in the early 60's. I never could figure out why it never found more widespread use, other than possibly cost. It's precursor requires phosgene (the war gas) for synthesis, or I would have been making it.

The reduced muzzle blast ammo used shotgun primers in enlarged primer pockets. The primer was loaded with no more than about three granules of powder (not grains - weight) in the primer. The inside of the case is filled with a brass cylinder machined to fit it exactly.This has a 2 mm hole down its central axis, which is filled by a steel pin that fills the entire length of the hole. The bullet is loaded on to of this. When fired, the primer provides enough power to fire the bullet at about 100-150 m/sec. The grains of powder in the primer are initiated so strongly that they virtually detonate, and can boost the velocity double. A starter's pistol is louder.

What you may appreciate is what we did with an auto battery, a coil of copper wire inside a PVC pipe, and a copper pipe filled with improvised comp. C down the center of that. I've lost the design notes on that toy, unfortunately. It was the size of a coffee can. The blamed thing took out my AM/FM radio 100 m away.

[cutefix]

The one account I read in highschool was their use of it to bake loaves of "French bread" that they walked by the German guards into a submarine base, and did some serious damage to the sub pens

Yeah,, I am reminded also just now of the black book procedure...Makes sense as RDX has higher melting point than PETN so if they indeed baked those so called exploding baked goodies, RDX would fit nicely.

Special ops has never been bothered by cost, as long as they deliver the goods. I have heard a rumor that today they may have used CL-20 based explosives


I think in this particular area you have a point ... A few years ago,I have heard from my colleagues about the Delta forces using a TNAZ filled shaped charges. for special operation..and Trinitroazetidine is still very expensive to produce until now. It was estimated that with the current prices of production , its still cheaper to produce CL-20 than TNAZ.

I fell in love with EDNA (Haleite) back in the early 60's. I never could figure out why it never found more widespread use, other than possibly cost. It's precursor requires phosgene (the war gas) for synthesis, or I would have been making it.

EDNA was popular during the times as it was first perfected by Dr. Hale first (IIRC the person who improved the German method) of the direct nitration of Hexamine to form RDX which was later adapted by the Woolwich arsenal ( and become known as the Woolwich process) UK for mass producing RDX during the War
BTW phosgene is not the precursor for Ethylenedinitramine but ethylene urea.

[nbk2000]

I seem to remember there being a patented process by which phosgene was used in the production of EDNA, but acid anhydrides (or chlorides like PCl3) could be used more economically.

Also, EDNA is an acid hog in needing something like 10 parts absolute nitric to every 1 part of ED.

[Diabolique]

The chain of chemical reactions I know of is:

CH2O + HCN => HOCH2CN

HOCH2CN + NH3 => NH2CH2CN + H2O

NH2CH2CN + H2 => (CH2NH2)2

(CH2NH2)2 + COCl2 => (CH2NH2)2CO + 2HCl (phosgene step)

(CH2NH2)2CO + 2HNO3 => (CH2NHNO2)2CO + 2H2O

(CH2NHNO2)2CO + H2O => (CH2NHNO2)2 (boil in water)

I wonder if a water scavenger, such as acetic anhydride, would reduce the amount of nitric acid required. The only reason for using a large excess of acid is to keep the water produced in nitrating amines is to keep the acid from being diluted too much.

Davis mentions using mixed acid for nitration, bypassing the final hydrolysis step. It likely would have to be done at a low temperature as sulfuric acid hydrolyses EDNA at higher temperatures. I'll have to check with Urbanski's volumes later.

[cutefix]

I seem to remember there being a patented process by which phosgene was used in the production of EDNA, but acid anhydrides (or chlorides like PCl3) could be used more economically.

Also, EDNA is an acid hog in needing something like 10 parts absolute nitric to every 1 part of ED.


Nope from the patent records in my files it requires only a ratio of 5 parts of 98% nitric acids and 1 part of ethylene urea to form the intermediate dinitroethylene urea. The latter is added to H2O at below 90 deg C and then raised to no more than 96 deg C and the conversion yield was 88% based on the amount of ethyelene urea used
BTW I did not see any phosgene being part of the synthesis process?