ETN; Thinking Outside the Box

[Charles Owlen Picket]

My purpose is to compose new concepts of ETN usage as I would now assume that most know about
the synth backwards and forwards. There is actually little material written about ETN and quoting source is very significant.
The substitution of other solid polyols appears to be a valid method of finding some answers, however...
Does the DDT of ETN function as outlined? Yes, it does. Is it frigging dangerous to fuck with on a large scale? Yes, it is.
Excuse the formating as these are obviously, notes!


Experimental: Use of Oxidizers with ETN

Source: NG & NG Explosives, Phikion Naoum. Sprengtoffe und Zundung der
Sprengschusse, Berlin (Springer, 1904) Gluchkauf (1903) pp 435, German
Patent - 182030, 353200 "Nobelit Patent", "Industrial Nitrogen Compounds &
Explosives" Geoffrey Martin, 1915.

Concept: Use of ETN with an Oxidizer,
both as a bulking agent and Oxygen balance. The use of ETN and a high O
content oxidizer has been explored. This accomplishes two things. It
balances the oxygen and makes for a possible DDT with initiation of a
fuse for the ETN. What’s more it also bulks the existing ETN to a level
wherein the material can compete with standard dynamite. The use of
several oxidizers had been explored. both KClO3 & KClO4 had been selected
for their high O yield. The studies quoted utilized KClO4. Also the use of
the "KinePac process" of using atomized Al had been attempted to further
the DDT effect. The use of Al is as 10-15% of total weight, no higher. ETN
had been selected as it most closely resembles the experimental model of
NG within PP 364-445 Phikion Naoum NG & NG Explosives This model is
based upon the 20/80% structure quoted for nitric esters. Additionally the
experiment was attempted with a "flash" product of 70/30 utilizing ETN as
the "fuel".

Concept: Using KClO4 & ETN in a mix as an energetic can realize a OB of 1
(white smoke) and a possible "non-primary" initiation. If ETN were used as a
"fuel" with KClO4 it may be very possible to create a detonation by DDT via
flame. This may have various possibilities in a "primary-less" initiation.
If ETN were suitably mixed with perchlorate and brought to flame it may
begin DDT if not compressed. What's more, if within a suitable housing the
combination were to be placed in proximity to a compressed portion, there
may be a method to initiate ETN to detonation with flame alone. The
"KinePac" method of sensitizing a given energetic is to add Al at a level of
10-15% of total weight. Therefore if the ETN and oxidizer together were to
equal 100gr the needed percentage of Al would be 10-15gr. This of course
would lower the VoD but raise the heat (caloric output), enhancing the DDT.
This has been attempted with success before in both non-freezing dynamites &
specific non-permissible explosives. The background of work on this is larger
than originally thought. Conceptually this is using a solid nitric ester & oxidizer
& does not necessarily maintain itself w/ nitric amines.

Complications: What the resultant product would be however is a very serious
"flash" mix that would have the problematic complications of "flash powder"
but render the final product very inexpensive to manufacture. The bulking of
ETN could achieve high levels of very powerful energetic that could be
initiated by flame, friction, or impact. unfortunately it may also be
initiated via static electricity and thus DDT. Attempts in the past to use
ammonium perchlorate, potassium perchlorate, & potassium chlorate with a
variety of nitric esters all achieved DDT when stimulated with flame and
uncompressed. if an uncompressed portion of composition were exposed to a
compressed column of the same material a fuse would be used to render a
detonation with no primary. However the lack of a primary is of little
importance if the secondary energetic itself is this sensitive.....Unless
the purpose of which does not lie within the industrial use of energetics,
but rather the "unconventional". This composition may be an impact
explosive, useful in grenades. It may be employed in shaped charges wherein
the need for large amounts of high brisance explosives is mandated. It would
increase the weight / volume of a given nitric ester & decrease it's VoD
only marginally. If aluminized, it may create a degree of heat and blast not
supported by the original material alone.

NOTES: A couple of real practical notes here; the mixed composition has to
be intimate! That means it has to be a whetted process. It has to be really
acid free. That means it has to be re-crystallized and the perchlorate is
soluble in ethanol (but that costs quite a bit more than other alcohols). A
carbonate dissolved in the quench water may be an answer to neutralizing. The
closer the intimate mix as possible the better. Re-crystallization is
actually the best method as physical mixing exposes one to too high a risk,
etc. What’s more the final product is a very seriously sensitive material
and is not as safe as would be deemed appropriate for long term storage. It
IS impact sensitive. As little as a half-gram will explode unconfined. When
exposed to heat, impact, or friction. Frankly as little as 10mg enclosed in
aluminum foil will crack nicely with a blow from a hammer. How far can one
bulk it? Going to 50/50 will work . 70/30 as in flash will also but the
chance of a DDT is much less. Differences in available oxygen are greater
for KClO3 than KClO4 but the perchlorate yields up it’s available O in a
more usable manner than the chlorate. NaClO3 is too hygroscopic for use as
is sodium nitrate than the potassium salt. The use of nitrates in this
context has been attempted, especially in non-freezing dynamites; as this
was the origin of the experiment and it’s documentation. Could this
composition be made plastic? YES! Advantages would be an extremely sensitive
shaped charge and a shaped charge with no liner but yet a functionality of
blast directionality. ETN does not lend itself to a plastic format in the
same manner as PETN (Polybutene & sebicates). It (ETN) has a “soft
crystal”. But it does make a very utilitarian plastic via SBR or latex. It’s
moldable mass is consistent and will hold itself to given (mostly) clean
surfaces. When I describes “plastics”, I don’t mean that in the context of
simple plastics mass but rather in the contextual “plastic explosives” that
will hold shape, stick, maintain solidity. etc. Buffer agents such as
carbonates may help here. But the level of ETN to chlorate will be enough to
do the job. ETN had been used as a sensitizer in some
plastic experiments with R-Salt as a base; same concept.

[Bert]

ETN has a positive OB.

[Rbick]

Thats some good information Charles. I'm a little confused as to the addition of the oxidizer (ie the perchlorates). Are they simply added to sensitize the ETN (since ETN already has + OB) as to make fuse and/or flame initiation possible?

I never thought about the concept of using ETN, or any OB+ explosive, as an oxidizer, similar to the way AN is used. This would leave the door open for a large amount of potential fuels. For instance, saw dust or flour, basically any organic compound in powder form can be oxidized and has already been used in many varieties of ANFO type compositions. The use of materials such as flour is illustrated in the military improvised explosives handbook. Notes of which I have uploaded on the FTP. Inorganic materials including but not limited to Al and Mg can also be used of course. So instead of making an AN based charge, you could make a ETN based charge, which would be much easier to initiate and much more powerful. There would also be no need for a booster, which can save materials and time. The only problem would be having to make ETN in large quantities, which to some isn't a problem.

The only adjustment would be having to use more ETN in proportion to the added fuel, as one mol of ETN produces the same amount of Oxygen (1/2 mol O2, or 16g) as one mol of AN. However, ETN has a substantially higher fwt. at 302 g/mol as opposed to AN which is at 80 g/mol. So in the instance of a AN/Acetone mixture, 8% Acetone would be used. With ETN it would be 2-3% Acetone instead.

The only downside to this approach would be a decreased gas output. AN is known and used widely for its large amount of gas produced upon decomposition. Proportionally, AN produces approx. 30% more gas output than ETN, although possessing a much lower VoD. So whether you'd go with the AN or ETN based charge would depend greatly on what you want accomplished. A fuel mixed with ETN would maintain a high VoD and produce much more heat energy in comparison to a plain ETN charge but the same fuel mixed with AN would produce much more gaseous byproduct. So if you're earth moving, I'd stick with AN.

If this idea seems unrealistic or pointless, let me know. If you want the equations for the measurements I posted, just ask and I'll post the equations too.

ETN mixed with Al sounds like a good idea though. ETN based flash powder? Awesome! :D. I'll be trying that one soon.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

I realized much too late that much of this as simple notes would be confusing. The OB stuff certainly....I post before I go to work and while that's no excuse; I do so with morning coffee, generally at about 0600. :eek:
Frankly, I don't remember why I included the OB stuff. So just forget it for now. It's a concept thing.

The point about gas output is well taken also; that IS a downside - especially from an industrial perspective. Pre-War Germany obviously mfg. non-freezing dynamites with AN and research with perchlorates were a run-off of that endeavor. But really, this is just a concept thing, I don't really know if it's a practical thing to do outside of back-yard play....but it does make a DDT.
<Slow Grin>

[Secong Nature]

My two ideas for ETN use it as a primary and a booster;

As it is apparantly very sensitive to electricity it could be used to initiate an explosion, meaning that it would be safer to use in large amounts than AP or a picrate.

The second idea has been touched upon but I thought of using it mixed with say TNT or 'milk booster' to make a better booster charge.

This seems to fit the purpose or composing new concepts of ETN usage, if I'm just retelling the same stuff from elsewhere than please tell me.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

No, that's OK; I wanted this to be a discussion thread. It's certainly open to personal interpretation. The concepts of ETN used in a primary-less det are involved as this usually entails having a high amp power source (with attendant portability issues) but it certainly has been done. The first thing that comes to mind is a automobile with an inverter and a small arc-welder. IF you didn't have the commercial unit. That's a lot of material to deal with however.

Most people get very tired of AP and it's attendant use in a detonator is generally considered to be a real last ditch effort or one of low professionalism. Just on opinion level, I don't consider it to be worth dealing with as most anyone with a WILL and access to a damn junk yard can get as much azide as they want.

[Man Down Under]

I had an airbag inflator from the passenger side of a minivan.

It was made in germany, and you could tell by the quality construction! The inflator itself was the size and shape of a large thermos, and made of a very tough and hard steel that I couldn't cut with a hacksaw.

I thought of using an anglegrinder, but that lasted about half a second before the thought of spraying red-hot sparks into the interior of a BOMB stopped it dead in its tracks. :(

There was also a nut on the end that the wires went into. I tried opening that, but using the biggest wrench I had (about 2 feet long) I was still unable to open it. Just ended up rounding the nut. :mad:

I thought of using a water disruptor to blow it apart, but I just knew it'd scatter the pellets to hell and gone, getting nothing, so I ended up not getting it open.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

My best was American large truck, SUV stuff from 92-98; I think. Dodge was one I remember and a Chevy or GMC "Jimmy" was another. The inflater was covered with a heavy screen which could be eaten at with a tin-snips.
You see, all of these have to have a "port" of sorts where the gases would blow up the bag! You just have to find it.

The big SUV's have a lot of pellets inside. They are what appears to be an organic material with azide saturated through them. They are placed in near boiling water and the water is simply allowed to evaporate. It was simple to get 800+ grams out of two of them. The amount of pellets was significant! I have more NaN3 than I would use - from one day's hassle. And it's fairly pure, water white crystals of sharply defined shape...sweet poisonous azide....ahhh.

Oh Gawd...I don't mean to get off topic in a thread I started... But azides are of interest and if I can pull people from peroxides; I'm doing something positive, no?

[Man Down Under]

The inflater had many small vent ports, about 1/4" diameter, with a thick fiberous white material covering a hard wire screen covering something else. I picked away the white stuff, but stopped at the wire screening, which wasn't anything soft like window screen, more like micro-chain link fence. :(

Drilling was not an option.

Obviously, having the right inflater makes things much easier.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

I have thought up a a project that interests me. A concept that, as a exercise in creativity, could be a lot of fun. ETN Plastique.

A plastique is perhaps the greatest container of all for a secondary. A "plastic mass" is NOT the same as a plastique. I have read time and again the term "plastic" meaning the containerization of a powdered solid via the addition of a fluid to a powder. This is not a plastique & offers little in what may be achieved via the proper application of the concept.

The plastic, flexable, moldable containment of secondary explosives has been a twentieth century invention and lead to to some of the most unique applications of secondary explosives in existence. This containment is a container. It has almost no limitations for shape size or direction of energy applied.

It allows the energy produced by such energetic materials to be applied opportunistically. It may be the most appropriate container for an energetic material invented thus far. With this in mind, what would be offered are method(s) of production to examine the manufacture of a plastique.
A plastic mass is just that. A flexible mass. Such a thing may be created by the addition of a fluid to a powdered solid. This is not what is a useful container for the secondary as it will fall apart and not adhere to a surface. It is essentially, "mud". What a plastique is essentially is a moldable, containment of a powdered secondary powder that will retain it's shape, stick to surfaces and maintain it's density, which optimally be quite high.

For this to be achieved I need to look at what had been in existence for decades and why it was developed the way it was.
Plastiques use a plastizer and a tackifier in their production. The two serve vital functions in the container. The Tackifier binds the powdered solid. That is, it keeps the solid together; collecting & binding to density-mass. The Plastizer holds the solid to begin with. If a powdered material is whetted with an oil for instance, it would said to be made a plastic mass. But it would fall apart when moved or molded. The tackifier binds the plastic mass and continues to hold and unify the whole. This in turn makes for a "clay-like" material that can be molded and hold it's shape. It would stick to a surface and retain this shape (say, a hollow- cone shape charge, for instance) and detonate in that form.

This is vital for the utilitarian purposes that a plastique is designed for. A true plastique can be molded into a shape and will hold that shape. It will stick to a surface and maintain itself in a manner that allows it to be detonated while remaining in that shape. It will retain higher density without air pockets continually over a protracted period of time. This cannot be accomplished with either a tackifier or plastizer alone. What's more it also allows the density to build as more powdered solid is added to it. Density is vital to efficiency in a energetic material. The more powdered solid that can be added to a plastic matrix the more efficient the plastique. As a starting point the highest level of plastic matrix a plastique may have and still shoot is about 30%. However there have been examples of the inert matrix being as high as 35% and the material still shooting. Research on this issue is vital and on going. I will draw from existing material for this project.

The speed of the detonation may still be at the level of a lesser percentage of matrix but the power level will suffer. [More about this issue later...] The two most common secondary explosives used in modern plastique are PETN and RDX. But there is not reason why ETN cannot be applied to this concept! I really like to be creative and this appears to be a challenge, intellectually.

These materials (PETN & RDX) are roughly equivalent in VoD and power. The past research has been applied to these and it is there that I will draw some information. There are other materials that may be utilized and of course, ETN is too inviting to be ignored. The limitations are within the matrix (binder material) and the needed density to allow the shot to be fired efficiently. It might even be possible to use nitro benzenes for a plastique. But the needed density is quite high for this material. [Perhaps too high; but ETN may be just right.] Therefore the need for the material to be held together in a slim matrix; thus ETN with it's crystal platelet may be very productive. The thinner the matrix (binder) the less flexible in most cases. This is the paradox of the container (the plastique). This paradox exists but does not have to be applicable in all cases.

There is no reason that this cannot be overcome with the correct matrix material but levels of cost vs utility are factored into the overall design.
Here we have an explosive device that may be molded into any form; a shaped charge, virtually anything; and can be attached via it's own adhesion to many surfaces. It is it's own container and it's a virtual design shape. It can be sized and corrected for most any application. It can be shaped at time of use. It has been used for War and Industry. It's limitations are one of the imagination within the boundaries of it's binder and explosive design.
The Tackifier must hold the Plastizied material. This is vital. A simple fluid can plasticize a powdered material. But unless a suitable Tackifier can maintain that plastic mass, the binder matrix is useless. The two outlined formulations are similar but they are different in the manner in which they are made to retain the explosive.
In the Soviet model, the SBR (Tackifier) is introduced to the plastic mass by a solvent (often toluene) and the density is controlled by the evaporation of the solvent. This is more chemical than mechanical. In the American model the polybutene is the Tackifier & the plastic mass is mechanically bound by rollers or physical mixing of the explosive plastic mass; it's density is controlled by physical manipulation. Both have their strengths and weaknesses in their production.

l will attempt to examine the Tackifiers, the Plastizers, as well as the industrial methods of incorporation via patents and limited research utilizing ETN in further posts.

[Deceitful_Frank]

ETN is a fantastic explosive and its slightly positive oxygen balance and great sensitivity lends it well as a possible main filler in a plastic explosive blend. I have blended it with PIB extracted from self amalgamating tape which acts as a tackifier, and with methyl ricinoleate which plasticizes it very well. Motor oil is added in small amounts as in composition C4 as i believe it helps the PIB and methyl ricinoleate to dissolve into one another.... it works very well and gives the mass fantastic handling properties. One small problem though.

For ETN to be anywhere near useful and stable for more than a few days it needs to be recrystalized and ethanol is well known to be the solvent of choice. Thing is, ETN recrytalized from ethanol appears as needles which do not pack together well giving a low bulk density that requires 30% plastisizer to fill all voids. I have found ETN NOT to be cap sensitive at 30% inerts, 25% being about the maximum and ideally 20% for decent reliability.

I think the most amazing thing about C4 and indeed many modern plastic explosives is the way that they combine two specific particle sizes to give extremely high bulk density and therefore needing very little inerts to fill the voids. C4 has 91% RDX, 9% inerts and is completely plasticized and bound into a coherent mass. Obviuosly the high 1.82g/cc density of RDX helps though I know of amateur experimenters reaching 85% with PETN so in theory shouldn't 80% be possible with ETN assuming you could get the crystalization down to a tee and the correct blend of particle sizes?

[Charles Owlen Picket]

In re-crystallization experiments I have seen the crystal was a platelet, and a columnar hexagonal. However there may be other variables with which I am unaccustomed. I do know that methanol has been used successfully as well as ethanol for re-crystallization. The points you bring up are salient and I will be looking into them. I haven't determined if the needle shape is a consistent phenomenon. In PETN and MHN it appears to be the case.

My fascination is in the use of thermoplastic polymer binders to achieve a true plastique with ETN. What I'm doing is trying to piece together the best sources of information regarding the various tackifiers and plasticizers available and utilize them.

Methyl ricinoleate is available via the combining of Castor oil and methyl alcohol in reflux. It is an effective substitute for a sebicate. However I actually have a source for sebicates. This has been a pet project for some months now. It's just that I have notes that I feel are appropriate to share at this point as well as experiments and sources that I could point to and extrapolate data that would yield further questions.
For instance the 30% inert level for ETN....I would feel comfortable with that for PETN but perhaps this is too high [for ETN]. It's a good discussion point.
ETN does have a bit higher sensitivity that PETN if made well, re-crystallized in a professional manner, etc. But would it shoot at 30% inerts? I think this hinges on the density level of the binder. If the binder has NO air pockets; it might. This is why it's vital that the polymer binder mechanism be explored to it's fullest. {The use of the term "motor oil" in the patent literature may NOT mean organic petroleum. I believe it to mean something else now.}

Glad your back posting, Frank. Long time, no hear.

[Rbick]

I have made some calculations and have been dying to get these posted! I simply haven't had the time to do it. I've noticed the lack of informtion on ETN on the internet, and no one is really sure how it measures up to other explosives other than it is "similar to PETN and OB positive". This is why I have gone through the trouble of making these calculations. Through the calculations, I will be posting the measurement of PETN for the given equation so we can compare the two. Incredibly, ETN exceeds PETN in a couple ways, although loses out in the end due to mols of gas produced and VoD. All PETN measurements were taking from "The Chemistry of Explosives" by J. Akhavan. Mega (or other mods), if you deem this acceptable as to deserve its own thread, please let me know and I'd be more than happy to start one. The reason I didn't is because of the number of ETN related threads already started, so I figured this would be a good place to put it.

Purpose: To better understand the technical aspects of the explosive ETN and to be able to apply the knowledge/equations used to other explosives.

Information that follows contains: Heat of Formation, Heat of detonation, Heat of explosion, Gas output, Power index in relation to H Form and Gas output, and Temperature of explosion. I also will add a little formula for calculating approximate VoD at a given density.

Throughout the equations, you will see /\, which I will be using for the Delta sign. { Will stand for summation.

Heat of explosion and detonation:

Heats of Formation:
/\Hf(ETN) = -483.2 KJ mol = /\H1 (PETN = -538)
/\Hf g(CO2) = -393.7 KJ mol
/\Hf g(H2O) = -242 KJ mol

CO will not be mentioned since ETN is OB positive. Oxygen and Nitrogen gas are not counted. Heat of formation is the amount of heat energy released when a given chemical compound "forms" when they establish new bonds.

/\H2 = {/\Hf g = (4) -393.7 + (3)-242 = -2300.8 KJ mol

The numbers multipled by the Hf of the gases where determined by the number of mols of each gas released from detonation. These can be seen in the decomposition of ETN:
C4H6N4O12 --> 4CO2 + 3H2O + 22 + 1/2O2

/\Hd (detonation) = /\H2 - /\H1 = -2300.8 - -483.2 = -1817.6 KJ mol

Converted to KJ Kg = Q = -1817.6 (1000)/302 = -6018.54 KJ Kg
The 302 is grams per mol for ETN, which actually exceeds PETN in energy per gram, albeit slightly.

/\Hd is the heat of detonation. It is the amount of heat energy released by 1 mol of explosive. A negative number means an exothermic reaction, which is not suprising since we are dealing with explosives. /\Hd for PETN = -1831 KJ mol and Q for PETN = -5794 KJ Kg

Gas Output:
As we saw before from the decomposition of ETN, 9.5 mols of gas are liberated per mol of ETN. According to the Ideal Gas law, 1 mol of any type of gas will occupy the same amount of space, regardless of atomic weight. For instance, at STP (standard temp. and pressure), 1 mol of a given gas will occupy 22.4L of space. This factor is part of what gives an explosive its heaving force. Also involved is the amount of heat produced, which will effect how "hard" these gasses heave. To find the volume of gas produced, we take the number of mols in gas: 91/2 and multiply it by the amount of space each mol will occupy : 22.4L
91/2 (22.4) = 212.8L = volume of gas per mol of ETN
To convert this to mols of gas per gram, take 212.8/302 = .7046 L g
mols of gas per gram for PETN = .780 L g

Temperature of explosion:
This is were things get interesting, and some guess work must be done. Temp of explosion is exactly what it sounds like. Te is the maximum temp which the products can reach under adiabatic conditions. In the following equations, whether a number is negative or not is paid not attention as there is no addition or subtraction of negative numbers and we know that temp of explosion will be positive. For this problem we use equation:
Te = Q/{Cv + Ti
Q = Heat of detonation that we figured out earlier, {Cv = Summation of specific heat capacities of the products, Ti = Initial temperature, which we will say is 0*C = 273K

The equation is then rearranged to Q = {Cv (Te - Ti)
This is done because heat capacities of the products change with temperature, making this equation difficult to work straight forward. So this is where we play the guessing game, more or less. We look at RDX frpm a different source and see that its Temp of explosion is 4186K. We can assume ETN will have a higher Te since our previously calculations on heat energy have been more than RDX. So we will guess 4500K and plug it into the equation. Note: This wasn't my first actual guess, it took me a few times...

First I will list the specific heat capacities of the products at 4500K:
CO2 = 50.43 J mol, H2 = 42.3 J mol, N2 = 27.154 J mol, 1/2 O2 = 21.056 J mol
To find {Cv, Multiply the given specific heats by the number of mols of gases from detonation. This will give you 403.984

Now subtract the Ti which we decided would be 273K from our guessed Te, 4500K.
4500 - 273 = 4227

Now we have the eqaution all set up:
Q4500K = 403.984(4227) = 1707640
This is in J mol, to convert it, multiply it by 1000 and get 1707.64 KJ mol. This is how we check ourselves. Earlier, we calculated that the heat of detonation for ETN was -1817.6 KJ mol, not 1707.64. This is how we know our guess is too low. So now we guess again.

This time we will try 5000K. Specific heats for products at 5000K are:
CO2 = 50.949 J mol, H2 = 43.137 J mol, N2 = 27.397 J mol, 1/2 O2 = 21.248 J mol
{Cv = 409.244
Te - Ti = 5000 - 273 = 4727
Q5000K = 409.244 (4727) = 1934520 J mol, or 1934.52 KJ mol

Now this guess is too high! This is where your graph drawing skillz come in to play. On your Y axis, you label Heat Liberated in KJ and on the X you have your Temp of explosion. Plot the calculations for 4500K and 5000K and draw a straight line through them. Then, plot on the Y axis the actual heat of detonation we calculated earlier, or 1817.6 KJ mol. Now draw a straight line from that point through the line you drew for the other two points. Where they intersect is your accurate Temp of explosion for ETN. Excel could prove helpful, but I'm not fluent in excel, so I had to draw it out.

I put it at approx. 4721.25K = Te. I havn't calculated the Temp of explosion for PETN yet, but RDX, as mentioned early is 4186K, exceeded greatly by ETN. Remember that these measurements are approximate, as not all enviornmental factors are being accounted for.

Power index and explosive power
Now lastly, in a comparison to other explosive, we can produce a power index and explosive power. Explosive power is the heat of explosion multiplied by gas output in mols per kilogram of explosive and then divided by 10.

Explosive power = 6018.54KJ Kg-1 (.7046) / 10 = 424.06

Explosive index is this value multiplied by the explosive power of a standard. In this case, we will use TNT as the standard, which has the explosive power at 314.3.

So we take 424.06/314.3 (100) = 134.9% for ETN compared to TNT. Some other explosives are listed below. This is where ETN loses out, as it doesn't have a very impressive gas output. There are other ways to compare explosives power that include VoD, but this is a simple way to do it.
PETN = 143.7%, RDX = 145%, NG = 145.8%

VoD Calculations:
One misconception I see commonly is the thought that an explosives VoD is constant regardless of diameter or density. This is Very false. I am not aware of the equations for the effects of diameter, but I can tell you that all homogenous explosives have a critical diameter and the smaller it gets, the lower the VoD. The following equations are based on density alone and assume perfect diameter.

Vp1 = Vp2 +3500 (p1 - p2)
V 1 and 2 are the VoDs for densities p 1 and 2 respectively. 3500 is a constant.

Lets try PETN for example. VoD of 8400 m/sec at max density of 1.77 g/cm3. A density of this amount could probably only be reached through professional means (eg hydrolic press). So lets see what happens when the home chemist presses his to 1.2 g/cm3

8400 = x +3500 (1.77 - 1.2)

8400 = x + 1995
x = 8400 -1995 = 6405 m/sec

:o Thats a big difference! Not exactly disappointing, but definitely makes a substantial drop in VoD. This can be applied to ETN, which is rumored to have a VoD of approx. 8000 m/sec. The following equation can be used to find approx. VoD, but I can't seem to figure it out. Let me know if you can!

Vpx = 430 (nTd)1/2 + 3500(px - 1)
Here, V is the VoD of a given density p, n is number of mols per gram of gas produced and T is temp in kelvin at which the detonation occurs. Good luck!


Last notes
One more point I'd like to make: For those of you having troubles with ETN yields, my advice is temp control is everything! Last night I had a dream of mixing 50g ammonium nitrate with 100mL sulfuric acid, never exceeding 20* C. The reason for this can be seen in [list]
this article here (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=992&d=1190786433"). In short, past a certain temperature, sulfuric acid stops reacting with ammonium nitrate to produce nitric acid and NOx fumes and other unwanted products are produced instead. The temp listed is 30* if I remember correctly. So anyway, I allowed the mix to cool to 10*C and then slowly added my 16g of erythritol at about 1-2g per minute. The temp never went above 12* and after adding all the erythritol, I let it nitrate for an additional 20 minutes.

The mixture at this point is thick like honey with ETN crystals and is dumped into distilled water, filtered, washed with bicarb, rinsed with distilled water, washed again in bicarb, and again rinsed. pH is tested with litmus and washing continues until it is at 7 pH. I havn't measured my dry product yet, but I'm guessing it will be around 24g if not more.

I recall in my first trial runs with ETN, I got shitty yields. I attribute this to being impatient with my nitration and letting the temperature get too hot during both the nitrate addition and the erythritol addition. Lack of nitric acid and excessive heat will MURDER your yield. I would get pissed because I would get such crappy yields. After a certain temperature, probably 20*C, the mix will no longer nitrate the erythritol, but will dehydrate and destroy it instead. I see many other people making this same mistake. So point being: Be patient, use proper cooling equpment (eg ice/salt bath), stay in the correct temperature range, and be safe. Oh yeah, I also took a picture in my dream of the yield, which I will post later.

So I hope this information is helpful in comparing ETN with other explosives. If you have any criticism or ideas, please feel free. To sum it all up:

ETN info:
Heat of detonation: -1817.6 KJ mol
Heat of explosion: -6018.54 KJ Kg
Volume of gas produced: .7046 mol g
Temperature of explosion (approx): 4721.25K
Power index in comparison to TNT: 134.7%

[Charles Owlen Picket]

Well done. I'm copying this to plug some of it in with some of my material; I hope you don't mind...

TTBoMK ETN has bested some speed of samples of MHN. I am trying to find some of my stuff from DuPont to either post (if I can rip it from scans & PDF's) or just Email you. Remember that the figures we get for PETN are optimum crystals, manufactured under the best conditions. I would work long and hard to see an optimized ETN crystal with equal density influences.

I am now convinced that the re-crystallization element has a great deal of influence in ETN's performance. If ethanol is used the results appear to be astounding. A microscope reveals that the crystal shape is influenced not only by the solvent but by the temp of that solvent cooling. IF the solvent is allowed to cool on it's own and reach room temp with no outside influence....one or two structures may occur. -> IF the solvent is thrust into a refrigerated environment: we have a much more well formed crystal that had MUCH greater density. The density factor has more impact on the performance of the product than I had originally thought.

[Deceitful_Frank]

Ok I have 28 grams of ETN recrystalized from ethanol in the form of course whole and broken needles, 50ml of dry and clear methyl ricinoleate, 10w40 motor oil and just over 3 grams of pure beige PIB extracted with coleman gas from self amalgamating tape, precipitated with acetone, chopped to fine granules and dried thoroughly. All the ingredients for an excellent plastique :D

I would however like some advice from the more knowledgable visitors to this forum concerning the "safe" grinding of ETN. I want to achieve a particle size approaching that of bread flour, not dissimilar to that of my freshly crashed out ETN before the essential recrystalization. I have made plastique of excellent texture in the past using unrecrystalized ETN but storage properties were terrible and with an abundance of lower nitrates, power was surely below par!

I am proposing grinding my ETN wet in a pestle and mortar in "small" batches wearing lab goggles, ear defenders and leather gauntlets. I figure that adding 50% the mass of water would be enough to saturate the granules whilst keeping the whole deal in one place and that much more water added after saturation would make little difference to the friction sensitivity?

Now what I would like from you guys is an idea of how much I should grind in each batch. Obviously its gonna take four times as long to grind it all in one gram amounts than in four gram amounts. Should I play it extra safe and just do 100mg at a time... Hmmm could take quite a while!

As always any thoughts, constructive critisism or indeed other ideas to acheive the same end would be welcome

I know a guy that did this with PETN a few grams at a time and I'm not sure he used any protective wear. What do you people reckon?

[Charles Owlen Picket]

Realistically, you'll just have several pops when you start your grinding. You know how to make a good product, Frank. & good quality ETN will pop on you from grinding. Perhaps not at first but once you actually start to reduce it in size; it will blow....It's entirely too dangerous. Even nitioamines are rarely ground. Don't do it that way.

You don't need the motor oil. The patent made mention of motor oil but what was not known was that the oil needed was a synthetic pump oil; not the organic petroleum. If indeed you want to stick to the letter of the law with patent info use a synthetic pump oil. But even synthetic motor oil would be better than the organic automobile grade.....There is a very solid reasoning for this.

Absolute dryness will allow PETN needles to shave themselves. ETN however retains water from the ethanol and the shaving process appears difficult. In Eastern European factories they don't use shaving (or actual grinding) methods. They re-crystallize with a clashing of temperatures to achieve a very fine product.

Therefore my personal suggestion is to re-crystallize again keeping you etoh as hot & the water as near ice. You should get a damn fine particulate. With an ETN plastique, keep in mind two things.....first that the product will be sensitive as all get out. (Caution with a capital "C"). And second that the level of binder should not exceed 15%. The standard with PETN is twice that but the coating of the particulate (in ETN materials) with binder makes for "spotty" detonations.

[Rbick]

Whilst reading my "Chemistry of Powder and Explosives", I found a table of binders used with PETN. I noticed that Silicone Rubber was used alone with PETN and made a reasonably mouldable mass. I was able to buy a 20oz tube of 100% Silicone Rubber for 5 dollars at K-mart.

I have yet to try it, but I just need to find some time where I can do it. If it does in fact work, it would prove to be an easily attainable and cheap plasticizer. While Frank's procedure for extracting PIB is impressive, just buying it for 5 dollars would save time and money. I'll let you guys know how it goes tonight or tomorrow.

Frank: I'm exciting to see your final product :)

[Deceitful_Frank]

Yes ETN does indeed crackle when ground roughly in milligram quantities in a pestle and mortar but I was proposing grinding it WET. Even so you are probably right thats its just not worth the risk. I may try it with PETN in the future as others have had success. With ETN I will scrap that idea for now.

So far as I am aware motor oil is added to plastic explosive blends to help the ricinoleate combine with the rubber. I gather that without a small amount of oil the PIB can precipitate out of the mix when the solvent has evaporated... obviously not ideal! I will stick with the ricinoleate/motor oil blend for now.

On the subject of crystal shaving, I am not totally familiar with this process but I'd guess that when the solvent is completely evaporated the plastisizer-lean plastique is rolled under pressure to remove trapped air. This is continued to cause the crystals of nitrated polyol to rub together and round off their edges, the rubbed off fragments acting as a second particle size fraction filling the spaces between the larger crystals thereby increasing bulk density of the active ingredient. As rolling is continued the mass turns from being a barely cohesive crumbly powder to a stiff coherent mass. At this point you add the remainder of plastisizer to bring it up to your target mass and make it really pliable.

I wont be practicing this technique with ETN as I feel it would either be too time consuming or too dangerous. After having 9 grams go off just seven metres from my ears and losing my hearing for a FULL minute I have a new found respect for the power and loudness of ETN and its ability to ruin my day. It would take me all day to roll out the plastique in 100mg lumps and even then at arms length it would be eight times as loud as those 9 grams were. The penalty for failure is just too severe.

With no PETN made and without crystal shaving I will again try a plastique with 30% inerts. I am sure it can be initiated if I add a base charge of pure ETN to the HMTD primary.

Ok... 5 ice cubes, each containing 2 grams of ETN where defrosted overnight on a large filter paper and pressed touch dry with tissue. After 5 months in the freezer the ETN was still a light beige colour. The ETN was placed into a 250ml glass bottle and 30ml of pure methanol poured over (No pure ethanol left). Little dissolution was observed.

The bottle was tightly sealed and held under running water at 50*C for a couple of minutes, the ETN quickly dissolved forming an attractive red clear solution. 150ml of icy water was then quickly poured into the bottle, instantly forming a white suspension of fine particles. The precipitate was filtered, is now drying and does not seem at this stage to have formed those annoying needles, it is also white as a ginger girl's ass...:D

[Yafmot]

Please correct me if I'm full of shit, but couldn't you just mix a little Bicarb in with the binder? Then you could use freshly crashed, ultrafine crystals as is, and any acids that came along for the ride, or formed later, would be neutralized.

After all, the whole Idea of recrystallization is to eliminate impurities but, when you think about it, aren't binders and plasticizers a kind of impurity too?

Regardless of whether this particular theory has any validity, I would like to suggest Mineral Oil for the binder, and Polybutadiene for the plasticizer. The latter can be found in the Yellow Pages under "Rubber," and the former can be found in any drug store. Mineral oil is dirt cheap, and polybutadiene monomer, undercatalized, is unbelieveably sticky, so it wouldn't take much to do the job. You could still keep the adulterants way below 30%.

Am I onto something, or should I switch to decaf?

[Deceitful_Frank]

Result! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OFjO3vHzlg

Will post method and details soon.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

What are the percentages? It appears too soft to retain shape in cone molds. I don't want to be a wet blanket however. It seems basically fine: however, plasticized energetics are a true favourite of mine... It's just that the material I tend to think of as ideal is pretty damn hard until you warm it with hand or sunshine and it will not ever break apart by thumb pressure (much like very fine oil based clay). Mil=spec is like a hard block until the user warms it up for a lengthy period and it will press between the fingers without cracking till nearly 2mm thick.

I have some techniques for getting that consistency.. First of all the mix is not accomplished all at one but over days or weeks. second synthetic oil is used within the ricinoleate (as part of it) and the whole is exposed to heavy glass rollers....Gently, of course; but for a great deal of time. That way the result is a very homogeneous, heavy, dense clay-like material that is stiff until quite warm but will retain it's shape VERY well.

[Deceitful_Frank]

70% ETN 8% PIB about 12% ricinoleate with the balance being the last fractions of the coleman gasoline that didn't evaporate once target mass was reached. Your idea for recrystalizing with a clash of temperatures worked a treat with a precipitate as fine if not finer than bread flour and of various sized particles with no particular shape.

Indeed it was a little on the soft side. Great to play with but maybe contained a slightly unnecessarily high quantity of inerts. Density was measured at a half decent 1.3g/cc.

On manipulation however some of the plastisizer does tend to coat the skin... not visibly but ricinoleate can be smelt on the fingers milligrams lost on the scale. After sitting wrapped in a coffee filter for 2 hours it had stained the paper, become more stiff and less play-doh like. I would think the composition has altered towards 75% ETN and 25% inerts with a small loss in mass. I retested the density by filling two identical plastic tubes one with the plastique, the other with water and got a higher figure of 1.35g/cc. I feel that with careful loading and treaking of ratios my target density of 1.4g/cc could easily be reached. I will aim for 75/25 with my remaining 16grams of ETN saving the last 2 for blasting caps

Behold this perfect spun stainless steel cone of 0.2mm thickness. Could be a little on the thin side as a liner and with a fairly acute inside apex of 28 degress but I am hoping for SOME penetration. Watch this space...

EDIT:

Just to be clear, that is the METRIC side of the steel rule! Oh and after three hours the lump of plastique's texture has become a fair bit dryer though it does feel more dence in the hand. At this stage it will need to be contained as its not realy resiliant enough to form its own charge casing. I could add some more plastisizer to take the mass back up again and return it to 70/30 and that "hollywood" C4 feel but for the purpose of filling a shaped charge (getting maximum amount of ETN into said space) I think it will be just fine :)