RDX by E-Synthesis

[stanfield]

I'll get in few day (I hope) paraformaldehyde and acetic anhydre...
When I read the Megalomania's synthesis, it said : "Heat the beaker to 90 °C and remove the source of heat. Very slowly add 38 g of paraformaldehyde to the beaker, this addition will release toxic and flammable fumes, use a fume hood or go to an open area." OK but, when I'll add the para, what Temperature must be ? always 90°C ? 80°C ? no important ?

[green beret]

Once you heat it to 90 degrees you remove the heat source. That means that the temperature is supposed to and will go down after the heat source is removed. It's not that hard to figure out.

[tvs17]

I've never tried this proces so I can't help you. But I'll have a look in some literature for you if I can find something.

Green Beret: Did you think at the possibility that the temperature could RISE when this guy is ADDING the paraformaldehyde?

[tvs17]

I would suggest you do a search. I realise this topic has been discussed deeply. Here's one topic on the E-process:

http://theforum.virtualave.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000115.html

[stanfield]

tvs17, I don't found my answer in this topic

green beret : I think it's you you don't understand me : when you heat your solution to 90°C, WHEN must you add the para ? immediately after ? in 1 day/week/month/year, at which temperature ? I think temperature musn't be allowed to rise 90°C so, that's the reason of my question...

and, could you give me the equation of the reaction plz ?

any reply is more than appreciated http://theforum.virtualave.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif

[Hex]

It takes a brave man to write an equation for the formation of RDX. Don't take things like
(CH2)6N4 + 4HNO3 ->(CH2NNO2)3 + 3CH2O + NH4NO3

too literally.

At very best, this could be described as a rough overview. Nitration of hexamine (and you're creating hexamine in situ in this reaction) is a very complex process, and in every method there are probably several competing pathways which result in RDX. This process has been studied in the minutest detail over the years, so if you've got the chemicals, I'd just stick to a book recipe - you can bet it was optimised to the max between '40 and '45.

[Mr Cool]

No, that equation for the production of RDX shouldn't be taken too literally.
The Swedish Informania files have some more detail on the intermediates formed in the reaction but with fairly large, organic molecules like hexamine there will be lots of other reactions, making RDX, HMX and other things which are not useful...

[bonnsgeo]

hi all !

i think i have successfully made rdx by the process AN/paraformaldehyde/anhydride acetic. (E process)

i did that: (AN/anhydride acetic and para i used are NOT self-made but bought in laboratory !)

1)in an erlenmeyer (of 500 ml) i placed 26 ml of anhydride acetic
2)i heated the acetic at 40 degres celsius (in boiling water)
3) i added 10 grams of AN and i mixed them as better i could. (AN doesnt dissolve, its normal)
4) then i heated the mix at 90 degres celsius.
5) i let it 3 minutes. (at 90 degres; the next steps are always made at 90 degres)
6) then i added 1/3 or 1/2 teaspoon of paraformaldehyde.
i saw that temperature always rise when i add my para.
i waited everytime 2 minutes between to put again para in the mix.
(totally i added 3.8 g of para ..its not very precise 'cause my scale just give an integer weight) :(
7)when i aded the last teaspoon of para the mix was a little white and i saw that almost all the AN have diseapeared.
(more i add the para, more the AN vanish)
8)i let it at 90 degres for 2 minutes
9)then i let it to cool at room temperature.
10) when it was at 25 degre i put the erlenmeyer in a ice + water bath. the tempearature was at 15 degres after 15 minutes.
11) then i added 480 ml of water (at 20 degres), the erlen was full. (i saw lot of crystals formed :) )
12) i put in fridge,i waited, and i filtered when the mix was at 10 degres.
13) now my crystals are drying in the open air.

i know its not para because its not like corn flour (para is like corn flour), the cristals are very hard to describe..its like sugar crystals but more little..;
its not para because there is more crystal weight than para.
and i know its not AN because of the water i added dissolved it (AN love water; everybody know that).

so .. i think its RDX !! (with HMX inside :) )
i ll test with acetone when it will be dry.
i know para dont dissolve in acetone ..rdx do it !

its cool if its rdx because i did this reaction a lot of times before ! and it never worked ! (i did nt have any scale or
instrument to mesure volume, i did it with my "feeling" ! loool ! i was stupid !)

<a href="http://rdxmaster.free.fr/Image21.jpg" target="_blank">http://rdxmaster.free.fr/Image21.jpg</a> to see the erlen at the end of reaction

<a href="http://rdxmaster.free.fr/Image22.jpg" target="_blank">http://rdxmaster.free.fr/Image22.jpg</a> to see the erlen after i added the 480 ml water, if u look well we can imagine the crystals at the top of the solution

<a href="http://rdxmaster.free.fr/Image23.jpg" target="_blank">http://rdxmaster.free.fr/Image23.jpg</a> to see the crystals i filtered.
bye
i ll post my test with acetone.
(i hope you ll understand what i wrote ! sorry for my english)

<small>[ August 12, 2002, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: bonnsgeo ]</small>

[bonnsgeo]

coool ! the powder dissolve in acetone !
i take some powder (not dry for the moment) , 0.3 g i think (very few amount) and i added some acetone,6 or 7 ml (approximatively) i stir 5 seconds and it dissolves.

but when i added water to recrisallize nothing appear ..strange !
maybe it was a too little amount of rdx.

i tried again to dissolve paraformaldehyde in acetone : impossible !

bye
do u know an other test to verify if its rdx ? (maybe to put in fire :) )

edit:
i just put my "rdx" in fire , it burns ! :)

<small>[ August 12, 2002, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: bonnsgeo ]</small>

[Mr Cool]

Just put some in a cap or do whatever it is that you want to do with RDX. If it is RDX and it goes off then great, if it isn't RDX then you haven't lost anything except a useless by-product.
Although I expect it is RDX.

[bonnsgeo]

yes.
i ll press my "rdx" in a tube (pvc) then i ll press some petn on it then i ll put a AP detonator. i hope the petn will react like a booster to detonate the "rdx" cause i think AP isnt enough powerful to detonate rdx.

bye

[Madog555]

you definately dont need a booster for RDX. it is less sensitive than PETN but not a whole lot less. PETN is realy sensitive. i use it as a booster in my caps and i only need a .22 of AP for the primary. you shouldnt have any problems detonateing RDX with AP.

[bonnsgeo]

ok !
i believe u !
i ll see :) but i prefer to be sure of the force of detonation because i ll put all my "rdx" in one time to test. :rolleyes:

bye

<small>[ August 12, 2002, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: bonnsgeo ]</small>

[Richy]

Forgive me if this is a crap n00bie question (If its a crap "n00bie" question, then WTF is it doing here?), but i have currently been looking into household manufacture of Nitroglycerin and RDX. I've read some of the synthesis on Alen's pages, and I was curious to know, which of the two is most powerful? I know that RDX has a higher detonation velocity over the NG, but it would appear that the NG is a more viscous (thicker) substance. What sort of impact does viscosity have on explosives? If i pack RDX very tightly into a tube, what effect would this have on the chemical and the combustion of the chemical?(RDX does combust, but you want it to detonate-more basic knowledge - READ before you post) Again, sorry. I'm new and hungry for knowledge. (Interesting that, because there are many good websites such as Mega's that tell you what you need to know. I suggest you check them out-why haven't you already done this?)

<small>[ August 24, 2002, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: zaibatsu ]</small>

[stanfield]

don't bother you anymore, RDX is definitively more powerfull than Nitroglycerin :)

[bonnsgeo]

hmmm ... not sure ...
the VoD is higher for RDX but the "cup" (coefficent d'utilisation pratique = practical use coefficent : translated from a french book ..so ...) is really really higher for NG.

VOD
PA: 7645 m/s
rdx: 8520 m/s
NG: 7700 m/s

CUP
PA: 100 (definition of cup)
rdx: 135
NG: 160

bye

[Richy]

thanks for that people. i was wondering if it was really worth one of those "nitro headaches" i've heard about. can they be prevented with a proper respirator? and also, where do you think i could pick up the ingredients for RDX? :confused:

[bonnsgeo]

search on the forum !
methenamine (hexamine) = fuel tablets for campers.
and u need nitric acid at 99%, you have to do it yourself.
u can also use anhydride acetic + paraformaldehyde + AN ... but para and anhdyride are hard to find.
bye

<small>[ August 25, 2002, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: bonnsgeo ]</small>

[Richy]

In response to zaibatsu's editing, i figured that i could gain a little more insight on the forum than just off other websites, since there are those with explosives experience, who can actually reply and give their personal opinions on the matter. i'm not at all doubting the experience of mega or others, but i figured that a wide range of experiences would be more beneficial. such as bonnsgeo's "C.U.P" for example. also, i have checked other sites regarding explosives synthesis: i quote myself "alen's pages"! as well as megalomania's. and as for your "combust" and "detonate" argument, the detonation of a chemical is in fact a rapid combustion, one that releases hot gas at a high speed- which is the definition of an explosion. i can understand if you're annoyed with just another n00bie and thanks for the advice, but there's no need to be overly-critical of me, zaibatsu. i just figured that you guys could casually help me out.

[kingspaz]

richy, detonation and deflagration are two distinctly different things. check page 3 of 'chemistry of powder and explosives' by Tenney L. Davis. i'm sure there are plenty of other sources out there. i only chose this one because its right next to me. don't dare reply to this. lets get this back on topic, RDX by E synthesis.

<small>[ August 25, 2002, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: kingspaz ]</small>