HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mordes@b30.ingr.com (Tony Mordeszewski)
Subject: Re: Flash (was Re: Ammonium Nitrate)
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:30:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.190551.1487@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>rubin@skiing.cis.ohio-state.edu (Daniel Rubin) writes:
>: >:    M80s,
>: >I don't recall for sure - about 5 grams?
>: I have heard that there was 2 grams in M80s, but that was about 6 months ago
>: from an article from this groups and I have no clue how accurate the source
>: is...
>Yeah. I have the same problem. Since I do not use them, I don't know what
>they contain. However, 2 - 5 grams is in the right range.
>: >Bill

I don't have hemoroids but I know someone who has...
Ya all are asking the wrong question. This is what you need to know.
A conventional M80; How big is the tube? When I was about 15 years old
my neighbor came from boot camp where they had cannon practice. He had 
a device that was red in color, outside diameter of a fusee (approx)
and had writing on it. -M80- Is M80 a military spec? Does 80 represent
grains? 15 grains = 1 gram. The story was that they 
would dump these things out of a gunny sack down the barel of a cannon 
to simulate cannon fire. I don't know...
Once you find out what the real size of an authentic M80, 1/4 stick, etc
then you can calculate the weight based on volume. There was an 
article in AFN written by Monte Whitlock (sp). He places 50 grams of flash
in a 3'' salute then adds 6 grams of rice hulls so it doesn't cake up.
4 oz of flash is very wastfull...
This guy showed up at the ground bomb area at Idaho Falls with one of those
military ammo boxes that some use as lunch boxes. You know the size.
He opens up the box and inside is a short version of a 4'' paper mortar tube 
about a foot long. He said it was FULL of flash. It deffinitely raised
a few ibrows. It had the fuse in the middle, 6" of green visco! The little
Hoss of ground bombs. It was somewhat impressive. Made a lot of smoke.
But I'll tell ya what. I could have made twice as much noise and less smoke
by making two ground bombs the same size half full of flash .
Later...
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Oxy-acetylene
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:56:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <92324.233540DEY101@psuvm.psu.edu> <DEY101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> However since the OxAc mix is rather unstable under pressure it might
> be more advantageous to just use the trash bag.

Be aware, however, that oxygen-acetylene mixtures are static
sensitive, and most trash bags are prone to static charges.
Someone a few months ago described a trash bag detonating
on him while he was filling it.

Caveat detonator.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | It was a typical net.exercise -- a screaming
mvp@netcom.com         | mob pounding on a greasy spot on the pavement,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com      | where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse.
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: umcormi5@ccu.umanitoba.ca (John Cormier)
Subject: Re: capacitor discharge initiation
Keywords: capacitor discharge initiation
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:48:02 GMT

In <u926135.722091269@tasman> u926135@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Adrian Hassall Lewis) writes:

>I was looking over some old posts that I'd saved and found this -

>[...]
>>	Because PE is soo dangerous, it is not used in application where an 
>>	accident would be catastrophic, such as for nuclear weapons. Instead 
>>	high energy capacitor discharge initiation of a secondary explosive 
>>	is employed (in these applications timing of the initiation is also
>>	highly critical).
>>
>>	Please be careful if using any high explosive,
>>
>>	Mark.

>As I'm not sure who "Mark" is, I'm asking the net -
>	Exactly what are capacity discharge detonators?
>	How do they work?
>	Can anyone point me to any refrences?

>Any help greatly appreciated.

>		ajax

>Adrian.Lewis@iasos.utas.edu.au


Well,  I wonder if you could go with a spark plug system from a car. 
Would that create enough of a shockwave.  I don't know.  You have the coil and
everything with it.  Just a suggestion.
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Subject: Re: Small Fireworks display
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:11:43 GMT

>umwieb80@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Alexander David Wiebe) writes:
>: 
>: this is as good a time as any to practice constructing and 'detonating' (correct
>: term ?) pyrotechnical displays (like nifty coloured flames, sparks, etc).
	Seems like an opportune time to repost my minifaq for the serious
	fireworker:

Pyrotechnics Guild International, Inc is a non-profit organization of
professional and amateur fireworks enthusiasts: builders, shooters & watchers.

Membership includes a quarterly journal and an annual convention.

For membership information, contact:

	PGI
	Ed Vanasek
	18021 Baseline Ave
	Jordan, MN
	55352

	You need either three reccomendations from random people or one
	reccomendation from a PGI member.  Dues are $25., US.

Another newsletter is American Fireworks News, monthly, miscellaneous news,
technical articles, ads, $19.95/yr.

	AFN
	Star Rt Box 30
	Dingmans Ferry, PA
	18328

See you in Fargo...

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass		01775	pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
From: crt@otter.hpl.hp.com (Craig Thompson)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:07:41 GMT
Subject: Gelamex?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics



Hi,
  I'm new to this group, so no flames please.  

A friend has started a job with a civil engineering firm who specialise in 
excavation/tunneling work.  They tend to do a lot of blasting, using something
called 'Gelamex'.  Anyone know anything about it?  The company are 
understandably terse with any information.  But from what I gather it is 
pliable, comes in six inch sticks, and is extremely powerful.


Any Ideas?

Craig.

==================================================================
Craig Thompson             	|  Phone: (0272) 228786
Hewlett-Packard Labs    	|  crt@hpl.hp.co.uk
Bristol                       	|  crt@hplb.hpl.hp.com
U.K.                          	|  Craig Thompson / hpl,bristol
==================================================================
Disclaimer:  Who me?  Nah.             
==================================================================
From: rtaraz@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Ramin Taraz)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Detonation vs. deflagration
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:54:03 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au's message of Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:42:07 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:42:07 GMT, fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) said:


fernee> burn.  These substances can however be made to detonate if a
fernee> sufficient shock is applied. In this use nitrocellulose (>13%
fernee> N) has been used as the explosive charge in shells used in
fernee> applications where the base charge needs to be relatively
fernee> insensitive to shock. Nitrocellulose is one of the most stable
fernee> single component explosives known, so much so that it can't be
fernee> initiated with a high power rifle bullet.  

Can C4 be?
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: umcormi5@ccu.umanitoba.ca (John Cormier)
Subject: Re: So ya wanna die?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:56:05 GMT

Could you give the name of the book you lost?  I am currently building a
tennis ball cannon out of custom shaped muffler tubing (2.5" dia) and a
200cc motorcycle cylinder and overhead cam shaft assembly.  I plan on
including a saran wrap membrane to pressurize my propane-oxygen fuel.  I
would like to figure out how to optimize my barrel length.

	I would appreciate the name of the book.  I can proably find it
somewhere in the world.  Well, if I do find it and if you want another
copy I'll be more than glad to send you one or tell you where you can find it.

Thanks.
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Oxyacetylene torch?
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:46:55 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <3Nw9TB2w165w@cyberden.uucp>, rdicker@cyberden.uucp writes...
>Hardware for about $50.  An extra $10 and I can get something called Mapp 
>Gass, which is mostly Acetylene.

Not acetylene, but MAPP gas has a related compound Methylacetylene.  This is
stable enough to be compressed into one of those bottles under high pressure,
acetylene is not.  BTW, MAPP is Methylacetylene Propadiene P<mumble>.
                                -     -         -          -

-Mike
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Subject: Re: Detonation vs. deflagration
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:42:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.064551.29094@u.washington.edu>, biffs@shelley.u.washington.edu (Randolf Smith) writes:
|> I was wondering what smokeless powder does--detonate or deflagrate?  I know
|> that black powder can only burn, not detonate.  Flash powder can do either,
|> depending on circumstances.  Nitroglycerin apparently can only detonate.  
|>     I would think that they couldn't confine a detonating substance (in a gun),
|> but from the warnings about exchanging black powder and gun powder, and the
|> existance of "double-based" powder, it's tough to tell what happens.  Oh, that
|> and gun powder being nitrocellulose, where most (from what I can tell from 
|> this group) nitrated things detonate.
|>     So what is it--really fast deflagration or weak detonation?
|> 	-Randy Smith

If used as a propellent in munitions, smokeless powders merely burn.
These substances can however be made to detonate if a sufficient shock
is applied. In this use nitrocellulose (>13% N) has been used as the
explosive charge in shells used in applications where the base charge 
needs to be relatively insensitive to shock. Nitrocellulose is one of 
the most stable single component explosives known, so much so that it 
can't be initiated with a high power rifle bullet. 
	I have no knowledge of nitrocellulose being able to make the
deflagration to detonation transition (DDT), and it certainly doesn't 
do this in small amounts, such as found in small arms. Double base powders
are more sensitive to shock initiated detonation, and are reportedly
cap sensitive, however they still need adequate confinement.
	Many nitrated compounds are barely flammable. Nitroglycerin
does burn slowly, with a reportedly blue flame. Explosives such as 
RDX and PETN are quite difficult to ignite and do not make the DDT.
However, at elevated temperatures, these explosives are very unstable
and are more easily shock detonated. 
	I believe the problems with interchanging smokeless powder (SP)
and black powder (BP) lies in the vastly different chamber pressures that
are developed by these substances. This is inturn related to the burn
rate. I haven't seen any data on this, but I believe that SP have a 
burn rate that increases markedly with pressure, whereas BP burn rate
seems to be somewhat less dependent on pressure.

Does anyone have the burn rate vs pressure data for BP and some SPs (bill?)

Mark.
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: capacitor discharge initiation
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:01:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvaac.1992Nov18.170126.4134
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

u926135@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Adrian Hassall Lewis) writes:
: 
: >	Because PE is soo dangerous, it is not used in application where an 
: >	accident would be catastrophic, such as for nuclear weapons. Instead 
: >	high energy capacitor discharge initiation of a secondary explosive 
: >	is employed (in these applications timing of the initiation is also
: >	highly critical).
: >
: >	Please be careful if using any high explosive,
: >
: >	Mark.
: 
: As I'm not sure who "Mark" is, I'm asking the net -
: 	Exactly what are capacity discharge detonators?
: 	How do they work?
: 	Can anyone point me to any refrences?

The idea is to avoid the sensitive detonators which contain primary
explosives. That means initiating the secondary explosive directly.

If I read the posting correctly, it probably referred to the initiation
of an explosive by using exploding wires.  In other words, a very high
current is passed through a wire - the wire explodes, providing the heat
and shock needed to initiate some secondary explosives.

I do not recall the references, offhand. If you have access to PATR 2700
from Picatinny Arsenal, they have abstracts of various detonator systems.
Other than that, you can look for information in your local college or
university library - under such titles as "High Energy Materials" or
"Energetic Materials".

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: beck@irzr17.inf.tu-dresden.de (Andre Beck)
Subject: Re: soldier puts M80 in grenade launcher (was Re: A "Dry Ice Bomb" Mortar)
Reply-To: beck@freia.inf.tu-dresden.de
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, TU Dresden, Germany.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:37:13 GMT


In article <25321@megatest.UUCP>, rich@megatest.UUCP (Rich Feldman) writes:

>> Okay, I forgot to state that this was done JUST for FUN :)
>> The real grenades (I never have seen one ... thanx god :) are driven by
>> a 80 gramm baseload of Black Powder ... Of course flash would destroy 
>> the grenade before lift off, if used this way. ...

>	I wonder how coarsely grained is the BP?

>> But you may know, at the army, one can become somewhat silly. And so,
>> one another day of exercise exercise exercise one had the idea of simply
>> putting a lighted cracker into the throwers pipe and putting the
>exercise
>> grenade on it... surprised by the effect.

>	What fun!  But you say a real grenade would not withstand launching 
>by flash powder; did you guys consider that a real grenade thrower
>might not 
>like it either?  If the practice grenade flew 400 meters, I wonder if
>you 
>came close to an even more surprising effect?  Of course it was smart
>not
>to use an 80 gram cracker! :-)  

The difference was, at our "experiment" the exercise grenade sit on top
of the cracker in the launcher's pipe, so the flash may not cause damage
to their corpus. The real grenades look like this:

                 ^        Detonator
                / \
               /   \
              (-----)     Corpus
              (-----)
               \   /
                |-|        Neck
              ,-| |-.
              | ||| |     Wings
              `--.--'       Cap


The problem is, they have to go off on simply launching them to the pipe,
so the baseload must be in the grenade. Its located in the neck, a steel
pipe with some holes all around, and its igniter cap is on the bottom.
If the grenades is put to the launcher, it slides down and hit's a bolt
which lets it start. My thought was, that flash would very likely destroy
the steel pipe if placed therein.
To get more power, some packs of smokeless powder are somehow connected
to the neck of the grenade (they may be donuts to tie them around the neck
or packs to put them between the wings).

--
,------------------------+---------------------------------------------.
| Andre' Beck (ABPSoft)  |   TCP/IP-Mail: beck@freia.inf.tu-dresden.de |
| HG R 142               |   VMS        : hermes::beck                 |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
|       Windows is the best placebo against MS-DOOF headaches !        |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'

Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Detonation vs. deflagration
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:55:40 GMT

fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:

: 	I believe the problems with interchanging smokeless powder (SP)
: and black powder (BP) lies in the vastly different chamber pressures that
: are developed by these substances. This is inturn related to the burn
: rate. I haven't seen any data on this, but I believe that SP have a 
: burn rate that increases markedly with pressure, whereas BP burn rate
: seems to be somewhat less dependent on pressure.

Yes. SP burns very poorly at low pressures. BP does much better, that is
why we use it in pyrotechnic mortars.

: Does anyone have the burn rate vs pressure data for BP and some SPs (bill?)

I will have to check. I have some information - like maybe at atmospheric 
pressure and in a vacuum. There are many variables that would affect the
burn rate. 

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: buda@star.enet.dec.com (Mark A. Buda)
Subject: Re: Even pros mess up
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:02:58 GMT


In article <1992Nov19.181035.12177@engage.pko.dec.com>, pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson) writes...
>>a) what is this debris (it was claimed to have come from the fireworks
>>seeing as how the people were actually down wind from the display due to
>>an unexpected change in wind direction)?
>	Typically most of what drifts down is partially burnt paper from the
>	shells.  The comp burns, unless there is a complete dud.  The products
>	of combustion are gaseous, mostly, with the remainder drifting off as
>	"smoke".

Many stars do not burn 100% into gas, has been my expierence.  There seems to be
some crusty material (Carbon/Sulphide, etc.) left over.  I have never
spent the time to analyze it.

	- mark

buda@star.enet.dec.com
...!decwrl!star.enet.dec.com!buda
buda%star.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: L630614@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: re: nuke nuts
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:03:40 GMT

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------

Is 2,536,000 Lb of bang a nuke  ?
From: samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: nuke nuts
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:11:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: bucket.samw.722463092
Organization: Rick's Home-Grown Un*x

It appears that the nuke nuts are among us once again.  I've
been exerting great restraint, but I must get this off my
chest.  :-/

I walked away from a career in physics, at what turned out to
be great personal sacrifice, to get away from this stuff.
These things are not toys.  I've wanted to say this many times,
and now I'm going to:

        Go away Saddam.  You are not fooling anybody.

        :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)

The end.

--

samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden) -- and not a mere Device.
From: nds@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Neil Stevenson)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: explosive bullets
Date: 23 Nov 92 12:41:04 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

In article <y7nq1k-@lynx.unm.edu>, edith@triton.unm.edu (peter menning) writes:
> I do know about a scheme to make bullets explose when striking fleshy tissue.
<i think it is in Tbbom .. you acctually hollow out bullets and then fill them
 with water or mercury or some other non compressable fluid... When the bullet
 hits the mushroom cau> ses the fluid to compress and the bullet pops like 
popcorn.. and much mre safe then NG  
> 
> Edith@triton.unm.edu

What you are describing seems similar to dum-dum bullets, which also make quite a
mess.
From: rxy5310@hertz.njit.edu (Rolan Yang  Wasteland Engineer)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Even pros mess up
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:30:38 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

Every July 4'th the township rec. department gives a fireworks display
across the street from my house.  Plenty the debris falls all over
the place usually 1/4 inch or smaller pieces of burnt up
whatever (carbon??).  It's no worse than a small hail/ freezing
rain storm and I don't think their hazardous at all.
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: miolnir@stein.u.washington.edu (Scot Thorstad)
Subject: explosive bullets
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:37:12 GMT

A friend of mine said that he saw a documentary on PBS or Discovery
about a company that makes explosive bullets using nitroglycerine.
Supposedly the trick is getting ALL of the dead air space out from
around the nitro so it can't slosh around. If there's no sloshing 
the nitro experiences a constant acceleration, theoretically, and
doesn't explode in the barrel.  Then when it hits something, the
bullet breaks open and the nitro explodes.  I haven't had any
experience with nitro, and intend to keep it that way, since I 
like my body just the way it is, intact.  So, is this possible to do
on a commercial scale, and is the idea sound? If it's not possible
to do with nitro, is there some other explosive that would work
without a primer or other initiator? Don't worry, I don't intend
to try to build one.
scot
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Toliet Bowl Bomb Question
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:29:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov19.032915.7999
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

In article <1edvceINNdh5@male.EBay.Sun.COM> warriors@eb5ts4.EBay.Sun.COM (Dave Maycon) writes:
>I just want to start out saying that is my first time on this net, and alot
>of guys are a bunch of sick puppies, I admire that!  Now the question, when
>the foil is put in the 2 liter bottle, is the foil crumpled up in tight little
>balls, do they go there in this strips or do you just shove in the bottle
>until it is 1/4 filled.  And what name brand toilet bowl cleaner do you
>recommend, what works the best/least.  And would this bomb work in the
>big Avian water drinking bottles.  And lastly, if I were to stick glue all over
>the bottle and then added BBs, pelets and maybe razor blades to the bottle,
>can this be a shrapnel bomb.  
>
>Just curious Dave

Well, Dave, here goes.  For a quicker bomb, shredded foil is better.  If you
want more time to get away and cover your pointed head, crumple the foil into
dense sticks.  As for toilet bowl cleaner, I don't use it.  I like to use
SanyGen (sp?) Ph Down (muriatic acid) for my bombs.  Otherwise, The Works
Toilet Bowl Cleaner and Skin Layer Remover does well also.  Don't know about
Avian Water bottles, but anything that will not easily get a hole melted in it
will probably work.  BTW, since the plastic flies everywhere, so will anything
attached to the plastic, although the extra weight may slow down the flying
particles.  Why in the hell you would ever want to do that is beyond me
anyway, injuring others is not usually the point of fun, harmless (sic),
homemade explosives.  Having flying pieces of metal, especially sharp metal,
is not harmless fun, it is dangerous and perhaps is driven by a desire to maim
others.  If this is what you want, give me your FULL NAME, ADDRESS, and PHONE
NUMBER so I can be the first to collect the reward for leading the police to
your arrest.

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Spin with the archer now, and       
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  laugh in his face as he cocks his  
This University is too Commie-	|  bow....  -The Guess Who
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu