HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrise@wa4mei (Chris England)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Napalm
Keywords: Best way to cook
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:06:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amateur Radio Gateway WA4MEI, Chamblee, GA

In <1992Apr1.012809.26923@ctr.columbia.edu> asbarnes@pace1.cts.mtu.edu (The Artful Dodger) writes:



>>How do I mix the best Napalm. I want it as sticky as possible.
>>
>	I've heard dozens of different ways of making napalm. I haven't
>made any myself, but here's something a friend of mine said he used to
>do all the time:
>	Make Jello with gasoline instead of water, then put it in the
>freezer (the 'fridge isn't cold enough).
>	Be sure to let us know how well it works.

Try the following:

o  melt several candles, in a double boiler. (use your judgement on the 
   quantity of wax you need).

o  cobine the gasoline with the wax, in a seperate container.  
   the gasoline will cool the wax to a consistency resembling sterno.

Note:  This works.  I tested it, while participating in "demo" cross-training
       while in the Special Forces.  
-- 
<> Chris England               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<> Brock Control Systems      <> uucp: ...!gatech!emory!bcs800!chrise         <>
<> Atlanta, Georgia           <> internet: chrise%bcs800.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu<>
<> tel: +800 444 3070         <> USPA B-14940, Renegade 9 cell                <>
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: smithrs@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SMITH  RANDALL SCOTT)
Subject: Re: curious about fullerene
Keywords: black powder
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:50:28 GMT

In article <1706@nic.cerf.net> adler@nic.cerf.net (Bruce Adler) writes:
>Has anybody tried to make black powder with buckminsterfullerene
>rather than charcoal? Did it work? What happened?

Rather expensive, don't you think? Aside from being a suspected carcinogen,
Buckminsterfullerene runs at about $156 for 25 *mg* from Aldrich chemical.
I'd think that you'd have better things to do with your hard-earned cash
than make Buckyball go Boom.


"Mad Chemist" Smith
University of Colorado
Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry
From: msn@springs.cis.ufl.edu (Mike 'HK 93 HK G3 M-10 Glock17' Newsome)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Question:
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:40:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.


	Hi Ya'll,

	I don't usualy read this group, so please reply
	via by Email.

	I know that Smokeless Powder is a propellant, and
	that Black Powder is an explosive, but what I don't
	know is why.  Someone once said that it had something
	to do with the speed of the compression wave exceeding
	the speed of sound with in a given substance, or
	something to that effect.  

	Why will Composition C4 ( Cyclonite ) burn if lit with
	a match, but will detonate if primed with a blasting cap.

	If you need to use an example, please use Black Powder
	vs. Smokeless powder as I'm familiar with both their
	properties.

	Thank you,

			Dooka yoroshiku onegaishimasu,
        ________                                    __  __  ______
       /  ____//__      msn@reef.cis.ufl.edu       / / / / / ____/
         /  //  //      Michael S. Newsome        / / / / / /__
          GUNDAM        3632 NW 46th Pl.         / / / / / ___/
        //  //          Gainesville, Fl.        / /_/ / / /
      //__//___/        32605-1046.            /_____/ /_/
        //______/       U.S.A.            The University of Florida
                                                  Alumnus

          Watashino hatano motoni watashiwa jiyuuni ikiru
From: s884764@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (Grant Waldram [Atom Smash])
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Info about HMTD difficult to find
Date: 6 Apr 92 08:35:21 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia.

In article <1197@lysator.liu.se>, john@lysator.liu.se (John Andersson) writes:
> I've been browsing the books at the library at my university for
> information about HMTD to not much avail. [...] I've found out that
> its chemical name is "Hexamethylenetriperoxydiamine", that it is
> friction and shock sensitive and that it explodes in contact with
> bromine or sulphuric acid. That's about it.
> 

I have a very good explosives index, but at the moment it is buried under
a friends bedroom mess. I've been trying to get it back for a similar
reason to the one you gave...

> I was tempted to try to make a small batch, but I will certainly
> not do so without more information.

Well, I did (somewhat pre-emptively, while I was waiting for the book)
and it was very easy, and as far as I could tell, effective. However, I
disposed of the stuff when I could not find the reference to tell me how
I should expect it to behave. I kept it wet with methyl alcohol the whole
time, and disposed of it by spreading it thinly over a sheet of paper and
allowing it to dry, then remotely igniting it. Of course, all it did
under those conditions was burn with a mild yellow flash.

Now, when I _do_ finally get the book, I will post the relevant details.
The book is very good, and is sure to have some decent information.

Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress
any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."  from 'Contact' by Carl Sagan
------   s884764@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au     Grant Waldram [Atom Smash]   ------
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: rps5646@usl.edu (Sasser Richard P)
Subject: Various
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: rec.pyrotechnics
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:36:14 GMT


   The compound you are referring to is Nitrogen Tri-Iodide.  The reason
your results are bad is because the hydrogen in ammonia is more active
than the Iodine in soultion.  Just a sophmore chem. major's opinion, you
realize, but I think this is how it's done.

I think that the best wasy to prepare this would be to first add Hydrogen
Peroxide to the iodine solution and then add the ammonia.  Ammonia is 
*mostly* NH3 in water, but there is some NH4OH there and I'm not
real sure if this has any bearing.  (I have hypothesisized that some
NH4I would form, but haven't asked, as I prefer to figure things out
for myself.).  The H2O2 activates the Iodine, making it more likely
to replace the Hydrogen in ammonia.  I believe that phosphuric acid and
potassium ioide would also result in a more activated iodine.  I would'nt
really try any of this as NI3 is VERY sensitive.  Enough of it and say   
bye-bye to some fingers.

I am looking for some files name Basic Explosives I-III and Advanced 
Explosives I-IV which have been on some hack-phreak boards around
1988-89.  The author used the alias Milamber.  If anyone has seen these
files, please let me know through E-Mail.
Internet: rps5646@usl.edu
Alchemist :-(
 

Ammotal, I believe, is a mixture of TNT and Ammonium Nitrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|From the labs of The Alchemist         | "I'm not prejudiced....         |
|rps5646@usl.edu                        |  I hate everyone equally"       |
|Richard P. Sasser                      |                                 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lyn@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Myself)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Purple Hands
Date: 16 Apr 1992 20:04:21 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitty.ksu.ksu.edu


  It was probably Iodine, which can be removed by very few things. Sodium
Thiosulfate is one (Photographer's Hypo). It produces a nice violet stain
that cannot be washed off short of using chemical agents. The same thing
happens when using Nitro-Tri-Iodide. (Hint HINT!)

		*
		** 8-o
		*

			"Now how did I do THAT?!?"
			Myself (lyn@matt.ksu.etc......)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Rocket engine acquisition & manufacture
Organization: Hewlett-Parkard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:44:36 GMT

applequi@cae.wisc.edu (George Applequist) writes:
: 
: This book is a very detailed guide to the production of motors
: from A-3 (like Estes) thru D (like estes, but up to about D-30)
: all the way to G-100 (about 1 1/8" i.d., as opposed to 3/4" i.d.
: for D engines.  Just to give you an idea, a G-100 engine has about
: 50 times the total impulse and avg. thrust of an A-3.  I suspect
: that a two-stage G engine rocket would go up at LEAST a mile.
: Pretty neat, eh?  The book also has detailed information (including
: fairly good diagrams) on tool manufacture (which would require
: at least a lathe & hand tools) and auxiliary equipment manufacture
: (test stands, thrust measurement recorders, etc. etc.).  

The D refers to the total impulse range - nothing more. Thus a D10 and
a D30 would have approximately the same total impulse - the D30 would
just produce it 3 times as fast (and therefore would have only 1/3rd the
burn time).

Depending on the rocket weight - it should be fairly easy to exceed one
mile altitude with a staged rocket using G engines. It is possible to
attain at least 3000 feet with one G engine alone. By the way, rockets  
using such high peak impulse engines have to be built very strong. It
requires construction techniques completely different than those used
for the "Estes" type of rockets. 

You can save a little money by manufacturing your own engines. Whether
you can save enough to make it worthwhile is another matter. The tooling
and test gear are not cheap. I believe that is also illegal to use the
engines, without special licensing.

Bill

: >Also, is there any source of Estes (or other) engines 
: >besides the local hobby shop, which sells the cheap little things for
: >about $1.00 apiece?  Thanks if you can help!
: 
: This is a good question.  If you get any good answers, please let
: me know!  Our local hobby shop marks everything up so much, it
: makes me sick.  If you find some way to buy engines wholesale,
: please, pass it along!

There are quite a few places that sell the engines mail-order at a
discount. None of them, that I know of, sell wholesale - that is
probably the price they have to buy the engines for.  There are a
couple of manufacturers that are starting to produce engines in
competition with Estes - maybe the prices will come down. My local
hobby shop sells them all at about the same price.

If you were launching high power rockets, you would be paying far more
for the engines. For example, a G engine is about $8.00 at discounted
price. An I engine will cost about $30.00. 

Look in the model airplane magazines at your hobby shop. You might be
able to find some places that sell discounted engines.  

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Homemade Explosive
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:43:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.230224.29354@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, ah157@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rob Henry) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reposting this article from it's previous title because of the numerous
> homosexual advances I have gotten from a ucsb address.
> I'm looking for a homemade substance that will explode with the noise of
> an M80 firecracker.
> I don't want it cased in metal or anything as I don't like shrapnel and don't
> want to hurt anybody or anything.
> I just want a simple boom to liven up the neighborhood.
> Thanks
> PLEASE LEAVE EMAIL
> Rob

Dry Ice in a PLASTIC 2 litre bottle, add some water...   wait....    



       BOOM!!!!!


-- 
=====  Ed Murphy    (The University disclaims everything!)   --- | /  ---- 
  |    Internet Mail :: Murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu          /|\ |/    \
=====  "Warning, Phi Kap's May Be Habit Forming!!!"          \|/ |\    /
  |    Groundmail (The Slow Way) 1 University Ave. Box 1136  --- | \  ----
===                             Lowell, Ma. 01854 U.S.A.    Phi Kappa Sigma
                                                         Gamma Upsilon Chapter

Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Help with "bomb"
Organization: Hewlett-Parkard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:32:56 GMT

lyn@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu (Myself) writes:
: 
:   This is not proven, but has been heard many times (and makes sense):
: 
: 	A good electrical detonator can be made from a model-rocket
: 	igniter or similar device. It should heat up enough to ignite
: 	almost anything short of a metal. After all, it is *supposed*
: 	to ignite rocket engines.

Sorry, but whoever has told you this is sadly mistaken. 

The standard "Estes" type of model rocket engine is simply a black powder
grain. It is very easy to ignite - it can be done with a match or a piece
of Visco fuse. Neither practice is recommended, however.

There are "composite" propellant engines available - generally using a
perchlorate/rubber propellant. These are harder to ignite, but still
easy.

Under the right conditions, the igniters could ignite a metal.

Model rocket igniters are useless as detonators. They could be used to
ignite a "flash powder" or a primary explosive, but that is not the
proper description of a detonator.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Chemical Info
Organization: Hewlett-Parkard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:08:32 GMT

gilchr@ee.ualberta.ca (Andrew Gilchrist) writes:
: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: 
: >Lampblack is a carbon source - in other words, it acts as a fuel in the
: >mixture. 
: 
: >Generally, for smokes to function best, you want to minimize flame. If all
: >the fuels are completely oxidized in the reaction, then you generally get
: >relatively little smoke.
:                    ^^^^^
: you meant FLAME, of course.
: 
: Two other ways to mitigate flame:
: 
: 	- make sure the temperature of the exhaust gases is below their
: 	  ignition point. (difficult to engineer, as the reaction is
: 	  likely to extinguish if too much of the produced heat is
: 	  carried away)
: 
: 	- chemically inhibit open flame.  The simplest way to do this
: 	  is to add CCl4 (carbon tertrachloride, available at some
: 	  hardware stores as a cleaning agent) to the smoke compound.
: 	  The CCl4 fumes will snuff the open flame. They will snuff you
: 	  too, if the room ventillation is inadequate.
: 
: Historical note: CCl4 was once used for the purpose of extinguishing
: fires.  You can still see some automatic CCl4 sytems on old boats.
: The CCl4 is contained in a glass ampuole which is suspended about 1 meter
: above the floor.  It is held up by a temperature sensitive doodad
: which drops it if there's a fire.  The CCl4 spills all over, and the
: fumes smother the flames.  Too bad it kills people.

No, I meant what I wrote - although I might not have stated it very well.
The statement was also a bit misleading - my apologies for the confusion.

If all the fuel is turned to gas, then there will not be much smoke. The
idea is to keep the temperature low enough that solid particles are the
result of the combustion, rather than gas. If a flame is present, it often
means that the desired particles are being oxidized into undesireable
gases. You can demonstrate this for yourself by purchasing a common Class C
smoke bomb. Light it and, when it starts emitting smoke, light the smoke.
You will see that the smoke burns - the result being very little smoke.

I don't think that CCl4 was the problem, I think it was that it decomposed
into nasty products when exposed to high temperatures. My memory on the
matter could be faulty.

Bill
From: lyn@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Myself)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: gopher files 4/4
Date: 16 Apr 1992 20:33:56 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitty.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: gopher


finally! part 4/4

------------------------------ cut here ------------------------------------------
From: jks2x@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Jason)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Ammonium Triiodide...
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:04:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <040900231@flamer.hell.edu> daemon@flamer.hell.edu writes:
>
>Can anyone provide instructions for making
>Ammonium Triiodide...?  (based on ordinary house-hold chemicals... or 
>those that are easy to obtain...)
>((or if you know of an easy way to get/make sulfuric/nitric acid let me know too))

	I think the easiest way to get Sulfuric acid is from an old
car battery.  I've been told that if you heat it GENTLY until while
vapors appear it will be more than concentrated enough to use in
explosives.  Just be careful NOT to inhale the vapors and do this in
a VERY WELL ventilated place - like outside.  I would also suggest not 
using a metal pan, as heated conc. sulfuric isn't really friendly
to most metals.  Use ceramic.
	Pyro gurus: feel free to correct this if it is wrong, as I've
never done it myself.
	All the usual disclaimers apply: blah blah blah.

-Jason
--
"One day I'll get what's mine through the persistence of time"
						    -Anthrax 'Time'
From: lyn@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu (Myself)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Paladin Press
Date: 8 Apr 1992 20:46:14 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: conquest.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: adress, paladin, books, press


    Can anyone email me a list of Paladin Press' books and their address??
I would be most appreciative. 

		Thanx,
			Lyn (Myself, and no one else)


Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: ah157@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rob Henry)
Subject: New Reader
Reply-To: ah157@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rob Henry)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 01:59:37 GMT



I'm a new useneter and looked into this group because I enjoy an occasional
major explosion.
Everyone talks of tnt and the like,is this stuff generally available or some-
thing to the public or are you all licensed?
Please leave MAIL
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Homemade banger
From: kmwheeler@ualr.edu
Date: 17 Apr 92 10:47:47 GMT
Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock

In article <y1VcJB1w164w@bluemoon.rn.com>, levi@bluemoon.rn.com (Brandon Moore) writes:
> Not to put anyone down or anything, but it always amazes me as to how some 
> people act as if they have invented the first pipe bomb.  I am also 
> bewiltered by the descriptive instructions given pertaining to their 
> manufacture.  For such a simple device, we're given a half page of 
> instructions when a simple "fill a pipe with your fuel-oxidizer, add a 
> fuse, and try to avoid fatal accidents" would sufice, as if we needed to 
> know even that.  I also take note of how such simple matters as a fuse, 
> electrical in this case, can take on strange mutations in small details 
> due to the authors "inventivness" and "creativity".  Of course, before it 
> is all through, we find ourselves with yet another story of a bomber
> coming of age, so to speak, as he realizes his new found power to make a 
> big noise and create a mass of potentially fatal debris.
> 
> note:  the above was simply a outward display of negative thoughts that 
>  had remained repressed for longer than is healthy.  Please, no-one take 
>  this personally.  Although I believe there is some relevence to my 
>  observations, I do tend to be rude and sarcastic at time, but then again
>  that's not abnormal in my case.
> 
>  This is from
>      levi@bluemoon.rn.com
> who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet

I agree.  I agree.

I've been off the net for a couple of weeks, and when I got back, all
that was on this group was 'I made a pipe bomb' and 'how do you make
nitrogen tri-iodide'.

Anyone got any fresh ideas, or really interesting posts?

This group is constantly going in circles.

(I did like the gopher files, though)

Keith

Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Chemical Info
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  8 APR 92 22:16:30    

In article <92099.204850JPT107@psuvm.psu.edu>, JPT107@psuvm.psu.edu writes...
> 
>     Just a guess, correct me if I am wrong, but if CCl4 snuffs out
>flames, doesn't it do this by scavenging O2 from the surrounding air?
>That alone would make it dangerous to use as a fire extinguisher
>indoors.

Hardly.  CO2, nitrogen and water all snuff out flames, but none "scavenge O2
from the surrounding air".  Besides, "scavenging O2 from the surrounding
air" is a fancy phrase for burning, so putting something that "scavenges O2
from the surrounding air" *is* dangerous, because it makes the fire bigger.
Gasoline works great at this.

Having said this, CCl4 is no longer used for fire extinguishers because
at high temperatures it can form some COCl2 - phosgene, which is a *very*
poisonous gas.  It was used in gas warfare in WW1.

-Mike
From: tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Big Gas Explosion in Texas?
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:57:46 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

Anybody know anything about the big natural gas explosion in Texas 
this morning?

  TED FEUERBACH   Scientific Systems Consultant  Trilogy Consulting, Inc. 
  Lake St. Louis, MO        (314) 537-6603       tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
  Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed herein are MY OWN and obviously not
  the opinions of Trilogy, Monsanto or either of my two ex-wives.           

Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,alt.stagecraft
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Big Gas Explosion in Texas?
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:43:51 GMT
Reply-To: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Apr7.164448.3957@uwm.edu>, aoelked@kirk.msoe.edu writes:
|>In article <1992Apr7.095746.3930@bb1t.monsanto.com>, tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com writes:
|>>Anybody know anything about the big natural gas explosion in Texas 
|>>this morning?

Didn't experience this, but I was at my brother's in Baton Rouge, LA when
that Exxon refinery blew up a few years ago on Christmas Eve.  That was quite
an awesome bang, especially considering we were some 6 miles away from ground
zero.  Blew out windows for blocks, and it filled the sky with black smoke.
The way the sliding glass door we were near was shaking, I'm suprised it didn't
break.  We didn't know what had happened for a while, though we did joke
"there goes the Exxon refinery" and we also joked it was the Panamanian Air
Force's revenge (on the same day we invaded Panama to get Noriega)

-Mike
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Chemical Info
Organization: Hewlett-Parkard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:03:26 GMT

md88-pca@hemul.nada.kth.se (Patrik Carlsson) writes:
: In article <9204040557.AA06197@buxton.teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au> agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Zoz) writes:
: >In article <325PC.1@csci1.csci.unt.edu>, 325PC@csci1.csci.unt.edu writes:
: >|>
: >|> In the "Poor Man's James Bond I" many of the directions
: >|> for producing "Smoke bombs" or "Smoke Screens" use something
: >|> called "lamp black."  Is this still a common chemical and if not
: >|> just exactly what was it?  Also, what is reccomended for
: >|> making theatrical smoke??
: >
: 
: Does lamblack contribute to the smoke ? Or is it just something which 
: makes it burn better ?

Lampblack is a carbon source - in other words, it acts as a fuel in the
mixture. 

Generally, for smokes to function best, you want to minimize flame. If all
the fuels are completely oxidized in the reaction, then you generally get
relatively little smoke.

Bill
From: lyn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Myself)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Address for gopher
Date: 15 Apr 1992 19:21:22 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: gopher, address

  The adress for the gopher system is at Boombox.micro.umn.edu
It seems to need a client of some sort (available through ftp at
related site), and the pyro stuff is in menu 4, submenu 5, files 1-4.


		Have fun, glad I don't live in Houston anymore,
			Myself (lyn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics