HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: What is c-four? (Question from a newbie)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:59:15 GMT

Paul.Elkins@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Paul Elkins) writes:
: What is so great about c-four?

It is not as toxic as the other C-x series explosives.

: Can you really  "make it in your kitchen with just 3 ingredients"?

Depends on the three ingredients. If you don't already have the high
explosive, it is doubtful.

I expect that you have heard of one of the "expedient" explosives using
potassium chlorate and petroleum jelly - possibly combined with aluminum
powder.

I have never tried any such mixtures - nor would I want to. Potassium
chlorate is not something to fool around with when in combination with
fuels.

Then, once you have made it, there is the problem of initiating it
properly. That requires a blasting cap that is strong enough.       

: Why would you want to?

Beats me. Maybe to prove that it can be done? 

: Thanks in advance,
: (asking "silly" questions is the only way to learn.)

I would like to answer a question that you did not ask.  How safe are these
expedient procedures?

The answer is: They are not safe. Field expedient procedures assume that
they are "last chance efforts" and that casualties/fatalities in manufacture
of the materials is acceptable. They assume that people are willing to take
any risk necessary to accomplish their set task - even if it kills a few of
them in the process.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: stevens@horta.rice.edu (Richard Stevens)
Subject: Dehydrating NH4NO3
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 19:04:13 GMT

I was wondering how important it was to have Amonnium Nitrate completely
dry to use as a rocket fuel? Is there any way to SAFELY remove the water
from old crystals? I've heard that it can be dissolved in alcohol and the
alcohol evaporated off. Is this true? Safe with proper vetilation?

Richard
From: daver@felix.filenet.com (Dave Richards)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Recipe for nitrate-based flashpowder!
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:28:41 GMT
Reply-To: daver@fritz.filenet.com (Dave Richards)
Organization: Costa Mesa, CA

In article <1992Sep3.144306.450@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> buda@star.enet.dec.com (Mark A. Buda) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug31.190831.13599@ruc.dk>, pjac@ruc.dk (Peter Jacobsen) writes...
>>The author of the rec.pyrotechnics FAQ claims that inhaled Al-dust destroy
>>the lungs. I find it hard to believe since it was used for many years in
>>inhaled form to relieve the breathing-pains on asthma-patients, and even
>>today Al-dust is sprayed out in the air in mines in the U.S. and Canada
>>because it bind dangerous silicate dust
>
>Just because it is used, does not mean that it is safe.  I think there
>needs to be a lot more research done (a lot has already been done), to
>be able to say the above...

Conversely, just becasuse the FAQ states that it destroys the lungs doesn't
make it true either.  Particularly disturbing is the anecdote given about
the first actor to play the tin man in "The Wizard of Oz", whose lungs were
"destroyed by breathing the aluminum makeup."

This is simply not true.  He DID have an allergic reaction to the makeup
that prevented him from continuing the role (contact dermatitis, I assume),
but his lungs were not "destroyed".  In fact, he continued to be successful
in the entertainment industry for many years.  For example, he was a regular
in the series "The Beverly Hillbillies" in the 1960's, ~30 years after his
problem with aluminum exposure.  And he was still breathing in the 1980's
(~50 years after) for the series "Barnaby Jones".  Not bad for somebody
with destroyed lungs.  By the way, in case you haven't guessed, the actor's
name is Buddy Ebsen.  Perhaps you've heard of him.

I guess my point in posting this is that it's all well and good to give
warnings about the dangers of working with materials, but hopefully readers
of this group are mature enough that we don't need to create false horror
stories, or greatly exaggerate small mishaps just to scare people.

Dave
From: moore@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Hall Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Recipe for nitrate-based flashpowder!
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:31:06 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <9209150804.AA22954@dougal.teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au> agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Zoz) writes:
>daver@felix.filenet.com (Dave Richards) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.144306.450@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> buda@star.enet.dec.com (Mark A. Buda) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Aug31.190831.13599@ruc.dk>, pjac@ruc.dk (Peter Jacobsen) writes...

> (Great Tin-Man-With-Destroyed-Lungs Debate deleted)

>Well, I didn't make up the story about the tin man, I heard it from
>somewhere, and, being unfamiliar with 1930s actors, had no reason to
>disbelieve it. I agree that it is unnecessary to create false horror stories
>(unfortunately there are enough real ones about), but as far as I knew the
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>tin man story was true. Since it seems that the FAQ is incorrect in this
>anecdote at least, I have removed the bit about the tin man, however the
>warnings about Al dust inhalation are still there.

Please check your facts before posting to this group, especially in the
FAQ.  Correct information is vital if you're going to do any of this stuff
safely.  If your source is `I heard it from somewhere', then this should
be indicated in your post.

>PS I don't quite agree with your estimate of the maturity of the readers
>of this group. Certainly there are mature and knowledgeable readers that
>post regularly, however all it takes is a look at some of the more extreme
>mad bomber posts to realise that this is not the case across the board.
>Plus there are a (proportionally) huge number of Usenet readers that do
>not post, and also items from this newsgroup get distributed via hardcopy
>(for example TBBOM, also I received mail from a person who had seen a
>hardcopy of the FAQ and wanted to 'sign up' for rec.pyrotechnics). So really
>we have no idea what a large number of the readers of this newsgroup do
>with the information they obtain here, and I think we have a responsibility
>to ensure that the safety details we provide are comprehensive.
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Comprehensive does not mean everything you have heard.  It means everything
which is relevant and from a reliable source.

>                     agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au

As far as the Great Aluminum Debate is concerned, masks are cheap and easy
to get.  Why not wear one just in case?

Just my $.02
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Subject: Re: Silver acetylide
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:51:27 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

 Even "silver" dimes were not pure silver, I believe. Coin silver is 
something like 90% - and just what might the adulterant be? Anybody's 
guess, I figure; perhaps a numismatist might offer enlightenment.
Are copper acetaldehyde or other acetaldehydes stabilizing influences?
You gotta ask yourself one question... 

 "Liberty" dimes were "silver"; you find them in coin shops etc. now.
If you want pure silver, try a chemical supply house, or go buy the 
one-ounce investment silver bars - that stuff is five-nines (99.999%).
-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Silver acetylide
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:50:57 GMT

dshelton@galaxy.gov.bc.ca writes:
: > -- 
: I've found that the siler nitrate resulting from the disolving of a silver
: dime works well to produce silver acetylide without any purification - perhaps
: the copper nitrate adds to the effectiveness, though the solution remains blue,
: implying that the copper is not removed as an acetylide.

You can hope that copper acetylide does not form. It is even more touchy than
the silver compound - if I remember correctly.

If I were to experiment with this compound, I would go to a coin store and
buy an ounce of .999 silver. It costs about $3.50 for an ounce. That amount
would last a very long time - with reasonable and careful experimentation.

: An alternative silver salt to try is silver oxalate - add an oxalate to the
: silver nitrate solution and it precipitates. This will deflagrate when dryed
: and lighted, though it's more amusing than dangerous..

I have nothing on this except a reference that it is considered a primary
explosive.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Subject: Re: Recipe for nitrate-based flashpowder!
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:35:01 GMT

In article <9209150804.AA22954@dougal.teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au>, agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Zoz) writes:
|> daver@felix.filenet.com (Dave Richards) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep3.144306.450@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> buda@star.enet.dec.com (Mark A. Buda) writes:
|> >>
|> >>In article <1992Aug31.190831.13599@ruc.dk>, pjac@ruc.dk (Peter Jacobsen) writes...
|>

[ Bulk of text deleted ]
 
|> PS I don't quite agree with your estimate of the maturity of the readers
|> of this group. Certainly there are mature and knowledgeable readers that
|> post regularly, however all it takes is a look at some of the more extreme
|> mad bomber posts to realise that this is not the case across the board.
|> Plus there are a (proportionally) huge number of Usenet readers that do
|> not post, and also items from this newsgroup get distributed via hardcopy
|> (for example TBBOM, also I received mail from a person who had seen a
|> hardcopy of the FAQ and wanted to 'sign up' for rec.pyrotechnics). So really
|> we have no idea what a large number of the readers of this newsgroup do
|> with the information they obtain here, and I think we have a responsibility
|> to ensure that the safety details we provide are comprehensive.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> --
|>      ______        _____________    ______________________          ______
|>     /\####/\      /            /   /                     /         /\####/\
|>    /  \##/  \    /_______     /   /    _     ______     /         /  \##/  \
|>   /____\/____\          /    /   /    / \    \    /    /         /____\/____\
|>   \####/\####/         /    /____\    \_/    /   /    /_______   \####/\####/
|>    \##/  \##/         /                     /   /            /    \##/  \##/
|>     \/____\/         /_____________________/   /____________/      \/____\/
|> 
|>                      agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au
|> 

Personally I would prefer to err on the side of safety.

Mark.

Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Subject: Re: What is c-four? (Question from a newbie)
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:31:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.122908.9771@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Paul.Elkins@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Paul Elkins) writes:
|> What is so great about c-four?
|> Can you really  "make it in your kitchen with just 3 ingredients"?
|> Why would you want to?
|> 
|> Thanks in advance,
|> (asking "silly" questions is the only way to learn.)
|> 
|> 
|> --
|>    The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
|>      North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
|>         Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
|>            internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80


C4 is the last development of the Cx range of plastic explosives
using RDX (Cyclonite, Hexogen) as the main component. All these
explosives are extremely high brissance mixtures (detonation 
velocities of around 8000m/s) and very powerful. This is why RDX
is a favorite military explosive. It is also very sensitive, 
especially to friction and shock and so must be desensitised by
mixing other non-explosive or less sensitive explosives with it.

C4 consists of the following;

91.0% RDX
2.1%  polyisobutylene
1.6%  motor oil
5.3% di-(2-ethylhexyl)sebacate

count them, four ingredients and not any I'd find in my kitchen.

RDX is made by nitrating Hexamine. It is not as easy as some cook books
suggest and is fraught with dangers if you don't know what you are doing.
DO NOT TRY IT. As an example, the handbook of improvised munitions 
suggests a technique which is totally incorrect and prone to unwanted
explosions and other nasty effects during manufacture. If you don't mind
very concentrated HNO3 sprayed about the place, try it. Otherwise leave 
it alone. Nitrating is never straight forward! 

Unless you know exactly how to do it, leave it alone. Your life is worth 
more than an accidental explosion in your kitchen.

If you are still considering this, please carefully read some authoritive
texts on the manufacture and properties of these compounds. 

I must add that any experimenting with High explosives can not be done in
a make shift manner. It always requires careful planning and considerable
effort to ensure ones safety. Cook book ideas are bad ideas!

Mark.

Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: spiegl@rtsg.mot.com (Mark Spiegl)
Subject: New firecracker formula
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:17:34 GMT



Recently, we came across the following firecracker formula:

    Mix     Acetone
            Sulfuric Acid
            30% Hydrogen Peroxide

Several hours after mixing, a white powder precipitates. A small quantity 
of this powder, with minimal confinement, is supposed to detonate with a 
handsome report. 

TBBOM provides a very similar formula, and names the stuff Peroxyacetone. 
BUT, neither my Merck index, nor my CRC, nor my college organic chem book 
acknowledge the existence of anything called peroxyacetone, acetone 
peroxide, dimethyl ketone peroxide, etc. 

What is this stuff? What reactions are taking place?



    ^     
   |U|     Mark Spiegl
   |S|     Motorola Inc.
  /|A|\    spiegl@rtsg.mot.com
  ~~U~~    

.
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Recipe for nitrate-based flashpowder!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:24:12 GMT

moore@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Hall Moore) writes:

: Comprehensive does not mean everything you have heard.  It means everything
: which is relevant and from a reliable source.
: 
: >                     agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au
: 
: As far as the Great Aluminum Debate is concerned, masks are cheap and easy
: to get.  Why not wear one just in case?

This is a good practice to follow, when working with any dust producing
mixture. All pyrotechnic mixtures are toxic, to some extent. It is far better
to just play it save - rather than suffer from mild poisoning. The same can
be said for the wearing of safety glasses or using a face shield. 

Bill
From: msc9203@geovax.ed.ac.uk (C.A.Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Help with TBBOM files.
Date: 7 Sep 92 10:44:55 GMT
Organization: University of Edinburgh, Geography Department.

Could someone please help me get a copy of the TBBOM files, from 
my present location I can't access any previously mentioned here.

Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: mcaldwel@netcom.com (Michael Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Help with TBBOM files.
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 00:01:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep7.104455.1@geovax.ed.ac.uk> msc9203@geovax.ed.ac.uk (C.A.Anderson) writes:
>Could someone please help me get a copy of the TBBOM files, from 
>my present location I can't access any previously mentioned here.
>
>Thanks in advance.

Could somebody ship or mail me a copy in any archive format (zip, zoo, tar.Z,
etc.) or let me know of an ftp site where I can get the TBBOM files.  I've
looked around and can't seem to find them where they're supposed to be.

Michael (mcaldwel@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Dehydrating NH4NO3
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:14:28 GMT

stevens@horta.rice.edu (Richard Stevens) writes:
: I was wondering how important it was to have Amonnium Nitrate completely
: dry to use as a rocket fuel? Is there any way to SAFELY remove the water
: from old crystals? I've heard that it can be dissolved in alcohol and the
: alcohol evaporated off. Is this true? Safe with proper vetilation?

Ammonium nitrate is not a good oxidizer to use for rocket fuel. It is
hygroscopic. It decomposes to some extent - even at 100 deg C. It goes
through crystal phase changes with changing temperature - which will cause
cracking of your propellant grain.

Even when dry, it reacts with Al, Zn, Pb, Sb, Bi, Ni, Cu, Ag and Cd. In
the presence of moisture it reacts with Fe. It reacts with Cu to form a
brissant and sensitive compound. It is best not to use any bronze or brass
tools when working with ammonium nitrate.

I would stick with potassium nitrate fuels. It is much more stable and 
easier to work with.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Basic questions.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:41:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.203538.25094@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Paul.Elkins@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Paul Elkins) writes...
>>There are also "tertiary" explosives. These explosives are those that are
>>either insensitive to initiation by primary explosives, or are only partly
>>initiated. They require a high (secondary) explosive booster for complete
>>detonation. Examples are ANFO and ammonium picrate.

>I'm not sure I understand the purpose of tertiary explosives.
>They would seem to be of little value.

ANFO is cheeeap for one.  Very important if you are a big-time blaster such as
a rock quarry.  It is also very safe as far as accidental explosions, you need
something like a stick of dynamite to set it off (not just a blasting cap,
which contains the primary explosive) and this is only once it's mixed.  Even
safer before it's mixed.  Unless you have a _large_ quantity (like a
shipload...)

>According to the rough definitions outlined, are caps (from toy pistols)
>primary explosives because they are set off by shock; or did I miss something.

I don't believe they detonate, so no.  Perhaps like flash powder a large
quantity detonates, but not a single cap.

-Mike
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Subject: Re: rocket fuel question (apology)
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:40:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.225433.23838@pellns.alleg.edu>, dblackbu@carr11.alleg.edu (David Blackburn) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug30.223605.27116@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  
|> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
|> > 
|> > Dr. David Blackburn, Ph. D. Chemist writes
|> > 
|> > >You lunatic! Maybe it's just a typo, but if you can't spell sulfur you
|> > >hadn't ought to be playing with it! Adding water to Zn + S can cause it  
|> to
|> > >ignite in your face. Even un-confined that would not be very much fun.
|> > >Does anyone moderate this board to keep people from killing themselves?
|> > 
|> > Dear Dr. Blackburn
|> > 
|> > While I agree with the chemical sentiments, may I beg to point out that
|> > spelling is not particularly cogent to the arguement........
    
|> > but the mear misspelling of sulfur with an "e" is not sufficient  
|> indictment
|> > to rate your heated response (on that point, at least).
|> > 
|> > Tom Perigrin
|> > (nom' de plume for a Chemist, who got his PhD a good few years
|> > ago,  but generally doesn't bother to use the implicit arguementum
|> > ad valorum entailed by throwing that bit of trivia around.)
|> 
|> You're right. I shouldn't have flamed the guy, and I deserved to catch a  
|> few myself. But better an electronic flame than a real one! ;-)
|>  So: Be Careful with this stuff. 


|> I worry that people who don't know any better are going to read these  
|> posts, try something reckless,  and get in big trouble. 
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> Dave

I guess there will always be that danger. But if responsible follow-up
articles are posted quickly enough, warning of the dangers, maybe some
of these reckless hot shots can be saved. 

I don't think flame wars are needed in this group. All you need do is post
a STRIDENT WARNING followed with either an educated explanation, or some
personal experience in the matter. A little bit of humour doesn't go astray
as long as it is recognised as such!

Unfortunately the person you flamed was asking the group for advise, not
suggesting anybody try this.

However, if somebody were to suggest a new 5min technique for making
nitroglycerin using a microwave,.....

Reacreational pyrotechnics obeys a fundamental biological law; -
Natural Selection. 

You mustn't be reckless!

Mark.







Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: daryl@dadent.wustl.edu (Daryl)
Subject: Questions about the law
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:51:05 GMT

I have some more questions for those of you who are knowledgable about
the laws regarding fireworks.  

I'm a resident of Illinois and would like to manufacture my own 
fireworks and shoot a small display.  Recently, I
obtained some information from the county clerks office regarding 
the display and manufacture of fireworks.  The laws pertaining to 
the display of fireworks seem pretty reasonable but there are a huge 
number of regulations dealing with their manufacture that would be hard 
for an individual to meet.  Is it possible that there are regulations 
I haven't read that deal specifically with the individual?  Is it 
easier to manufacture the fireworks without the proper permits and 
hope that a permit to display them will satisfy the local authorities?
(I don't sell any of my fireworks)

My second question deals with the legal classification of fireworks.
The papers the county clerk gave me were pretty vague.  I seem to 
remember that any shells up to 3" are 'standard' class C fireworks 
and that anything bigger than this are considered class B and
require additional permits to manufacture and display.  Can anyone
tell me for sure?  I assume this is a matter of federal law.
Where would I go to get this information?

Thanks in advance.

	- Daryl -

Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: galloway@vesta.unm.edu (pyromanic)
Subject: re: tbbom help
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 21:31:29 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


Thanks for the help in getting the tbbom file

peace
From: che238n@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Coloured smoke
Date: 7 Sep 92 09:45:23 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Can anyone help with coloured smoke flares, what fuels, dyes, etc.

andTHANXvance

Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Recipe for nitrate-based flashpowder!
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 21:51:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BuM5AE.9t7@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>Personally I would prefer to err on the side of safety.

Of course, if you err on the side of safety by too much, you risk not
having *any* warnings you give taken seriously.  There are many
well-known examples of the "Chicken Little" effect, from the film
"Reefer Madness" to California's ubiquitous "Proposition 65" warnings.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.