HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: miolnir@stein.u.washington.edu (Scot Thorstad)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Detonation vs. deflagration
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:39:21 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Nov17.064551.29094@u.washington.edu> biffs@u.washington.edu 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
>
   I've played with smokeless for a while now and I know that when
a pile is ignited it burns relatively slowly, but when it's contained 
the combustion rate seems to go up (either exponentially or linearly, I
can't tell) very rapidly. I've heard stories of people substituting
smokeless for black in their guns and having them explode.  
scot
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: explosive bullets
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:13:36 GMT

miolnir@stein.u.washington.edu (Scot Thorstad) writes:
: 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.

It is true that NG is fairly insensitive to shock - if the air bubbles
are completely removed. This eliminates the local hot-spots that are
created by adiabatic compression of the entrapped air, which is believed
to be the most common mode of NG initiation.

I don't know why they would use such an unpredictable compound, however.
Also, I don't think it would be too practical. Just the normal heating
and cooling of the bullet would tend to generate air bubbles in the NG,
making it sensitive to shock.

There are a number of primary explosives that would probably work. I
am not sure why a person would want to use such a round - a properly
designed high velocity round will do plenty of damage, without any
explosive charge.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: ANFO+RDX
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Distribution: rec.pyrotechnics
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:25:59 GMT

bw004b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (brian denny williams) writes:
: 
: Hello, I have been reading rec.pyrotechnics for about 3 weeks now and
: finally decided to try to post an article. What I want to know is if anyone
: has been able to to detonate ANFO without the use of blasting caps? And
: secondly if RDX might be a good detonator? I read about RDX in the TBBOM and

RDX would be good - however, you would also want a primary explosive for
initiating the RDX.

: was wondering if it could be manufactured and used with out killing
: yourself, maybe as C-1? Does anyone have experance making/using it? I would

You might be able to, but then again, you might not. The stuff in TBBOM is
better than most of the similar type of publications I have seen, but it
still has errors/ommissions. 

Remember - for all these type procedures - these are field expedient methods.
That means that injuries and deaths are considered to be an acceptable risk
in their use in producing explosives.  If you do not wish to chance being one
of these casualties - then do not try to make the explosives.

: appreciate any advice. I have limited pyrotechnic experance (mostly black
: powder and KNO3+sugar) and I realy don't know if want to take the risk, but
: would like to satisfy my curiosity. Thanks.

All you would get, if you were successful, would be a bigger bang with less
material.  Stick with the black powder. Then, if something blows up in your
hands, you are still likely to have hands left - although they might be
severely mangled. Have a few grams of HE explode in your hands, and you will
no longer have any hands.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: sigh... once more: thermite
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:35:34 GMT

rtaraz@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Ramin Taraz) writes:
: 
: another way was to take potasium-clorate and sulfur and mix them 50-50
: again, you could do the same thing but would result in a better
: explosion.

Use extreme caution here. Chlorate/sulfur mixes are friction and shock
sensitive. It is possible that they will explode on mixing.

: a cool thing that we used to do was to take a dart, the cheap kinds
: with a plastic end, unscrew the metal part and force it in to the
: plastic end backwards.  now you gave a dard with a hollow heavy side!
: take a screw that fits in to the dart's openning and attach it with a
: string so you wouldn't loose it.  fill it with the match-powder or the

People have injured themselves badly, by doing such things. All it takes
is a little of the powder on the threads - and the contraption will explode
in your hands. The same thing will occur if you get too much mixture in the
hollow, so that it becomes compressed when you turn in the screw.

: other mixture.  Then throw it up as high as you can (I love it how I
: changed tenses and wes to yous!)  When the dart hits the ground,
: the screw squeezes the mixture and make it explode.  Some times the
: dart goes flying up because of the explosion.  a couple of times the
: metal part cracked!

More than likely, the screw did nothing. I would expect that the mix
would explode, simply from the compression due to the rapid deceleration
of the dart/mix.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: pdevri95@ursa.calvin.edu (Paul De Vries)
Subject: The Anarchists What?
Summary: Which one is it?
Keywords: anarchist's cookbook handbook
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:31:24 GMT

Which do you mean, the Anarchist's Cookbook or Handbook?  The
Cookbook's a book circa 1970's which contains (as someone else pointed
out) wildly innaccurate information on the manufacture of bombs,
drugs, guns, poison gas, etc.  Following any of the instructions in it
would most likely get you an all-expense-paid trip to the hospital if
not straight to the morgue.

The Handbook, on the other hand, is the common name for what is also
known as the BHU's Cookbook and the Pyrotechnics Cookbook.  It has
been circling around undergound BBSs since around '86 or '87, and is
apparently the mad ravings of someone going by the handle "BHU."  It's
essentially short recipes on making explosives, counterfeiting money,
circumnavigating telephone security systems, and general mayhem like
that.  It's not so bad as the Cookbook if you take into account the
facts that (a) the author does not write under a guise of expertise,
(b) the files are much more recent, (c) the author does not make
continual reference to revolutions and such, and (d) the writing
style's a lot less impersonal.

Beyond that they're both worthless.

(Incidentally, a copy of BHU's Cookbook was edited and re-released as
Jolly Roger's Cookbook -- the only difference was that all references
to BHU were replaced with Jolly Roger.)
From: pbray@lust.reed.edu (Peter Bray)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:46:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov18.084614.13560
Distribution: usa
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Nov18.031433.21868@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van  
Pelt) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.033256.15496@engage.pko.dec.com>  
moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
> >In article <83314@ut-emx.uucp>, tzeking@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (chan  
tze-king) writes...
> >[deleted; I'm not repeating that]
> 
> Can't say as I blame you.
> 
> >You may want to know that employees of various Federal agencies
> >certainly read this group.  Many do not have a sense of humor
> >whatsoever.  Perhaps you already know this...
> 
> Yup.  Does anyone out there know this idiot?  It might be amusing
> and/or instructive for future idiots to hear how his "interview"
> came out.
> 




Can I aks what on the earth you are referring too??!?!?
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: So ya wanna die?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:32:34 GMT

moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
: In article <1992Nov23.053910.13566@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes...
: >By the way, I had forgotten that black pipe is used for pyrotechnic mortars.
: 
: Note also that pyrotechnic mortars are also buried in case something _does_ go
: wrong.

Yep. In case a shell detonated in the mortar. Of course, if that happens then
it doesn't matter much what the mortar is made out of - it is going to burst.

As mortars are usually only partly buried - the worst detonation is one that
happens when the shell is near the mouth of the mortar. The PGI recommends
that all metal mortars be buried, or sandbagged, all the way to the mouth of
the mortar - on the operator side.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: zimmerma@acs.ucalgary.ca (Louis Victor Zimmerman)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 08:03:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

>
>You know, this reminds me.  I've always kinda wondered what would happen if
>you managed to ping the President with a paint pellet gun.  Have to shoot
>him in the back to avoid endangering his eyesight, but still... Talk about
>causing a commotion.  Difficult to pull off without getting yourself shot,
>too; have to do it from some distance away.  I just wonder what the media, 
>feds, etc would make of something like that.
>						-Neon.-
>

As an avid paintball player, I have a personal request: PLEASE
don't try the experiment!!  It's not worth dying or getting shot
for!  It's also not worth (IMNSHO) the havoc that it would wreak
on the paintball community at large.  If you did something like
this in Canada, I'm pretty sure of what would happen: the Federal
Government would ban paintball guns faster'n you can say Ms.
Campbell!  I don't know if that would happen in the U.S. or not,
but the incident would certainly provide fuel for the anti-gun
anti-paintball
anti-anything-that-looks-like-fun-or-acknowledges-the-realities-of-life
forces.  I wouldn't want to be the poor joker who pulled this
stunt, especially if the end result was the banning of paintguns
(and thus the demise of paintball); the thought of trying to
apologise to a mob of several million distraught paintball
players is not a calming one!  ("Several million?" you say...
"Surely he must jest!" Well, I may hyperbolize a bit, but there
WAS a game at the Jack Frost Ski Resort in Jim Thorpe PA on the
29th of July this year that was reasonably well attended.  There
were somewhat over 3,000 players.  On the field. Simultaneously.
At once.  All at the same time.  8-) ).
	Bottom line: if you want to tag a politician with a
paintball, PLEASE do it properly!  :-)  Invite 'em out to a
paintball field, get 'em suited up, and then go tag 'em to your
heart's content!  (Or try to... they MAY tag you first!)

	L. Zimmerman,   NAPRA 474
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: ornitz@kodak.kodak.com (Barry Ornitz)
Subject: Re: ANFO+RDX (RDX and HMX manufacturing)
Followup-To: dev.null
Keywords: RDX, HMX, manufacturing
Organization: Eastman Chemical Company
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 21:14:18 GMT

In article <gilchr.722032858@ee.ualberta.ca> gilchr@ee.ualberta.ca 
(Andrew Gilchrist) writes:
>(does anyone have info about the "secret" manufacturing process the
>allies developed c. WWII  ?)
--- in reference to the manufacture of RDX high explosives.

Yes...

Our subsidiary, Holston Defense Corporation manufactures RDX and HMX for the
Army.  The facilities are a few miles from here at Holston Army Ammunition
Plant.  The process is fairly simple, but far from optimized.  There has been
little need over the years to drastically increase production or greatly
reduce costs, hence the continued use of an older chemical process.  As far as 
giving out details - no way!  I will say, however, that the process is far
beyond the capabilities of all but a few readers of this group.  The chemistry
is simple; the engineering is not.

BTW, I am one of the people who reads this group but virtually never does post 
because of the "mad bombers".  I will make an occasional exception to preach
safety information, however.  Fortunately there is the pyrotechnics mailing 
list for those of us who value and promote accurate and safe information.
Trying to make RDX at home by "field-expedient" techniques is tempting fate.

If anyone thinks it strange that a Kodak company makes military explosives,
consider that most of the nuclear facilities at Oak Ridge were originally
designed and built by us before Union Carbide became the prime contractor
(now Martin Marietta).  One of my retired co-workers still occasionally gets
notice of a patent approval he submitted during WWII but was classified until
recently because of military implications.
						Barry
 -----------------
|  ___  ________  |       Dr. Barry L. Ornitz          WA4VZQ
| |  / /        | |       Eastman Kodak Company
| | / /         | |       Eastman Chemical Company Research Laboratories
| |< < K O D A K| |       Process Instrumentation Research Laboratory
| | \ \         | |       P. O. Box 1972, Building 167B
| |__\ \________| |       Kingsport, TN  37662       615/229-4904
|                 |       INTERNET:   ornitz@kodak.com
 -----------------
From: lyn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Myself)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Gratitudes
Date: 18 Nov 1992 19:48:53 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

   A generous helping of thanks to all those who responded to my post. I will
take some of the advice given, and henceforth move the topic to the groups
set up to discuss fluid dynamics (I was unable to find them, but one kind
soul gave them to me, and I am now reading what I can find). Any replies that
are unsent as of yet are still greatly appreciated. Again, thank you all,

	Myself (lyn@matt..ksu.ksu.edu)
	StormWind @ kids MUSH
	Amateur electronics hardwire freak
	Mathematician confusedly
	And many, many other things........
-- 
This was brought to you by Myself(lyn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu) who is all things here.
Head of Synergy Systems, a non-official group of aspiring hackers creating and
distributing software for the common good. Head office:Terra, Sol system. We
Flames accepted-and returned with interest and intelligence compounded.
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: brech@vision.ethz.ch (Christian Brechbuehler)
Subject: Fulminating powder (was glycerin)
Organization: Institute for Communication Technology, ETH Zuerich
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:32:30 GMT

In article <E0L8RXE@math.fu-berlin.de>,
   beck@irzr17.inf.tu-dresden.de (Andre Beck) asks:

|> A completely other question: Does anyone know the exact mixture proportions
|> to produce "Glaubers Knallsalz" (huuh.. how to translate... may be
|> "Glaubers bangsalt" ??). This is a simple mix of Potassium nitrate,
|> Potassium Carbonate and Sulfur. It burns nasty, without great effect
|> when lighted. The joke is, if you heat it VERY slowly, so if melts
|> and then you continue GENTLY heating it, it will suddenly detonate with
|> great BANG.


On 2 Jun 92, Peter.Turner@prg.oxford.ac.uk wrote:

T>                         FULMINATING POWDER
T> 
T> 
T> This mixture is quite different from the true fulminates which are very 
T> dangerous and is quite safe to handle.
T> 
T> Chemicals required.
T> 
T> Potassium Nitrate    50.0% 
T> Potassium Carbonate  33.4% 
T> Flowers of Sulphur   16.6% 
T> 
T> 
T> Grind the above separately and mix the three finely ground powders
T> with a wooden spoon etc.  Place a small sample of the powder, approx
T> 10grams or a third of an ounce on say a tin lid and apply heat from
T> underneath.  Stand back!  At least 3M.  It will explode with a loud
T> but harmless report.
T> If one fails to get the desired effect the Potassium Carbonate may be
T> a little damp,try drying the Potassium Carbonate on a plate in a cool
T> oven and trythe mixture again.  This has been tested and it does work
T> if the heat is applied long enough.  A suitable place for this
T> experiment is outside using a small spirit burner as a heat source or
T> something equivalent.



I haven't tried it. This reminder is from

	Christian Brechbuehler
	
	Communication Technology Lab, Image Science Group
	Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich, Switzerland

Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: umwieb80@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Alexander David Wiebe)
Subject: Even pros mess up
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:57:16 GMT

I realize (from reading this news group) that many people are aware of the
dangers of looking directly down the tube of a roman candle that is lit. 
However, I just read an article in todays paper (Winnipeg Free Press)
about another problem with fireworks (or pyrotechnical displays).  Last
night there was a big cerimonial 'lighting' of the chtistmas lights that
clutter our downtown area, and along with the 'throwing of the switch'
there was a fireworks display.  For some reason the people in charge were
given permission to set these things off from the roof of a building which
I am assuming to be very close to the crowd, because many people were
complaining of getting expended powder and debris in their eyes.  What I
am wondering is...

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)?

b) how harmful can it be?
		(ie: is it just like a real annoying find sand, or are
there chemicals involved that could cause nasty problems)

Just curious.

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: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.000156.29436@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
|> rtaraz@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Ramin Taraz) writes:
|> : 
|> : 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?
|> 
|> Not consistently. Usually, if anything happens, it just burns. I could
|> probably look up the specifics.
|> 
|> Bill

Initiation with high power rifle bullets depends on many factors;
the size and shape of the charge, the effectiveness of the transfer of 
shock and energy to the explosive. Cast TNT is reportedly sensitive to
such initiation. However, C4 is a plasticised explosive, while the base
explosive (92% RDX) is extremely shock sensitive, the effect of the
plasticisers will modify the energy transfer somewhat, possibly even 
to such an extent that it will not cause detonation. But again this
will depend on the size and shape of the charge. It would be interesting
to see some data on this.

BTW, the HE Nitrocellulose contains 10% water and doesn't burn, so much
so that I have read a report stating that a red hot metal rod can punch
holes in the material without causing it to ignite.

Mark.
From: rxy5310@hertz.njit.edu (rolan yang ee stnt)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Dry Ice Bomb
Summary: Bomb made of dry ice
Keywords: Dry Ice, Bomb, Boom, Bang
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:09:29 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

I apologize if this is old news to most of you , but here goes anyway:    
  Not necessarily the most deadly, destructive, or spectacular bombs,
but the loudest bomb that I had ever made (I've been making them for 
about 8 years) is the dry ice bomb.  
Dry Ice is frozen CO2. You can get it from 31 Flavors or most other
ice cream stores or from a local labratory/hospital. Take a 2 or 3
liter soda bottle and fill about 1/4 with dry ice and 1/8 with
hot water.  Cap as soon as possible and throw. The plastic bottles with
the thicker walls are usually louder.  In the last few years, the Coke
and Pepsi bottles seem to have been getting thinner. Try some cheap 
brand of soda like Ma's cola or something.
   I believe that these bombs (as opposed to fire bombs) are louder because 
the shell of the exposive is not weakened much by heat/fire before
the explosion. Have fun. One more thing, If the bottle does not 
happen to explode, do not uncap with your bare hands.
Use common sense. Play it safe. 
                                     Rolan Yang  Wasteland Engineer
                                      rxy5310@hertz.njit.edu
From: Shawn.Pourchot@f99.n121.z1.FidoNet.Org (Shawn Pourchot)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: about that flash powder
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:58:24 GMT

Speaking of flash powder...
Does anyone out there know what the exact percent and concentrations of acid are needed to make flash paper?  I believe it's 50% Nitric and sulfric, but am not sure.

 * Origin: NineJackNine (1:121/99)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
From: shoe@calvin.edu (Al Shoemaker)
Subject: Re: Toilet bowl cleaner bomb
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:17:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.005259.44797@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> epasls@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <BxoMEB.G9J@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jl52800@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (The Incredible Mr.Wong) writes:
> The bomb referred to in the subject header is made as follows. A two liter
> empty is filled about 1/4 to 1/3 full of crumpled aluminum foil. A toilet
> bowl cleaner is then poured in to cover the foil. The bottle is then capped
> tightly. I've played around with these for a couple years now, and the time
> for it to go off is unpredictablt (to me at least.) It's gone off anywhere 
> from 10 seconds to 10 minutes. Does anyone know why this is? And while I'm
> at it, does anyone know what the reaction is? I don't really know much about
> chemistry, but my guess is the foil reacts with the acid in the cleaner. All I
> know is that it gets pretty hot, and the liquid sprayed after the explosion
> stains asphalt....=) Oh yeah, right before it explodes, you can see a LOT of
> white smoke being produced inside the bottle.
> 
> Mr.Wong

I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to be around when all
that acid gets sprayed all over when it explodes.  The acid in the
toilet bowl cleaner is typically NaHSO4, which is a fairly acidic compound.

(Al Shoemaker; shoe@calvin.edu; all the usual disclaimers apply.)