From: sfaber@cbnewse.cb.att.com (steven.r.faber)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: nitric acid question & soapbox
Message-ID: <1991Jul31.203524.26952@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
Date: 31 Jul 91 20:35:24 GMT

Whooh, not that deadly nitric acid!  You must be one of those
despicable degenerates that may be attempting to make some
guncotton, or maybe even a (shudder) high explosive.
Don't you know that you need a Ph.D. in chemistry to handle nitric
acid? and if you spill a drop on you that it could eat through your
pants and burn your peter off!  Maybe you are going to make some
of those naughty compounds that everyone in the Royal Pyrotechnic
Guild knows that no sane person who has any notion of safety would
ever try and make, like silver fulminate, or (gasp) ammonium nitrogen
tri-iodide.

Soapbox:
I believe it is possible to experiment with practically any
compound safely including those mentioned above, and you
don't need a Ph.D. to do it.  Most people "know" what is
safe and what isn't with respect to chemicals and will tell
you even though they don't have any direct experience with
the materials, and it is based on heresay. Others with
advanced degrees will do the same and be just as wrong.
After all, if you have experimented with making black powder,
you probably know a lot more about the nature of black
powder than a Ph.D. who has not.  You could probably get
a Ph.D. in inorganic chem. and still not know how nitric acid
is made unless you did some outside reading.

I have enjoyed making fulminates and other compounds since
I was 16, and it was enjoyable and sparked my interest in
chemistry.  I am sure there are others who have done the same.
As mentioned before on the net, many organic high explosives are
safer to make and less subject to unintentional initiation than
black powder.
Safety is relative, but if one approaches the synthesis of an
explosive with over-caution, and reads up on the subject, and uses
small quantities, most anything can be made safely with reasonable
equipment.
Chemicals are reproducible.  Silver fulminate is not made safely
one day, and then explode unpredictably the next day, unless the
process is altered unpredictably.  Ammonium nitrate does not decide
to blow up a town or ship one day and not another; it does it because
the conditions were right once and not the other.  When the factors
were learned (e.g. concentrations of organics ),  the material could
then be stored safely and no more boats blew up.

There seems to be a rather two faced attitude among many
pyrotechnists in this newsgroup.  They enjoy discussing the
spectacular effects of some fireworks, and then when someone
mentions an exploding balloon, or interesting explosive compound,
they turn around and get down on them.
Maybe this culture is the result of pyrotechnic dabblers and
dilettantes  that have blown themselves and others up, and given
the subject a bad name.  Then the enthusiasts have to adopt
a certain separatist attitude in an attempt to retain some air of
validity to their hobby, and then propitiate to the law makers.
Too bad.  There will always be the walking disaster area types one
must avoid, but that doesn't mean a person who asks a question about
nitric acid, or a person who asks for a reference list is necessarily
too stupid to read or use a library or make fireworks.  This is
just a recreational news group.

I enjoy the discussions of high explosives and don't have
any apologies about it.  There is no implied inducement for
anyone to break laws.  Knowledge is not supposed to be censored.

--
Dr. Steven R. Faber Ph.D. Chemistry	- live free or die, NH
AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL		- better living thru chemistry
N9FYX					- objectionable is in the eye
					  of the beholder, l.c.

From: ahahma@polaris.utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: nitric acid question & soapbox
Message-ID: <1991Aug5.180207.11088@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: 5 Aug 91 18:02:07 GMT

In article <1991Jul31.203524.26952@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
sfaber@cbnewse.cb.att.com (steven.r.faber) writes:

>Whooh, not that deadly nitric acid!  You must be one of those
>despicable degenerates that may be attempting to make some
>guncotton, or maybe even a (shudder) high explosive.

Oh yes, I must be one of them. I made all of that. I even built a
continuously operating distillation column out of pyrex glass to make
the necessary acid (ever heard about the Pauling process?). I was in
the high school then. I agree with the Soapbox.

>Soapbox:

>I believe it is possible to experiment with practically any
>compound safely including those mentioned above, and you
>don't need a Ph.D. to do it.  Most people "know" what is

It is. I still have all of my bodily parts there.

>After all, if you have experimented with making black powder,
>you probably know a lot more about the nature of black
>powder than a Ph.D. who has not.  You could probably get

The same applies for smokeless powders as well ;-).

>a Ph.D. in inorganic chem. and still not know how nitric acid
>is made unless you did some outside reading.

True. I know several, who wouldn't be able to give enough information
for that. They would know it in principle, but not in practice.  On
the other hand, they would probably be able to learn it much faster
than, say, an inorganic chem. student.

>I have enjoyed making fulminates and other compounds since
>I was 16, and it was enjoyable and sparked my interest in
>chemistry.

So it did for me. It literally sparked (among other things) the
interest ;-).

>I am sure there are others who have done the same.

There are. Some of them had and still have even a wider
spectrum of interesting compounds ;-).

>As mentioned before on the net, many organic high explosives are
>safer to make and less subject to unintentional initiation than
>black powder.

This is true. There are more of the safer than dangerous explosives.

>Safety is relative, but if one approaches the synthesis of an
>explosive with over-caution, and reads up on the subject, and uses
>small quantities, most anything can be made safely with reasonable
>equipment.

I agree. Just take the worst into account and even an unintentional
ignition won't do harm. The problem is that you need a considerable
amount of information to be able to do this, i.e. to decide, what is
enough for a protection. Reading up the subject brings a solution to
this.

>to blow up a town or ship one day and not another; it does it because
>the conditions were right once and not the other.  When the factors
>were learned (e.g. concentrations of organics ),  the material could
>then be stored safely and no more boats blew up.

This is the hard way to learn. Today, you don't have to follow it,
unless you are developing totally new and unpublished compounds. Just
take a look at an university library and you'll find interesting
information there, including the safety. Learn, how to use the CA and
the patent literature - vast amounts of accurate and detailed
information can be easily found.

>There seems to be a rather two faced attitude among many
>pyrotechnists in this newsgroup.  They enjoy discussing the
>spectacular effects of some fireworks, and then when someone
>mentions an exploding balloon, or interesting explosive compound,
>they turn around and get down on them.

True. Such has occured several times in this and other newsgroups. I
am trying not be one of them, although a word of warning is good
sometimes.

>Too bad.  There will always be the walking disaster area types one
>must avoid,

There will be those types with or without pyrotechnics. Banning
pyrotechnics won't help a bit. Why should the majority of us suffer
because of a minority of them?

>but that doesn't mean a person who asks a question about
>nitric acid, or a person who asks for a reference list is necessarily
>too stupid to read or use a library or make fireworks.  This is

True. It is more likely they have not heard about such information or
references before. Then, it is very helpful, if they get even one of
the references. The reference will refer to others and so on.

>I enjoy the discussions of high explosives and don't have
>any apologies about it.

Neither have I. I work with them and related things.

>There is no implied inducement for
>anyone to break laws.  Knowledge is not supposed to be censored.

Unfortunately, explosives, their manufacture and use is not legal in
most countries, unless you have a permission to do so. To get such a
permission is not the simplest thing to do.

>Dr. Steven R. Faber Ph.D. Chemistry	- live free or die, NH

ArNO
    2

From: ahahma@polaris.utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Re: nitric acid question & soapbox
Message-ID: <1991Aug5.190105.12504@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: 5 Aug 91 19:01:05 GMT

In article <22810164@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill
nelson) writes:

>help. However, attempting to make some of these substances when you have no
>information is just about as bright as driving a car in rush hour traffic
>on the freeway when you have never driven a car before.

Granted. That is exactly why you have to first find out and only then
try it. You don't have to go through the hard way, someone else has
already done that. That only requires some additional work, more than
just the cooking.

>people who post here who also know exactly what they are talking
>about from direct experience.

The paradox is you can't get experience by reading only. You
necessarily need do some experimenting. The most peoples' attitude is:
"Don't do it, get an experienced person to do it for you or get some
experience first." I wonder, how this can be done, if one has none
initially?

>Sure, but hopefully the PhD would have some theoretical knowledge.
>He would not be just blindly experimenting if he chose to play with
>the chemicals.

You can never have too much information.

>Certainly, and safely. There are many others that have maimed
>themselves,

Most probably due to a lack of knowledge.

>I would not say many. There are a few that may be safer to make
>with proper precautions. The largest danger of initiation for
>black powder is by spark or flame - it is relatively shock and
>friction insensitive. On the other side of the coin, black powder
>is not very hazardous unless it is confined. All the high explosives
>are dangerous, even unconfined, if they are initiated. Most of the
>high explosives tend to be far more toxic than black powder, so
>this is another hazard of which to be aware.

I wonder, why the black powder mills have the highest insurance bills
of all, much higher than those of an explosives factory. Maybe it is
because black powder is so safe? Why is shipping of most of the high
explosives permitted as such, but black powder has to be moistened
before shipping it in quantity?

Most high explosives, that are in use are next to impossible to
initiate while handling them. Nowadays accidents happen mostly a)
due to a sabotage b) due to a fire in a large storage. In the latter
case the whole storage seldom blows up, but only one or a few boxes,
containers, etc.

Black powder is dangerous in the open as well as in a confined state.
It causes severe burns really easily. You need no more for
that than you would need of an explosive to maim yourself as severely.
The same applies for almost any other pyrotechnical mixture, such as
star compositions and particularly flash mixture.

>Exactly - but most of the people who post their requests here are not
>interested in reading up on the subject. All they want to do is make
>the substance in question in large quantities.

May be, but how do you know that? Sometimes, the articles are obviosly
written by a "mad bomber" but where do you draw the border, what kind of
articles are from a sane person what not?

>Exactly, but on a lab scale, purification is a problem. Seldom does a
>person go to the effort to get rid of as much impurity as possible.

This is really another point to be considered. Again, if you study,
you'll learn the importance of the purity. The yield is not the most
important, as is always told to an organic chem. student, right? This
applies even more strictly for energetic materials. Impurities ==
greatly shortened shelf life, less performance and even unpredictable
properties.

Purification is not a problem, it is almost invariably explained with
the instructions (or a recipe, if you prefer ;-).  If it seems a
problem, there are other compounds, that can be easier purified. Try
another one, if this is the case.

>then I doubt if you would see nearly as much caution as far as giving
>advice.  I would rather discuss the effects from a compound or mixture.

So would I. It is far easier than posting methods, since you don't have
to explain all the hazards. There is always something you know and
others don't, if you have experimented and the others haven't.
Posting a well known instruction given in a book is of little use. It is
easier to give the reference and you don't forget anything important.

>I am willing to research how to make that compound safely myself and
>not have to ask someone else how to proceed. This is exercising prudent
>caution in a hobby that you must admit can be easily fatal.

That is the way you get the experience, but asking someone could help
you a lot of work.

>That is by refusing to provide methods of manufacturing explosives or
>hazardous chemicals. References are readily available, with just a little
>effort, for anyone who wishes to pursue those subjects.

Posting methods is not necessarily bad, since you may give some, that
are not that commonly known. The newer methods are more than usually
safer, yield a more pure product and are more efficient than those
mentioned in some old, easiest accessible books.

>I enjoy the discussions also - as long as they are limited to effects.

I prefer them as well, but not because it would be bad to discuss the
methods.

>Bill

ArNO
    2

From: ahahma@polaris.utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Re: nitric acid question & soapbox
Message-ID: <1991Aug16.165623.21239@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: 16 Aug 91 16:56:23 GMT

In article <22810166@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>That was my point exactly.  Get some books on the subject and ask
>questions.

Asking questions is useful only, if you can expect them to be answered
as well.

>Then do the experimenting when you have some idea what

When you have the information, you can start experimenting
and find out the know-how or experience yourself. That is something
one can not usually explain.

>then, I erred on the side of caution and worked with very small
>amounts until I found out how everything acted. That caution has
>saved me from serious injury more than once.

So it has done for me. Small amounts first. When it works, scale
it up and do it continuously, if possible. This usually gives a more
pure product as well, since the reaction runs faster and the
concentrations can be higher due to better heat transfer (small
quantities of reacting material).

>even high explosives (in small quantities). I will continue to
>caution people against playing with such mixtures when they have
>not spent some time reading and learning some theory.

It would be good to give some hints about the theory, too, i.e.
explain, why the warnings.

>The insurance is so high for at least two reasons. 1) The manufacture
>of black powder is a batch process. The continuous stream processes
>cannot be used.

The US army black powder mill runs continuously and produces even
better quality BP than the conventional ball mill- edge runner-
process. Ever heard about jet mills?

>2) Manufacture of black powder is primarily a mechanical
>rather than a chemical process. Since it is mechanical, it is harder to
>eliminate all sources of sparks and high heat that can cause ignition.

True. Making high explosives involves little mechanical action.

>You can buy it in about 50 pound drums. It requires more careful handling
>simply because it is easier to touch ignite by the hazards of transportation.

That is not the case with high explosives, they are safe to handle,
especially, if wet. Here PETN is not considered explosive, if it
contains 30 % or more water. You don't even need the labels on the
truck.

>On the other hand, blasting caps require special handling because of their
>sensitivity to initiation by shock.

Yes, so do all primary explosives and mixtures. Black and flash
powders can be considered such.

>garage or basement.  And to make use of them, the person has to make
>their own blasting cap - which uses very sensitive primary explosives.

True. The cap only contains less than a gram of an explosive, so there
is less danger as well. If one is not an idiot, one uses some shields
while loading the cap. If it explodes, all that happens is a loud
boom.

>effort to approach this hobby safely. If their local library does not
>have the books they need, then they will be available through interlibrary

That is right. You just need the name or the author of the book.

>Exactly, which is one of the things ignored by the so-called "expedient

>I would agree that posting the general method would be great, giving a

How about a continuous jet milling procedure for manufacturing black
powder? It could be used for other pyrotechnical mixtures as well. An
explosion won't destroy a well designed apparatus.

>methods which would be tried by people who have no idea what they are doing.
>True, they should have every right to maim themselves if they wish, but I

After this kind of discussions, everyone should understand, that
simply taking a procedure from the net and following it is not wise.
Asking more questions about it is.

>Bill

ArNO
    2

From: sfaber@cbnewse.cb.att.com (steven.r.faber)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: ok, got it
Message-ID: <1991Dec9.164118.20054@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
Date: 9 Dec 91 16:41:18 GMT

From article <22810329@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, by billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson):
> indy@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Indiana Jones) /  1:19 pm  Dec  6, 1991 / writes:
>
>   >Could people who have manufacture explosives tell me there duds and
>>triumphs? I have had many failures, even the one that worked (c-4)
>>ended in the loss of my shed.
>
> Most people who have are unlikely to admit it - I think the paranoia
> is justified. The feds take a dim view of the illegal manufacture of
> high explosives. Matter of fact, they can get quite upset if they find
> out you are making any kind of explosive.
>

Many of the accounts of explosives manufactures given on the net
by various people were pre-BATF pre 1968  accounts, and shouldn't
give the impression that there is a free experimentation legal atmosphere
presently existent for explosives.
Just look at the recent crime bill where the law was modified regarding
use of explosives or guns in crimes to mere possession of explosives
or guns adding severe penalties whether or not they were used or carried
during the crime.
States such as IL have passed laws where all search and seizure rights
are forfeited if one possesses these items.
Some would say we are heading toward a police state, and it would
be a good time to stock up on guns and explosives knowledge while
you still can.

Steve

From: tip@lead.tmc.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: ok, got it
Message-ID: <1991Dec9.125111.2230@arizona.edu>
Date: 9 Dec 91 19:51:09 GMT

Horrible Story Time;

A freind of mine _was_ an amateur pyrotechnian.  He was a BS Chemist from
Cal Tech,  studying for his PhD in a midwestern university.  He had
a small stock of KNO3, KClO4, Mg, etc... at his home.    Some of his
church freinds decided that he might hurt himself playing with dangerous
toys (I don't know if they had justification,  I doubt it though.  X seemed
pretty careful to me when I knew him).    Anyway,   they decided to ask a
cop about it... cop went ballistic.   My freind was arrested, and tried.
His defence was;  "Yes,  I had the materials to make bombs,  but I
also have the equipment to be a rapist...   The point is,  I
haven't done either!"   The judge and jury didn't buy this,  and so he
was sentanced under some sort of federal felony rap.   He didn't
get to go to a federal country club prison either.  Good bye graduate career.

He's out now,  and last I heard,  was working as a glue technician watching
phenol dribble into vats of formaldehyde.

Take home lesson;  you don't even have to mix KClO4 and Al to get a reaction
that will ruin the rest of your life.  So take all appropriate safety
precautions when working with pyrotechnics.

NOTE:   I do not agree with or support this policy of the government.

From: tip@lead.tmc.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: ok, got it
Message-ID: <1991Dec10.004827.2236@arizona.edu>
Date: 10 Dec 91 07:48:26 GMT

Thanks for all of the info about the law.   It's better (and worse) than
I thought.    I don't know all the facts (this happened in another state)
but I'd bet offhand  what got my freind into trouble with the law is
poverty and  being too self assured (BS Cal Tech).   I know he was a grad
student at the time.  Thus he was POOR.   I'll bet he thought he could beat
the rap without a good lawyer,  or he got a cheap lawyer who didn't know beans.

My father is a lawyer,  and he used to tell me;  "Son, in this country
you can get all the justice you can afford."

Tom

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Hand wringing. (was Re: Nitrostarch?)
Message-ID: <tj=htc_@dixie.com>
Date: 15 Feb 92 21:20:33 GMT

moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:

>Look.  The information in this group is unreliable to its quality.  There
>are a few good ideas mixed with some really bad ideas.  Think of this
>group as a pile of manure with a few diamonds thrown in.  If you don't
>know what you're doing you can't tell the good from the bad, the diamonds
>from the manure, and if you follow some random bad "recipe" you might get
>hurt and never know what went wrong.  For example, just recently there
>were suggestions to ballmill chlorate and sulfur, that nitroglycerin was
>"stable" etc.

Look.  Information in most groups on this network is mostly bad.  That's
why I try to give direct answers to even those who appear to be novices.
All of us were at one time.  This group deals with nothing any more
dangerous than, say, the subjects in rec.autos.driving or rec.motorcycles.
Look at the latter right now. There is a thread about running from the
Cops.  Dangerous?  sure as hell.  More fatalities than playing with
explosives?  Sure as hell.  But where are the hands wringers there?
The answer is, everyone knows by definition that running from the cops
in a high speed chase is dangerous.  Just as everyone knows that playing
with explosives is dangerous.  Perhaps it is the wannabe factor that
draws the hands wringers here.  You know, those who want to play with
the boom-booms but are afraid to try.  So they flame others who are.

>If you know the fundamentals, the good posts can be tried, the bad ones
>ignored or flamed if dangerous.

Only the assholes flame someone for a mistake.  If someone posts something
dangerous, the appropriate thing to do is to correct the mistake in
such a manner that it will not drive off others who might otherwise ask
before doing.  Suppose for example, that someone else was considering
ballmilling sulfur-chlorate mixutures but was afraid to post a question
for fear of being flamed?  Suppose that person hurt himself in his
mistake?  Would you feel proud from having flamed and established the
inhospitable environment?

>As to books, again there are good ones and bad ones.  But it's fairly easy
>to tell which books are bad and ignore them, and study up on the good ones.
>Once you have some knowledge you can pick the diamonds out.  But you'll
>be amazed how much is manure sometimes...

Well if the books are bad (Bill's advice) and the net_advice is bad, just
where do you propose novices get their information?  Hey, I got an idea.
How about posting questions to a group designated for the subject?
There would be a good chance of there being experts on the group, yes?

The key here is to give the person intelligent answers.  Don't flippantly
refer them off to some textbook probably out of print.   Refering
to out-of-print books while NOT quoting the relevant materials here
is an especially despicable form of arrogance.  If the person posts a
dangerous procedure or formula, then IF YOU HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
OR REFERENCES, correct  him, preferably politely.  If you know no more
than what you've heard here (mostly superstition and hand wringing)
then how about sitting on your fingers.  There'll be plenty of other
reactionaries.  Or maybe email him.

You know, I've got more experience in manufacturing explosives and pyro than
most of the people on this group.  I had the luck to inherit a chemical
supply warehouse when I was in high school.  The chemicals that people
masturbate over here such as white phosphorus, potassium metal Red Fuming
Nitric, (per)clorates and the like, I had in carboy quantities.  Did
I survive this obvious deathtrap?  Yup.  Close calls?  Nope.  I did
have enough sense to dig a bunker and do some of the more hazardous
experiments with homemade remote manipulators and an old tank periscope
for vision.

Yet I rarely post here.  Why?  A minor consideration is that its been
years and I've forgotten many details.  A more important reason is that
I don't have the time nor the temperment to deal with the assholes,
and I'm not refering to the ballmill-the-chlorate crowd.  If I were to
post the details of my bunker, for example, some asshole would guaranteed
come back and while wringing his hands raw, note that if my test tube
of nitroglycerine happened to yield 100 KT of explosive force, my
bunker would be inadequate.  And they'd work themselves to orgasm pointing
out that my entire operation was probably illegal (the local cops liked
to come around and watch the booms :-)  So I mostly sit on my fingers
until the bullshit level gets intolerable.

Hey, try to contribute something positive to the discussion if you're going
to use bandwidth.

John

From: ahahma@polaris.utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Hand wringing. (was Re: Nitrostarch?)
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.115850.4494@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: 21 Feb 92 11:58:50 GMT

In article <tj=htc_@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>Look.  Information in most groups on this network is mostly bad.  That's
>why I try to give direct answers to even those who appear to be novices.

So do I, that is the best way to cut rumors.

>All of us were at one time.  This group deals with nothing any more
>dangerous than, say, the subjects in rec.autos.driving or rec.motorcycles.
>Look at the latter right now. There is a thread about running from the
>Cops.  Dangerous?  sure as hell.  More fatalities than playing with

This is a very good point. Driving a car, not to mention a
motorcycle, is far more dangerous than pyrotechnics. Just look
at the accident statistics. Most of the accidents happen at home
and due to electricity. So: ban homes and electricity.

>The answer is, everyone knows by definition that running from the cops
>in a high speed chase is dangerous.  Just as everyone knows that playing
>with explosives is dangerous.  Perhaps it is the wannabe factor that

It is the far greater publicity value of this topic. If someone hurts
a finger when a firecracker fuse spits a flame, it is almost a front
page news. If someone crashes a car and dies, it is barely noticed in
a local newspaper.

Then there is another point. If someone steals a box of dynamite and
blows it up in the middle of the city (almost that happened here this
new year), people start yelling to ban firecrackers. Now what is
the point of doing this? Why don't they ban bicycles, when someone
crashes a car?

>draws the hands wringers here.  You know, those who want to play with
>the boom-booms but are afraid to try.  So they flame others who are.

I think you are right about that as well. To be afraid is the very
last thing you may do, if you grab a piece of explosives and start
using it. Once you decide to do something, don't ever think the
possibilities, just do it like you planned. If you start
regretting and being afraid, you also start making mistakes, bad
mistakes. How do I know?  Personal and others' experience. Someone
slams a door and scares the h*** out of you. You shake and push the
container of lead azide. It falls down the table...

You just have to be able to decide _beforehand_ if it is safe enough
to do what you are thinking about.

>You know, I've got more experience in manufacturing explosives and pyro than
>most of the people on this group.  I had the luck to inherit a chemical

If I would tell everything I have done, even you would consider me
the maddest_bomber_that_ever_existed ;-).

>supply warehouse when I was in high school.  The chemicals that people
>masturbate over here such as white phosphorus, potassium metal Red Fuming
>Nitric, (per)clorates and the like, I had in carboy quantities.  Did

Well, well, I am not the only one here who has had a good source of
chemicals!

>I survive this obvious deathtrap?  Yup.  Close calls?  Nope.  I did

The same applies for me too. Experimenting is the best way of
learning.

>have enough sense to dig a bunker and do some of the more hazardous
>experiments with homemade remote manipulators and an old tank periscope

Had I just had something like that! I just suitable place in a rugged
terrain and a self-made periscope.

>to come around and watch the booms :-)  So I mostly sit on my fingers
>until the bullshit level gets intolerable.

Flaming is an effective way of getting a newsgroup alive, isn't it?
Putting the flames out seems to yield interesting threads.

>Hey, try to contribute something positive to the discussion if you're going
>to use bandwidth.

I'll try.

>John De Armond

ArNO
    2

From: ahahma@polaris.utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: HMDT repost request
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.122757.28009@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: 17 Mar 92 12:27:57 GMT

In article <22810428@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill
nelson) writes:

>The best method is remote viewing with a camera. Expect to replace your
>equipment at some time - you are likely to have a cap blow up on you.

Expensive. The solution: mirrors. Use mirrors, they are cheap and at
least as good as a camera.

A very good rule for any explosive work is: if you can not see the
object directly, then you also can't receive any fragments directly.
Secondary fragments, whatsoever, are seldom dangerous, unless very
large amounts of explosives are used. Goggles are enough to stop any
secondary particles.

>Bill

ArNO
    2

From: ahahma@polaris.utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
Subject: Re: Are there easy-made P.E.'s?
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.094410.12028@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: 25 Nov 92 09:44:10 GMT

In article <i12RuB3w165w@tsoft.sf-bay.org> bbs.byron@tsoft.sf-bay.org
(Byron Reynolds) writes:

>Does anyone have a good, safe, cost effective, tested method of
>creating P.E.'s?

No. There are no such procedures. Your requirements exclude all known
procedures of making primary explosives.

>called "hex---something".  The procedure involved mixing this stuff

>empty 22caliber (spent) shells were loaded with the mixture, a fuse
>inserted, and the end of the shell sealed with epoxy.  Ring any bells?

Bells? Certainly, bells of warning and danger. Making the explosive
(called hexamethylenetriperoxidediamine, HMTD) is relatively safe, but
using it is definitely not, especially in the way you are proposing.
Loading it into .22 shells is exactly the way I managed to get steel
and brass fragments through my hand. And that was the only accident I
have ever had with energetic materials. Unpredictable - all that is
needed to describe HMTD.

>Thanks for the help!

>Byron.

ArNO
    2

From: ahahma@utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
Subject: Re: Pyrotechnics
Date: 3 Jun 1995
Message-ID: <D9Lu7n.65B@utu.fi>
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics

Yevdokimov Artiom wrote:

>:Tom Perigrin (tip@lead.tmc.edu) wrote:
>:
>: >chemiustry class. Even a basic high-school chemistry class, or know
>:
>: Well, I have been seen in college chemistry classes recently.
>
>Well I am a B.Sc, doing M.Sc. in orgchemistry/str.biol... and i have
>also a broad education in electronics... it seems though that lots
>of people around here have zero chemistry education, and have no intention

Watch out, somebody is smiling at you ;). As a student, you might not
have thought on _which_ side of the desk people have been seen in the
chemistry classes...

Then there is another point, too. Knowing a lot about chemistry does
not guarantee knowledge about energetic materials and technologies
associated with them. It helps, but it takes another few years of
studying and experimentation to be able to develop, say, a rocket.

Chemistry alone will not be enough. In addition, you need at least
mathematics, physics, computer science, mechanical and electrical
engineering, a lot of practical skill, luck and black magic and still
you can't do everything, that might prove necessary.

>A.G. Evdokimov.

ArNO
    2