Discussion:
flash vs dynamite
(too old to reply)
name
2003-08-30 14:26:34 UTC
Permalink
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just trying to
settle a dispute.

thanks
name
2003-08-30 17:35:56 UTC
Permalink
but none that give a gram to gram comparison. all i could find on google was
that old thing about an m-80 is the same as a quarter stick. and you know it
isnt even close.
but gram to gram is a differant story.


thanks
groups.google.com
Hundreds of posts on the topic.
Pax
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying
to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Mark
2003-08-30 17:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just trying to
settle a dispute.
thanks
dynamite... next time do a search on google.
Terry Wilder
2003-08-31 06:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just trying to
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question is
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry C.
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Old Dog
2003-08-31 11:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by name
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question is
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry C.
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Brightness?

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-08-31 15:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by name
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question is
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry C.
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Brightness?
-Rich
If Power = Candlepower is your unit, could be.
But then Brightness =/=Visble brightness.
This would seem to require figuring out how much more energy is expended in
doing work through expansion.This may be true for some mixtures containing
NH3NO3 and NH4ClO4, but have you seen or done this for the system in
question
Harry Conover
2003-08-31 18:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by name
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question is
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry C.
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Quite possibly mass energy density, although I haven't done actual
comparisons. I seem to recall once seeing a comparison of the energy
density of gasoline with that of dynamite, and that of the gasoline
was greater.

In general terms, you cannot meaningfully compare the detonation of a
high brisance explosive to that of a Redox deflagration, although you
can compare the energy released released but that is a little like
comparing the energy released by gunpowder to that of coal combustion.

Davis covers the subject quite well in his book, and IIRC correctly he
at some poing defines the power of an explosive to correspond roughly
to the heat of reaction multiplied by the detonation velocity.

Harry C.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-01 00:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question is
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry C.
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Quite possibly mass energy density, although I haven't done actual
comparisons. I seem to recall once seeing a comparison of the energy
density of gasoline with that of dynamite, and that of the gasoline
was greater.
In general terms, you cannot meaningfully compare the detonation of a
high brisance explosive to that of a Redox deflagration, although you
can compare the energy released released but that is a little like
comparing the energy released by gunpowder to that of coal combustion.
Davis covers the subject quite well in his book, and IIRC correctly he
at some poing defines the power of an explosive to correspond roughly
to the heat of reaction multiplied by the detonation velocity.
Harry C.
It sounded like you had something specific in mind.
PyroLeo
2003-09-01 05:05:59 UTC
Permalink
I don't believe Harry had anything specific in mind, I think that was his
point. The person who asked the question is comparing apples and oranges to
some extent. As someone else said, if you compared by light output then flash
is stronger. If you compared by brisance then dynamite is stronger. If you
compared by detonation velocity then it's invalid since flash doesn't detonate.

It's kind of like asking "Which is a better fuel, gasoline or propane?". That
depends by which of the many properties of a typical fuel that you're
comparing.

Leo
----------------
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question is
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry C.
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Quite possibly mass energy density, although I haven't done actual
comparisons. I seem to recall once seeing a comparison of the energy
density of gasoline with that of dynamite, and that of the gasoline
was greater.
In general terms, you cannot meaningfully compare the detonation of a
high brisance explosive to that of a Redox deflagration, although you
can compare the energy released released but that is a little like
comparing the energy released by gunpowder to that of coal combustion.
Davis covers the subject quite well in his book, and IIRC correctly he
at some poing defines the power of an explosive to correspond roughly
to the heat of reaction multiplied by the detonation velocity.
Harry C.
It sounded like you had something specific in mind.
ASchu57793
2003-08-31 19:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Heat of explosion, for one
Terry Wilder
2003-09-01 00:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ASchu57793
Post by Terry Wilder
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Heat of explosion, for one
I remember reading way back about high explosive bursters not reaching a
high enough temperature for
photoflash reconnaissance, but this is due mostly to the adiabatic expansion
of the gaseous by-products..
smeltsmoke
2003-08-31 20:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Could you be referring to brisance ?

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:58:57 GMT, "Terry Wilder"
Post by name
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question is
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry C.
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Smeltsmoke
Terry Wilder
2003-09-01 00:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by smeltsmoke
Could you be referring to brisance ?
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:58:57 GMT, "Terry Wilder"
Post by name
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question is
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry C.
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Smeltsmoke
If I may be vague on defintions I have possibly a great application for
substances or mixtures exhibiting a
low brisance to velocity of detonation ratio.
They usually go hand in hand however.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-02 04:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Which test? The sand bomb test shows that "flash" has no brisance at all.
The lead block expansion test? That one shows that "flash" is not capable
of
expanding the lead block at all with any reasonable sized sample. In both
tests 1 gram of 40% Dynamite is capable of crushing sand and expanding
Lead.
--
Don Thompson
Ex ROMAD
Post by smeltsmoke
Could you be referring to brisance ?
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:58:57 GMT, "Terry Wilder"
Post by name
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question is
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry C.
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Smeltsmoke
Have you done or heard of these tests being done.
I've heard someone say they have been testing one gram samples on the same
brass plate for years with little or no indentation.
Harry Conover
2003-09-02 20:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by name
Which test? The sand bomb test shows that "flash" has no brisance at all.
The lead block expansion test? That one shows that "flash" is not capable
of
expanding the lead block at all with any reasonable sized sample. In both
tests 1 gram of 40% Dynamite is capable of crushing sand and expanding
Lead.
--
Don Thompson
Ex ROMAD
Post by smeltsmoke
Could you be referring to brisance ?
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:58:57 GMT, "Terry Wilder"
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by smeltsmoke
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question is
meaningless.
Post by smeltsmoke
Post by Terry Wilder
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry C.
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Smeltsmoke
Have you done or heard of these tests being done.
I've heard someone say they have been testing one gram samples on the same
brass plate for years with little or no indentation.
I'm not aware of anyone actually performing any brisance testing
employing flash poweder, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been
done.

Not surprising since the deflagration of flash power is a classical
redox reaction, whereas every high explosive that I am aware of (both
primary and secondary) is a spontaneous decomposition reaction.
Perhaps I'm wrong with this generalization, but to the best of my
knowedge no mixture of chemicals in itself cannot produce a high-order
detonation -- not even Armstrong's mixture.

Still, this entire discussion is a bit off-topic in rec.pyrotechnics.

Harry C.
Marty
2003-09-02 23:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Conover
Still, this entire discussion is a bit off-topic in rec.pyrotechnics.
Harry C.
Yea,but still a bit informational if not amusing.

A freind of mine is employed to do testing on explosives of all kinds. I
don't know if he has personally done a test of this type or has any records
of such,but I will ask. He is of the type that if it hasn't been tested,
give him the params, and he will do the test and make it a matter of record.
Marty
Joe 123
2003-09-10 18:20:24 UTC
Permalink
the decomposition products of flash contain a significant amount of Al oxide
and or Mg oxides. Are these products a gas or are they a solid (liq?) If
they are a solid as I suspect than the pressure will be less. They may be
created in the gas phase but realistically they become solid almost as they
are formed? Solids are not gases and dont follow the same rules as gasses.
I.e., one mole of gas occupies a much greater volume than one mole of solid.
SO Flash might have the energy content equal to or greater than some HE's.
problem is flash has a lower yield associated to the high solids in rx
products.

This is simply a thought and I may be totally wrong but it makes sense to
me. To me this is simply way to understand why flash powder dosent seem to
have the same punch as a HE. The rate of reaction is another reason also.

Joe
Post by Marty
Post by Harry Conover
Still, this entire discussion is a bit off-topic in rec.pyrotechnics.
Harry C.
Yea,but still a bit informational if not amusing.
A freind of mine is employed to do testing on explosives of all kinds. I
don't know if he has personally done a test of this type or has any records
of such,but I will ask. He is of the type that if it hasn't been tested,
give him the params, and he will do the test and make it a matter of record.
Marty
Terry Wilder
2003-09-14 00:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe 123
the decomposition products of flash contain a significant amount of Al oxide
and or Mg oxides. Are these products a gas or are they a solid (liq?) If
they are a solid as I suspect than the pressure will be less. They may be
created in the gas phase but realistically they become solid almost as they
are formed? Solids are not gases and dont follow the same rules as gasses.
I.e., one mole of gas occupies a much greater volume than one mole of solid.
unless you have very high pressures, as you should expect to be present.
Post by Joe 123
SO Flash might have the energy content equal to or greater than some HE's.
problem is flash has a lower yield associated to the high solids in rx
products.
This is simply a thought and I may be totally wrong but it makes sense to
me. To me this is simply way to understand why flash powder dosent seem to
have the same punch as a HE. The rate of reaction is another reason also.
Joe
Post by Marty
Post by Harry Conover
Still, this entire discussion is a bit off-topic in rec.pyrotechnics.
Harry C.
Yea,but still a bit informational if not amusing.
A freind of mine is employed to do testing on explosives of all kinds. I
don't know if he has personally done a test of this type or has any
records
Post by Marty
of such,but I will ask. He is of the type that if it hasn't been tested,
give him the params, and he will do the test and make it a matter of
record.
Post by Marty
Marty
You could always consider your batch of flash powder, and ask what would
happened if you halved all the particles size a few times. The simplest
models based on active masses have you cubing the rate of reaction each
time.
Marty
2003-09-16 10:50:13 UTC
Permalink
My freind John responded with this concerning "flash vs dynamite"

Quote,
Marty,
Everything that I have read puts flash on the borderline of
detonation, and everyone disagrees as to which side it is on. I can tell
you that it is not the full-on high order detonation that is produced by
dynamite.
We have a program at work that will calculate heat of combustion,
products, pressure produced, etc by formula. I ran it with straight NG, 40%
and 60% dynamites and black powder with no problems (forgot the results at
work though, will have to get them next week) but when I try to run flash (I
tried 4 different formulas that I had), the program crashes. I cannot
figure out why. The guy that uses the program is in Europe at a conference,
but should be back next week. It looks like I might have to figure it by
hand...
I don't know of any specific comparison tests being ran on the two. I
also haven't ran across anyone who has tried to detonate flash with a
blasting cap. I asked my boss if he had ever ran any tests on flash and he
said no, he didn't want to because it is so sensitive, apparently on the
same order as pure PETN and pure RDX (which they also do not run unless they
have to.

I am not sure as to the gaseous output, the shockwave will be greater
from the dynamite, but the volume of products might be surprising. Also, I
have never delt with flash much, can you give me a guesstimate on density?

Also, as I'm sure you probably know, the true definition difference
between defl/det is subsonic/supersonic <in the medium tested.> I believe
that this is one of the reasons that people dissagree, there is some
unsettlement of the speed of sound in a powder (in a pure state, can be
judged by density).
Sorry to leave you with more questions than answers, I'll try to get
some numbers back to you before too long.

John

End Quote
Post by Joe 123
the decomposition products of flash contain a significant amount of Al oxide
and or Mg oxides. Are these products a gas or are they a solid (liq?) If
they are a solid as I suspect than the pressure will be less. They may be
created in the gas phase but realistically they become solid almost as they
are formed? Solids are not gases and dont follow the same rules as gasses.
I.e., one mole of gas occupies a much greater volume than one mole of solid.
SO Flash might have the energy content equal to or greater than some HE's.
problem is flash has a lower yield associated to the high solids in rx
products.
This is simply a thought and I may be totally wrong but it makes sense to
me. To me this is simply way to understand why flash powder dosent seem to
have the same punch as a HE. The rate of reaction is another reason also.
Joe
Post by Marty
Post by Harry Conover
Still, this entire discussion is a bit off-topic in rec.pyrotechnics.
Harry C.
Yea,but still a bit informational if not amusing.
A freind of mine is employed to do testing on explosives of all kinds. I
don't know if he has personally done a test of this type or has any
records
Post by Marty
of such,but I will ask. He is of the type that if it hasn't been tested,
give him the params, and he will do the test and make it a matter of
record.
Post by Marty
Marty
Old Dog
2003-09-16 16:30:09 UTC
Permalink
I really think we've about worn this topic out, but I have to add this (and I
believe you would find it - with some difficulty - in a google search).

One of the characteristics of true HE's is that the more dense or closely-packed
the material is, the better. You certainly don't need air space to make RDX or
PETN (or TNT, or NG, or fulminates) detonate.

OTOH, it is possible to PRESS flash powders enough to make rockets out of the
stuff (not that I would, but you could; it's been done). With flash, as with
other DEFLAGRATING mixtures, it is possible to SLOW the reaction by removing the
empty space between the particles by compression. In a true HE that simply would
not happen.

Now, I don't know if that would apply IF flash were ignited using a proper cap.
I haven't seen the data if it exists, and lacking such data it must be assumed
that flash works just like a mixture of larger-mesh versions of the same
components, i.e.: it deflagrates, only faster .

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-17 01:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
I really think we've about worn this topic out, but I have to add this (and I
believe you would find it - with some difficulty - in a google search).
One of the characteristics of true HE's is that the more dense or closely-packed
the material is, the better. You certainly don't need air space to make RDX or
PETN (or TNT, or NG, or fulminates) detonate.
OTOH, it is possible to PRESS flash powders enough to make rockets out of the
stuff (not that I would, but you could; it's been done). With flash, as with
other DEFLAGRATING mixtures, it is possible to SLOW the reaction by removing the
empty space between the particles by compression. In a true HE that simply would
not happen.
Now, I don't know if that would apply IF flash were ignited using a proper cap.
I haven't seen the data if it exists, and lacking such data it must be assumed
that flash works just like a mixture of larger-mesh versions of the same
components, i.e.: it deflagrates, only faster .
-Rich
Ever hear of radiative heat transfer?
Old Dog
2003-09-17 05:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Old Dog
I really think we've about worn this topic out, but I have to add this
(and I
Post by Old Dog
believe you would find it - with some difficulty - in a google search).
One of the characteristics of true HE's is that the more dense or
closely-packed
Post by Old Dog
the material is, the better. You certainly don't need air space to make
RDX or
Post by Old Dog
PETN (or TNT, or NG, or fulminates) detonate.
OTOH, it is possible to PRESS flash powders enough to make rockets out of
the
Post by Old Dog
stuff (not that I would, but you could; it's been done). With flash, as
with
Post by Old Dog
other DEFLAGRATING mixtures, it is possible to SLOW the reaction by
removing the
Post by Old Dog
empty space between the particles by compression. In a true HE that simply
would
Post by Old Dog
not happen.
Now, I don't know if that would apply IF flash were ignited using a proper
cap.
Post by Old Dog
I haven't seen the data if it exists, and lacking such data it must be
assumed
Post by Old Dog
that flash works just like a mixture of larger-mesh versions of the same
components, i.e.: it deflagrates, only faster .
-Rich
Ever hear of radiative heat transfer?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. <Yawn>

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-17 21:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
I really think we've about worn this topic out, but I have to add this (and I
believe you would find it - with some difficulty - in a google search).
One of the characteristics of true HE's is that the more dense or closely-packed
the material is, the better. You certainly don't need air space to make RDX or
PETN (or TNT, or NG, or fulminates) detonate.
OTOH, it is possible to PRESS flash powders enough to make rockets out of the
stuff (not that I would, but you could; it's been done). With flash, as with
other DEFLAGRATING mixtures, it is possible to SLOW the reaction by removing the
empty space between the particles by compression. In a true HE that simply would
not happen.
This statement is false. Storing NG and many other HEs under vacuum both
desensitizes them and decreases their velocity of detonation.
Post by Old Dog
Now, I don't know if that would apply IF flash were ignited using a proper cap.
I haven't seen the data if it exists, and lacking such data it must be assumed
that flash works just like a mixture of larger-mesh versions of the same
components, i.e.: it deflagrates, only faster .
-Rich
Old Dog
2003-09-18 05:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Old Dog
I really think we've about worn this topic out, but I have to add this
(and I
Post by Old Dog
believe you would find it - with some difficulty - in a google search).
One of the characteristics of true HE's is that the more dense or
closely-packed
Post by Old Dog
the material is, the better. You certainly don't need air space to make
RDX or
Post by Old Dog
PETN (or TNT, or NG, or fulminates) detonate.
OTOH, it is possible to PRESS flash powders enough to make rockets out of
the
Post by Old Dog
stuff (not that I would, but you could; it's been done). With flash, as
with
Post by Old Dog
other DEFLAGRATING mixtures, it is possible to SLOW the reaction by
removing the
Post by Old Dog
empty space between the particles by compression. In a true HE that simply
would
Post by Old Dog
not happen.
This statement is false. Storing NG and many other HEs under vacuum both
desensitizes them and decreases their velocity of detonation.
"Under vaccuum"? As compared with "compressed" into a solid mass? I'm not
following the train of logic here.

You still haven't addressed the key statements. I would like to see how you
"compress" NG so that it can not detonate. Or any other real HE.

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-18 09:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Old Dog
Post by Old Dog
I really think we've about worn this topic out, but I have to add this
(and I
Post by Old Dog
believe you would find it - with some difficulty - in a google search).
One of the characteristics of true HE's is that the more dense or
closely-packed
Post by Old Dog
the material is, the better. You certainly don't need air space to make
RDX or
Post by Old Dog
PETN (or TNT, or NG, or fulminates) detonate.
OTOH, it is possible to PRESS flash powders enough to make rockets out of
the
Post by Old Dog
stuff (not that I would, but you could; it's been done). With flash, as
with
Post by Old Dog
other DEFLAGRATING mixtures, it is possible to SLOW the reaction by
removing the
Post by Old Dog
empty space between the particles by compression. In a true HE that simply
would
Post by Old Dog
not happen.
This statement is false. Storing NG and many other HEs under vacuum both
desensitizes them and decreases their velocity of detonation.
"Under vaccuum"? As compared with "compressed" into a solid mass? I'm not
following the train of logic here.
You still haven't addressed the key statements. I would like to see how you
"compress" NG so that it can not detonate. Or any other real HE.
-Rich
No comparing necessary. You were referring to "air space".
You said "it is possible to SLOW the reaction by removing
the empty space between the particles by compression.
In a true HE that simply would not happen". Removing voids or occlusions by
vacuum or any other means does exactly this.
Adding voids and occlusions do exactly the opposite, as can be seen for
various open and closed celled silicone, plastic and glass microballoons in
the patent literature.
Old Dog
2003-09-18 15:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
No comparing necessary. You were referring to "air space".
You said "it is possible to SLOW the reaction by removing
the empty space between the particles by compression.
In a true HE that simply would not happen". Removing voids or occlusions by
vacuum or any other means does exactly this.
Terry, I had access to a very nice vacuum chamber back in my graduate school
days, and was allowed to use it for drying samples to remove the last traces of
water, and for experiments to incorporate fertilizers into pine bark. I can
assure you it did not compress the samples one bit - they retained exactly the
shape and form they had when placed in the chamber, including the voids within
and between particles.

Please blow your smoke at someone else.

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-18 17:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
No comparing necessary. You were referring to "air space".
You said "it is possible to SLOW the reaction by removing
the empty space between the particles by compression.
In a true HE that simply would not happen". Removing voids or occlusions by
vacuum or any other means does exactly this.
Terry, I had access to a very nice vacuum chamber back in my graduate school
days, and was allowed to use it for drying samples to remove the last traces of
water, and for experiments to incorporate fertilizers into pine bark. I can
assure you it did not compress the samples one bit - they
He is now misrepresenting what he meant.

One may simply ask, now, as it can no longer be compressed, why he would
make the anaolgy in the first place.

It should be clear to almost everybody else that solids and liquids that
have no gas phase or voids present are for the most part quite
incompressible.


retained exactly the
Post by Old Dog
shape and form they had when placed in the chamber, including the voids within
and between particles.
Please blow your smoke at someone else.
-Rich
Everything he says should be viewed with skepticism.
Old Dog
2003-09-18 23:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
No comparing necessary. You were referring to "air space".
You said "it is possible to SLOW the reaction by removing
the empty space between the particles by compression.
In a true HE that simply would not happen". Removing voids or
occlusions by
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
vacuum or any other means does exactly this.
Terry, I had access to a very nice vacuum chamber back in my graduate
school
Post by Old Dog
days, and was allowed to use it for drying samples to remove the last
traces of
Post by Old Dog
water, and for experiments to incorporate fertilizers into pine bark. I
can
Post by Old Dog
assure you it did not compress the samples one bit - they
He is now misrepresenting what he meant.
One may simply ask, now, as it can no longer be compressed, why he would
make the anaolgy in the first place.
It should be clear to almost everybody else that solids and liquids that
have no gas phase or voids present are for the most part quite
incompressible.
retained exactly the
Post by Old Dog
shape and form they had when placed in the chamber, including the voids
within
Post by Old Dog
and between particles.
Please blow your smoke at someone else.
-Rich
Everything he says should be viewed with skepticism.
First you say that vacuum = compression, now you say *I* am misrepresenting
things?

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-19 06:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
No comparing necessary. You were referring to "air space".
You said "it is possible to SLOW the reaction by removing
the empty space between the particles by compression.
In a true HE that simply would not happen". Removing voids or
occlusions by
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
vacuum or any other means does exactly this.
Terry, I had access to a very nice vacuum chamber back in my graduate
school
Post by Old Dog
days, and was allowed to use it for drying samples to remove the last
traces of
Post by Old Dog
water, and for experiments to incorporate fertilizers into pine bark. I
can
Post by Old Dog
assure you it did not compress the samples one bit - they
He is now misrepresenting what he meant.
One may simply ask, now, as it can no longer be compressed, why he would
make the anaolgy in the first place.
It should be clear to almost everybody else that solids and liquids that
have no gas phase or voids present are for the most part quite
incompressible.
retained exactly the
Post by Old Dog
shape and form they had when placed in the chamber, including the voids
within
Post by Old Dog
and between particles.
Please blow your smoke at someone else.
-Rich
Everything he says should be viewed with skepticism.
First you say that vacuum = compression, now you say *I* am
misrepresenting
Post by Old Dog
things?
-Rich
No! I said the resulting treatments would produce the same effect
of removing of the empty space/voids or air space/gas pockets.
And there are Patent claims directly to the contrary assertion, of those
not capable of detonation. This was covered just recently in sci.chem.
Trying to say there's a mechanism active in flash powder not present in HE,
one should first make sure they were both in the same aggregate form before
making this claim. For some insight into "uncompressed" voids/gas pockets
in HEs one should look under Munroe Effect and the Laws of Radiative Heat
transfer.(under Boltzmanns Law etc)
Old Dog
2003-09-19 15:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
No comparing necessary. You were referring to "air space".
You said "it is possible to SLOW the reaction by removing
the empty space between the particles by compression.
In a true HE that simply would not happen". Removing voids or
occlusions by
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
vacuum or any other means does exactly this.
Terry, I had access to a very nice vacuum chamber back in my graduate
school
Post by Old Dog
days, and was allowed to use it for drying samples to remove the last
traces of
Post by Old Dog
water, and for experiments to incorporate fertilizers into pine bark.
I
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
can
Post by Old Dog
assure you it did not compress the samples one bit - they
He is now misrepresenting what he meant.
One may simply ask, now, as it can no longer be compressed, why he would
make the anaolgy in the first place.
It should be clear to almost everybody else that solids and liquids
that
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
have no gas phase or voids present are for the most part quite
incompressible.
retained exactly the
Post by Old Dog
shape and form they had when placed in the chamber, including the
voids
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
within
Post by Old Dog
and between particles.
Please blow your smoke at someone else.
-Rich
Everything he says should be viewed with skepticism.
First you say that vacuum = compression, now you say *I* am
misrepresenting
Post by Old Dog
things?
-Rich
No! I said the resulting treatments would produce the same effect
of removing of the empty space/voids or air space/gas pockets.
But Terry, I just pointed out that placing solids under a vaccuum does NOT
"compress" them. You might be able to pull most of the gasses out of a liquid by
applying a vaccuum, but it simply doesn't apply to anything else. And there are
damned few liquid HE's in general use.
Post by Terry Wilder
And there are Patent claims directly to the contrary assertion, of those
not capable of detonation.
Can anyone translate?
Post by Terry Wilder
Trying to say there's a mechanism active in flash powder not present in HE,
one should first make sure they were both in the same aggregate form before
making this claim.
I am saying that solid HE's - like TNT - are not adversely affected by the
absence of air spaces between the particles, or by the particle size. That OTOH
flash is VERY dependent on air spaces, because (unlike true HE's) the flame
front must move in the spaces *between* the particles in order to ignite the
material fast enough to produce the effect. It is a *combustion* (deflagration).
Post by Terry Wilder
For some insight into "uncompressed" voids/gas pockets
in HEs one should look under Munroe Effect and the Laws of Radiative Heat
transfer.(under Boltzmanns Law etc)
Yeah, I do remember most of my college physics, thank you. I just don't think
we're talking about the same thing at all. I don't know how to explain it any
better.

Turning out true HE's in solid chunks without spaces between particles has no
adverse effect, because it is the shock traveling within the material and
triggering the breaking of internal high-energy bonds that is responsible for
spreading the reaction.

Flash absolutely MUST have air spaces between the particles to "work" because it
is NOT the shock wave traveling through the material but the flame front
traveling in the spaces in the material that spreads the reaction. If you
compress flash to remove the air spaces between the particles - as in a rocket
grain - it is no longer reliably explosive. The same thing happens if you
increase the particle sizes, because there is a two-stage process - release of
oxygen from the oxidizer, followed by COMBUSTION (deflagration) of the metal
fuel. larger particles take longer to burn because the COMBUSTION occurs on the
metal particle surfaces.

The burden of proof in this case is on the person making the assertion that
flash IS an HE. Otherwise we could claim virtually ANYTHING is an HE and simply
say that anyone who disagreed hadn't used the proper initiator.

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-20 09:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
No comparing necessary. You were referring to "air space".
You said "it is possible to SLOW the reaction by removing
the empty space between the particles by compression.
In a true HE that simply would not happen". Removing voids or
occlusions by
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
vacuum or any other means does exactly this.
Terry, I had access to a very nice vacuum chamber back in my graduate
school
Post by Old Dog
days, and was allowed to use it for drying samples to remove the last
traces of
Post by Old Dog
water, and for experiments to incorporate fertilizers into pine bark.
I
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
can
Post by Old Dog
assure you it did not compress the samples one bit - they
He is now misrepresenting what he meant.
One may simply ask, now, as it can no longer be compressed, why he would
make the anaolgy in the first place.
It should be clear to almost everybody else that solids and liquids
that
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
have no gas phase or voids present are for the most part quite
incompressible.
retained exactly the
Post by Old Dog
shape and form they had when placed in the chamber, including the
voids
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
within
Post by Old Dog
and between particles.
Please blow your smoke at someone else.
-Rich
Everything he says should be viewed with skepticism.
First you say that vacuum = compression, now you say *I* am
misrepresenting
Post by Old Dog
things?
-Rich
No! I said the resulting treatments would produce the same effect
of removing of the empty space/voids or air space/gas pockets.
But Terry, I just pointed out that placing solids under a vaccuum does NOT
"compress" them. You might be able to pull most of the gasses out of a liquid by
applying a vaccuum, but it simply doesn't apply to anything else. And there are
damned few liquid HE's in general use.
You brought up the analogy, which immediately would lead one to ask why
would you compare systems in such two different states of aggregation. Then
you mention compression, thus one could expect you to be implying a change
of state for the systems.
One then naturally asks how so that it cannot be obtained by the vacuum
treatment afore mentioned
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
And there are Patent claims directly to the contrary assertion, of those
not capable of detonation.
Can anyone translate?
There are examples of mixture that will not detonate unless so sensitized
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
Trying to say there's a mechanism active in flash powder not present in HE,
one should first make sure they were both in the same aggregate form before
making this claim.
I am saying that solid HE's - like TNT - are not adversely affected by the
absence of air spaces between the particles, or by the particle size. That OTOH
flash is VERY dependent on air spaces, because (unlike true HE's) the flame
front must move in the spaces *between* the particles in order to ignite the
material fast enough to produce the effect. It is a *combustion* (deflagration).
Are you saying you cannot have combustion after detonation?
Either you have to assume that the mixture cannot be initiated by shock, or
you have to assume a mechanism to radiated the excess energy.
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
For some insight into "uncompressed" voids/gas pockets
in HEs one should look under Munroe Effect and the Laws of Radiative Heat
transfer.(under Boltzmanns Law etc)
Yeah, I do remember most of my college physics, thank you. I just don't think
we're talking about the same thing at all. I don't know how to explain it any
better.
Turning out true HE's in solid chunks without spaces between particles has no
adverse effect, because it is the shock traveling within the material and
triggering the breaking of internal high-energy bonds that is responsible for
spreading the reaction.
Flash absolutely MUST have air spaces between the particles to "work" because it
is NOT the shock wave traveling through the material but the flame front
traveling in the spaces in the material that spreads the reaction. If you
compress flash to remove the air spaces between the particles - as in a rocket
grain - it is no longer reliably explosive. The same thing happens if you
increase the particle sizes, because there is a two-stage process - release of
oxygen from the oxidizer, followed by COMBUSTION (deflagration) of the metal
fuel. larger particles take longer to burn because the COMBUSTION occurs on the
metal particle surfaces.
The burden of proof in this case is on the person making the assertion that
flash IS an HE. Otherwise we could claim virtually ANYTHING is an HE and simply
say that anyone who disagreed hadn't used the proper initiator.
-Rich
I never stated that normal Flash is an HE.
That all dependes on the state of aggregation
Don Thompson
2003-09-23 13:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Research "Dead Pressed" as it pertains to explosives.
--
Don Thompson

Ex ROMAD
Post by Old Dog
I really think we've about worn this topic out, but I have to add this (and I
believe you would find it - with some difficulty - in a google search).
One of the characteristics of true HE's is that the more dense or closely-packed
the material is, the better. You certainly don't need air space to make RDX or
PETN (or TNT, or NG, or fulminates) detonate.
OTOH, it is possible to PRESS flash powders enough to make rockets out of the
stuff (not that I would, but you could; it's been done). With flash, as with
other DEFLAGRATING mixtures, it is possible to SLOW the reaction by removing the
empty space between the particles by compression. In a true HE that simply would
not happen.
Now, I don't know if that would apply IF flash were ignited using a proper cap.
I haven't seen the data if it exists, and lacking such data it must be assumed
that flash works just like a mixture of larger-mesh versions of the same
components, i.e.: it deflagrates, only faster .
-Rich
Old Dog
2003-09-23 15:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Don,

I'm talking about pressing enough to remove air pockets and voids in the
material, NOT trying to squeeze the solids into something smaller. "Dense" was a
poor choice of words. My point was only that HE's don't NEED internal air spaces
to work.

-Rich
Post by Don Thompson
Research "Dead Pressed" as it pertains to explosives.
--
Don Thompson
Ex ROMAD
Post by Old Dog
I really think we've about worn this topic out, but I have to add this
(and I
Post by Old Dog
believe you would find it - with some difficulty - in a google search).
One of the characteristics of true HE's is that the more dense or
closely-packed
Post by Old Dog
the material is, the better. You certainly don't need air space to make
RDX or
Post by Old Dog
PETN (or TNT, or NG, or fulminates) detonate.
OTOH, it is possible to PRESS flash powders enough to make rockets out of
the
Post by Old Dog
stuff (not that I would, but you could; it's been done). With flash, as
with
Post by Old Dog
other DEFLAGRATING mixtures, it is possible to SLOW the reaction by
removing the
Post by Old Dog
empty space between the particles by compression. In a true HE that simply
would
Post by Old Dog
not happen.
Now, I don't know if that would apply IF flash were ignited using a proper
cap.
Post by Old Dog
I haven't seen the data if it exists, and lacking such data it must be
assumed
Post by Old Dog
that flash works just like a mixture of larger-mesh versions of the same
components, i.e.: it deflagrates, only faster .
-Rich
Don Thompson
2003-09-23 18:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Don,
I'm talking about pressing enough to remove air pockets and voids in the
material, NOT trying to squeeze the solids into something smaller. "Dense" was a
poor choice of words. My point was only that HE's don't NEED internal air spaces
to work.
-Rich
Certainly. But only up to a point.

Density was *not* a poor choice of words. The density of a material will
determine how it reacts as an explosive compound. Even black powder can be
pressed to a density at which its performance drops, and then even farther
to where the grains will fairly quietly deflagrate. Many of the "primary"
H.E.'s will "dead press", that is, press to a point at which they are no
longer even "explosively deflagrating" much less detonating. It is the
*!complete!* removal of all air spaces or voids in the compound that induces
this phenomenon. Any density higher than the ideal density for a compound
decreases the velocity of the detonation until finally the compound reaches
the dead press density. Of course the reciprocal is also true, at densities
less than ideal the detonation velocity is lower than when the ideal density
is reached. Some of the dead pressed primaries -can- be detonated in a
dead pressed state by intimate contact with the same compound which has been
pressed to its ideal density but when dead pressed they are no longer
"primary" explosives. ( Primary Explosives: those explosives which will
detonate when exposed to heat, flame, spark, mechanical friction or shock. )
The debate as to whether "flash" powder is detonating or simply explosively
deflagrating is an old one. Often engaged in by people who really don't have
a good "feel" for what the two terms *actually* mean. A pound lot of
exquisitely made flash powder will kill you just as dead as a pound of 60%
gelatine Dynamite, but the resulting pieces of your body may be slightly
larger. In the late unlamented war in Viet Nam a hell of a lot of Americans
(and others) were killed by explosive charges less energetic than the above
mentioned exquisitly made flash powder. A Chlorate or a Perchlorate plus
metal plus Sulfur explosive mixture bundled in canvas and tightly wrapped
with twine was made. Initiated with a simple fuse and thrown, or fused and
tied to the end of a long bamboo pole and thrust into bunker openings.
Result was the same as if the charge had been some more exotic military
explosive requiring a cap to fire.

Can we drop the back and forth with "whats-is-face", the guy with all the
absurd trolling statements that drive knowledgeable folks to skip over his
bean-farts? Doesn't further the enlightenment of the other followers of the
forum and detracts from what "might be". Once it is determined that "Wilder"
statements are just tooooo wild to be meaningful anything more just kicks up
the noise.
--
Don Thompson

Ex ROMAD
Post by Old Dog
Post by Don Thompson
Research "Dead Pressed" as it pertains to explosives.
--
Don Thompson
Ex ROMAD
Post by Old Dog
I really think we've about worn this topic out, but I have to add this
(and I
Post by Old Dog
believe you would find it - with some difficulty - in a google search).
One of the characteristics of true HE's is that the more dense or
closely-packed
Post by Old Dog
the material is, the better. You certainly don't need air space to make
RDX or
Post by Old Dog
PETN (or TNT, or NG, or fulminates) detonate.
OTOH, it is possible to PRESS flash powders enough to make rockets out of
the
Post by Old Dog
stuff (not that I would, but you could; it's been done). With flash, as
with
Post by Old Dog
other DEFLAGRATING mixtures, it is possible to SLOW the reaction by
removing the
Post by Old Dog
empty space between the particles by compression. In a true HE that simply
would
Post by Old Dog
not happen.
Now, I don't know if that would apply IF flash were ignited using a proper
cap.
Post by Old Dog
I haven't seen the data if it exists, and lacking such data it must be
assumed
Post by Old Dog
that flash works just like a mixture of larger-mesh versions of the same
components, i.e.: it deflagrates, only faster .
-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-25 02:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Old Dog
Don,
I'm talking about pressing enough to remove air pockets and voids in the
material, NOT trying to squeeze the solids into something smaller.
"Dense"
Post by Old Dog
was a
Post by Old Dog
poor choice of words. My point was only that HE's don't NEED internal
air
Post by Old Dog
spaces
Post by Old Dog
to work.
-Rich
Certainly. But only up to a point.
Density was *not* a poor choice of words. The density of a material will
determine how it reacts as an explosive compound. Even black powder can be
pressed to a density at which its performance drops, and then even farther
to where the grains will fairly quietly deflagrate. Many of the "primary"
H.E.'s will "dead press", that is, press to a point at which they are no
longer even "explosively deflagrating" much less detonating. It is the
This is right out of Davis. But again is a faulty analogy, as your "dead
pressing", using the term as applied to "ease of initiation", you're
increasing the velocity of detonation, just making it more difficult to so,
which can be perfectly logical in itself..
Post by Old Dog
*!complete!* removal of all air spaces or voids in the compound that induces
this phenomenon. Any density higher than the ideal density for a compound
Complete? Funny I could have sworn I had run across many lp vs v_d diagrams
The difficulty in initiation goes hand in hand with this as does velocity of
detonation, as they do each other, in these cases. Read something on the
incompressibilty of solids/liquids.
These are two different things
Post by Old Dog
decreases the velocity of the detonation until finally the compound reaches
the dead press density. Of course the reciprocal is also true, at densities
less than ideal the detonation velocity is lower than when the ideal density
is reached. Some of the dead pressed primaries -can- be detonated in a
dead pressed state by intimate contact with the same compound which has been
pressed to its ideal density but when dead pressed they are no longer
It's the non-linear compressibility of solids, liquids and gases which
propagate shock waves.
Post by Old Dog
"primary" explosives. ( Primary Explosives: those explosives which will
detonate when exposed to heat, flame, spark, mechanical friction or shock. )
This last statement is incorrect.
.
Post by Old Dog
The debate as to whether "flash" powder is detonating or simply explosively
deflagrating is an old one. Often engaged in by people who really don't have
a good "feel" for what the two terms *actually* mean. A pound lot of
exquisitely made flash powder will kill you just as dead as a pound of 60%
gelatine Dynamite, but the resulting pieces of your body may be slightly
larger. In the late unlamented war in Viet Nam a hell of a lot of Americans
(and others) were killed by explosive charges less energetic than the above
mentioned exquisitly made flash powder. A Chlorate or a Perchlorate plus
metal plus Sulfur explosive mixture bundled in canvas and tightly wrapped
with twine was made. Initiated with a simple fuse and thrown, or fused and
tied to the end of a long bamboo pole and thrust into bunker openings.
Result was the same as if the charge had been some more exotic military
explosive requiring a cap to fire.
Can we drop the back and forth with "whats-is-face", the guy with all the
absurd trolling statements that drive knowledgeable folks to skip over his
bean-farts? Doesn't further the enlightenment of the other followers of the
Thats funny you never replied with any counter-examples to what I have said
in any reply. Apparently he cannot count the number of posts and threads,
either.
Post by Old Dog
forum and detracts from what "might be". Once it is determined that "Wilder"
statements are just tooooo wild to be meaningful anything more just kicks up
the noise.
--
Don Thompson
Ex ROMAD
Post by Old Dog
Post by Don Thompson
Research "Dead Pressed" as it pertains to explosives.
--
Don Thompson
Ex ROMAD
Post by Old Dog
I really think we've about worn this topic out, but I have to add this
(and I
Post by Old Dog
believe you would find it - with some difficulty - in a google
search).
Post by Old Dog
Post by Don Thompson
Post by Old Dog
One of the characteristics of true HE's is that the more dense or
closely-packed
Post by Old Dog
the material is, the better. You certainly don't need air space to
make
Post by Old Dog
Post by Don Thompson
RDX or
Post by Old Dog
PETN (or TNT, or NG, or fulminates) detonate.
OTOH, it is possible to PRESS flash powders enough to make rockets
out
Post by Old Dog
of
Post by Old Dog
Post by Don Thompson
the
Post by Old Dog
stuff (not that I would, but you could; it's been done). With flash,
as
Post by Old Dog
Post by Don Thompson
with
Post by Old Dog
other DEFLAGRATING mixtures, it is possible to SLOW the reaction by
removing the
Post by Old Dog
empty space between the particles by compression. In a true HE that
simply
Post by Old Dog
Post by Don Thompson
would
Post by Old Dog
not happen.
Now, I don't know if that would apply IF flash were ignited using a
proper
Post by Old Dog
Post by Don Thompson
cap.
Post by Old Dog
I haven't seen the data if it exists, and lacking such data it must be
assumed
Post by Old Dog
that flash works just like a mixture of larger-mesh versions of the
same
Post by Old Dog
Post by Don Thompson
Post by Old Dog
components, i.e.: it deflagrates, only faster .
-Rich
Maybe I should explain this. They don't seem to have the foggiest.
Say you have a very long rod of explosive which you have initiated (to run
out) at one end, with a shock wave traveling down it. This can be likened to
a high density wave traveling down it, requiring pressures exceeding those
given by its bulk modulus. You can see at once from his "ideal density
argument " that "Mr. Bean Farts" doesn't have a clue, let alone again
trying to falsely apply a faulty argument to both cases also, which by the
way was not what I was doing.

Further imagine if you will two moving planes planes S1 and S2,
where S1 precedes S2 and is defined as that plane of maximum
pressure given by the bulk modulus, and S2 as that of a maximum pressure,
and an unbreachable metal target, in contact with the rod of explosive. At
every point, every point of S1 is met by elastic forces. Every point of
every plane between S1 and S2 is at a higher pressure, an is thus met by
inelastics forces also. Now I leave it to you to speculate on what happens
when they both pass voids of differing sizes, in effect removing elastic
forces from S1 and both elastic and inelastic forces from intermediate
planes to that of S2. A void of sufficently small size at the target should
get you the Munroe effect.
donald j haarmann
2003-09-16 22:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty
My freind John responded with this concerning "flash vs dynamite"
Quote,
Marty,
Everything that I have read puts flash on the borderline of
detonation, and everyone disagrees as to which side it is on. I can tell
you that it is not the full-on high order detonation that is produced by
dynamite.
---------
This is NOT the first time I have posted this!!

If we use the reductionist definition of detation as burning faster than the speed
of sound in the medium"".... then yes .... KClO4 & Al does "detonate".



------------------------
Extracted from:-

Joseph Hershkowitz - The Combustion of a Granular Mixture of Potassium
perchlorate and Aluminum Considered as Either a Deflagration or a Detonation.
Feltman Research Laboratories, Picsatinny Arsenal, Technical Report 3063.
January 1963.

SOUND SPEED CONSIDERATIONS -

The combustion front of a one-dimensional deflagration progresses at a rate that
is subsonic with respect to the sound velocity in the unreacted medium (Ref 5)
preceding it. For a deflagration preceded by a precompression shock, the shock
is supersonic with respect to the medium it is entering, and the deflagration
follows at a subsonic speed measured relative to the precompressed medium
preceding it. A detonation front progresses at a supersonic rate with respect to
the unreacted medium. Thus a comparison of the sound speed in the unreacted
medium and that in a compressed medium with the experimentally observed
propagation. rate would establish the nature of the phenomenon under the
assumption that it is one dimensional.

To consider these possibilities one requires data on the sound speeds in the
granular medium as a function of density. Since applicable experimental data or
theoretical results were not found in the literature (Refs 18-28) and experimental
facilities for the measurements were not available, theoretical calculations as
described below were used. The numerical results are shown in Figure 3. Their
significance with respect to the observed combustion phenomena is treated in
the later subsection entitled "Discussion of Sound Speed Results."

It is to be noted that physically there are cases where the total entropy is not
constant during the passage of a weak mechanical vibration or sound wave. The
theoretical treatment must therefore calculate both the equilibrium and frozen
sound speeds, which are the low and high frequency limits, respectively, and
assume that the intermediate nondefinable cases represent velocities between
them. This range is then used for comparison with the observed velocity of
propagation of combustion to determine whether the latter is subsonic or
supersonic.

Next, we consider assumptions on the nature of the medium. In the limit of low
densities, the powder is a dusty gas. In fact before this lower limit is reached
there may be small pockets of powder which act as a dusty gas. This is because
a dusty gas is defined as one in which the particles do not participate directly in
resisting the applied load. Particles may be in contact but if they are not under
load, the medium is still called a dusty gas. In the limit ot high densities, the
powder is a porous elastic solid with a lattice formed by the particles and an
interstitial compressible gas. In the range of densities between, there is a relative
motion of particles forming successive load-sustaining geometrical configurations
This intermediate region is called the granular aggregate case and is believed to
correspond most closely to the actual medium. It will be treated by using an
experimentally determined stress-strain curve. The dusty gas and porous elastic
solid limiting cases will also be considered.

In all cases, the medium is taken as consisting of aluminum granules only
instead of as a mixture of aluminum and potassium perchlorate. The
experimental curve used for the granular aggregate could only be safely
determined for aluminum alone. The equations which will be used are derived
only for a metal powder, and extending these to more than one solid component
would involve considerable algebra. However, this assumption introduces no
significant error because the difference between the mechanical properties of air
as compared to those of either aluminum or potassium perchlorate is orders of
magnitude greater than the difference between the mechanical properties of the
two solids. For this reason the conclusions based on an aluminum dust are the
same as would follow from an extended consideration. This will be evident in the
numerical treatments presented and will be discussed for the granular aggregate
cases.

For a 60/40% mixture with a loading density of 1.5 gm/cm he calculates a
velocity of 206 m/sec.


--
donald j haarmann - independently dubious
Terry Wilder
2003-09-17 01:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Marty
My freind John responded with this concerning "flash vs dynamite"
Quote,
Marty,
Everything that I have read puts flash on the borderline of
detonation, and everyone disagrees as to which side it is on. I can tell
you that it is not the full-on high order detonation that is produced by
dynamite.
---------
This is NOT the first time I have posted this!!
If we use the reductionist definition of detation as burning faster than the speed
of sound in the medium"".... then yes .... KClO4 & Al does "detonate".
------------------------
Extracted from:-
Joseph Hershkowitz - The Combustion of a Granular Mixture of Potassium
perchlorate and Aluminum Considered as Either a Deflagration or a Detonation.
Feltman Research Laboratories, Picsatinny Arsenal, Technical Report 3063.
January 1963.
SOUND SPEED CONSIDERATIONS -
The combustion front of a one-dimensional deflagration progresses at a rate that
is subsonic with respect to the sound velocity in the unreacted medium (Ref 5)
preceding it. For a deflagration preceded by a precompression shock, the shock
is supersonic with respect to the medium it is entering, and the deflagration
follows at a subsonic speed measured relative to the precompressed medium
preceding it. A detonation front progresses at a supersonic rate with respect to
the unreacted medium. Thus a comparison of the sound speed in the unreacted
medium and that in a compressed medium with the experimentally observed
propagation. rate would establish the nature of the phenomenon under the
assumption that it is one dimensional.
To consider these possibilities one requires data on the sound speeds in the
granular medium as a function of density. Since applicable experimental data or
theoretical results were not found in the literature (Refs 18-28) and experimental
facilities for the measurements were not available, theoretical calculations as
described below were used. The numerical results are shown in Figure 3. Their
significance with respect to the observed combustion phenomena is treated in
the later subsection entitled "Discussion of Sound Speed Results."
It is to be noted that physically there are cases where the total entropy is not
constant during the passage of a weak mechanical vibration or sound wave. The
theoretical treatment must therefore calculate both the equilibrium and frozen
sound speeds, which are the low and high frequency limits, respectively, and
assume that the intermediate nondefinable cases represent velocities between
them. This range is then used for comparison with the observed velocity of
propagation of combustion to determine whether the latter is subsonic or
supersonic.
Next, we consider assumptions on the nature of the medium. In the limit of low
densities, the powder is a dusty gas. In fact before this lower limit is reached
there may be small pockets of powder which act as a dusty gas. This is because
a dusty gas is defined as one in which the particles do not participate directly in
resisting the applied load. Particles may be in contact but if they are not under
load, the medium is still called a dusty gas. In the limit ot high densities, the
powder is a porous elastic solid with a lattice formed by the particles and an
interstitial compressible gas. In the range of densities between, there is a relative
motion of particles forming successive load-sustaining geometrical configurations
This intermediate region is called the granular aggregate case and is believed to
correspond most closely to the actual medium. It will be treated by using an
experimentally determined stress-strain curve. The dusty gas and porous elastic
solid limiting cases will also be considered.
In all cases, the medium is taken as consisting of aluminum granules only
instead of as a mixture of aluminum and potassium perchlorate. The
experimental curve used for the granular aggregate could only be safely
determined for aluminum alone. The equations which will be used are derived
only for a metal powder, and extending these to more than one solid component
would involve considerable algebra. However, this assumption introduces no
significant error because the difference between the mechanical properties of air
as compared to those of either aluminum or potassium perchlorate is orders of
magnitude greater than the difference between the mechanical properties of the
two solids. For this reason the conclusions based on an aluminum dust are the
same as would follow from an extended consideration. This will be evident in the
numerical treatments presented and will be discussed for the granular aggregate
cases.
For a 60/40% mixture with a loading density of 1.5 gm/cm he calculates a
velocity of 206 m/sec.
--
donald j haarmann - independently dubious
It well known that such mixtures can be dead pressed.
This in itself could yield useful information.
How could anybody assume, that unless there was an upper llimit
to the burning rate, that such mixtures are not capable of detonating under
any definition.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-17 02:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Marty
My freind John responded with this concerning "flash vs dynamite"
Quote,
Marty,
Everything that I have read puts flash on the borderline of
detonation, and everyone disagrees as to which side it is on. I can
tell
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Marty
you that it is not the full-on high order detonation that is produced by
dynamite.
---------
This is NOT the first time I have posted this!!
If we use the reductionist definition of detation as burning faster than
the speed
Post by PyroLeo
of sound in the medium"".... then yes .... KClO4 & Al does "detonate".
------------------------
Extracted from:-
Joseph Hershkowitz - The Combustion of a Granular Mixture of Potassium
perchlorate and Aluminum Considered as Either a Deflagration or a
Detonation.
Post by PyroLeo
Feltman Research Laboratories, Picsatinny Arsenal, Technical Report 3063.
January 1963.
SOUND SPEED CONSIDERATIONS -
The combustion front of a one-dimensional deflagration progresses at a
rate that
Post by PyroLeo
is subsonic with respect to the sound velocity in the unreacted medium
(Ref 5)
Post by PyroLeo
preceding it. For a deflagration preceded by a precompression shock, the
shock
Post by PyroLeo
is supersonic with respect to the medium it is entering, and the
deflagration
Post by PyroLeo
follows at a subsonic speed measured relative to the precompressed medium
preceding it. A detonation front progresses at a supersonic rate with
respect to
Post by PyroLeo
the unreacted medium. Thus a comparison of the sound speed in the
unreacted
Post by PyroLeo
medium and that in a compressed medium with the experimentally observed
propagation. rate would establish the nature of the phenomenon under the
assumption that it is one dimensional.
To consider these possibilities one requires data on the sound speeds in
the
Post by PyroLeo
granular medium as a function of density. Since applicable experimental
data or
Post by PyroLeo
theoretical results were not found in the literature (Refs 18-28) and
experimental
Post by PyroLeo
facilities for the measurements were not available, theoretical
calculations as
Post by PyroLeo
described below were used. The numerical results are shown in Figure 3.
Their
Post by PyroLeo
significance with respect to the observed combustion phenomena is
treated
Post by Old Dog
in
Post by PyroLeo
the later subsection entitled "Discussion of Sound Speed Results."
It is to be noted that physically there are cases where the total
entropy
Post by Old Dog
is not
Post by PyroLeo
constant during the passage of a weak mechanical vibration or sound
wave.
Post by Old Dog
The
Post by PyroLeo
theoretical treatment must therefore calculate both the equilibrium and
frozen
Post by PyroLeo
sound speeds, which are the low and high frequency limits, respectively,
and
Post by PyroLeo
assume that the intermediate nondefinable cases represent velocities
between
Post by PyroLeo
them. This range is then used for comparison with the observed velocity of
propagation of combustion to determine whether the latter is subsonic or
supersonic.
Next, we consider assumptions on the nature of the medium. In the limit
of
Post by Old Dog
low
Post by PyroLeo
densities, the powder is a dusty gas. In fact before this lower limit is
reached
Post by PyroLeo
there may be small pockets of powder which act as a dusty gas. This is
because
Post by PyroLeo
a dusty gas is defined as one in which the particles do not participate
directly in
Post by PyroLeo
resisting the applied load. Particles may be in contact but if they are
not under
Post by PyroLeo
load, the medium is still called a dusty gas. In the limit ot high
densities, the
Post by PyroLeo
powder is a porous elastic solid with a lattice formed by the particles
and an
Post by PyroLeo
interstitial compressible gas. In the range of densities between, there
is
Post by Old Dog
a relative
Post by PyroLeo
motion of particles forming successive load-sustaining geometrical
configurations
Post by PyroLeo
This intermediate region is called the granular aggregate case and is
believed to
Post by PyroLeo
correspond most closely to the actual medium. It will be treated by
using
Post by Old Dog
an
Post by PyroLeo
experimentally determined stress-strain curve. The dusty gas and porous
elastic
Post by PyroLeo
solid limiting cases will also be considered.
In all cases, the medium is taken as consisting of aluminum granules only
instead of as a mixture of aluminum and potassium perchlorate. The
experimental curve used for the granular aggregate could only be safely
determined for aluminum alone. The equations which will be used are
derived
Post by PyroLeo
only for a metal powder, and extending these to more than one solid
component
Post by PyroLeo
would involve considerable algebra. However, this assumption introduces no
significant error because the difference between the mechanical
properties
Post by Old Dog
of air
Post by PyroLeo
as compared to those of either aluminum or potassium perchlorate is
orders
Post by Old Dog
of
Post by PyroLeo
magnitude greater than the difference between the mechanical properties
of
Post by Old Dog
the
Post by PyroLeo
two solids. For this reason the conclusions based on an aluminum dust
are
Post by Old Dog
the
Post by PyroLeo
same as would follow from an extended consideration. This will be
evident
Post by Old Dog
in the
Post by PyroLeo
numerical treatments presented and will be discussed for the granular
aggregate
Post by PyroLeo
cases.
For a 60/40% mixture with a loading density of 1.5 gm/cm he calculates a
velocity of 206 m/sec.
--
donald j haarmann - independently dubious
It well known that such mixtures can be dead pressed.
This in itself could yield useful information.
How could anybody assume, that unless there was an upper llimit
to the burning rate, that such mixtures are not capable of detonating under
any definition.
I should restate this not to confuse. Replace "upper limit"
by,say, " sub 100nm upper limit"
donald j haarmann
2003-09-16 22:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty
My freind John responded with this concerning "flash vs dynamite"
Quote,
Marty,
Everything that I have read puts flash on the borderline of
detonation, and everyone disagrees as to which side it is on. I can tell
you that it is not the full-on high order detonation that is produced by
dynamite.
[snip]



I look at it this way - Deflagtration - large pieces. Detation - small pieces!

-------------
9 Killed as Illegal Fireworks Shed Explodes in Ohio
New York Times 21v85

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio, May 20 (UPI)

A shed full of what local authorities said were illegal fireworks exploded today killing
nine people and leaving two big craters.

The bodies were scattered across a wide area of Beaver Township outside of
Youngstown.

A search of the area determined that nine people were killed in the explosion, which left
one crater 10 feet across and up to 5 feet deep, and another 8 feet across and 3 feet
deep.

They haven't identified anybody yet" officially, Sheriff Nemaeth said. "ITS NOT A
MATTER OF BEING BURNED, IT'S A MATTER OF BEING IN VERY SMALL PIECES."

Fireworks bootlegging is under federal probe.
Chicago Tribune 24iv83

THE SHED behind Theodore BoruchÂ’s bungalow in the west end of Hobart, Ind.
Disappeared in two rapid explosions.

ONE SEVERED HIS LEGS AT THE KNEES; THE OTHER CATAPULTED HIS
FLAMING BODY 150 FEET THROUGH A STAND OF TREES AND INTO A FIELD.


Fireworks factory blast kills 11
‘Bodies lying everywhere’
New York Post, 28v83

BENTON, Tenn. (UPI) ---
An unlicensed fireworks factory exploded on a farm yesterday, killing at least 11 people
in a series of blasts that formed a mushroom cloud and hurled bodies into trees and
through the roof of a nearby house.

“WE HAVE COUNTED 10 TORSOS, BUT IT IS A PRETTY GORY SCENE AND
THERE ARE PARTS OF BODIES. THERE MAY POSSIBLE BE MORE BODIES,
THERE WAS NOT A SINGE BODY THE WAS INTACT,” [County Sheriff Frank] Payne
said.


Def? Det? Who cares?!?


--------------
Hazards from Salute/Flash/Star Compositions A brief literature
survey.
By donald j haarmann aka The WiZ
[Scanned in from.]
The PGII Bulletin No. 65. May 1989

Parts that gagged the scanner and a few others have been deleted.
Back issues of the PGII Bulletin can be obtained from:

www.pgii.org

Donald James Haarmann

A Compilation Of Hazard and Test Data For Pyrotechnic Compositions. F. L.
Mclntyre, Report ARLCD-TR-80047, October 1980, NTIS AD 096248. 390 pages.
"This report is a compilation of parametric, stability, sensitivity and
output data on selected pyrotechnic compositions derived from hazards
evaluation and classification testing. This report provides a readily
accessible source of data for some 180 pyrotechnic compositions."

"An accident survey was conducted to identify primary hazards and
cause/effect relationships associated with pyrotechnic operations during
development, manufacturing, transportation and thermally ultimate use.
"There were 18% [103] explosions and 5% [27] accidents that transition
from either a fire to an explosion or multiple explosions. As expected,
the majority of the incidents were fires.

The Significant factor here is that 23% of the incidents RESULTED IN
SOME FORM OF AN EXPLOSION, since pyrotechnic compositions are not
normally considered to be explosive in nature." [Emphasis added.]
Of interest were the TNT equivalence (Hi Explosive equivalence) tests.
Of the six compositions used for producing sound two were tested for TNT
Equivalence with the following results: Air Blast Simulator Mixture, as
used in the M74A1 and M74 Simulator. [Aluminum flake 9%, Black Powder
91%] TNT Equivalence was found to be 45%. Detonation Simulator Mixture,
use: the infamous M80. [************] TNT equivalence 80%. It should be
noted that; "The M80 fire cracker mixture is no longer manufactured but
is reported along with the test data BECAUSE OF SEVERAL CATASTROPHIC
ACCIDENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED." [Emphasis added.]

"Critical Height" and "Critical Diameter" were also measured. "In the
critical height test the "Critical height to explosion data are reported
as the greatest material height in a given container diameter which did
not result in transition from burning to an" explosion.
Critical diameter tests the sample material using C4 as an explosive
donor, to determine the minimum diameter required to induce a explosive
reaction.

The critical Diameter for the M80 composition was found to be 0.01
meters [4 inches!!!]. and the Critical Height was measured as being
3.96cm. [1.5 inches!!!] [Fools rush in where angles fear to tread.]
Of the photoflash mixtures tested, TNT Equivalence of: 30-36-50% were
measured. And even closer to homer a Yellow Star Mixture [Magnesium 18%,
Barium Nitrate 17%, Strontium Nitrate 16%, Potassium Perchlorate 17%,
Sodium Oxalate 17%, and HCB 12%] when tested:

"indicated that this mix would detonate and an explosive equivalence (as
compared to TNT) was greater then 50% in a contained vessel ***" This
mixture was also found to be sensitive to friction and impact.

Propagation Rates In Thermally Ignited Pyrotechnic Compositions. Richard W.
Collett, Tech Report ARLCD-TR-77049, August 1978, NTIS ADA060809.
"Work was performed to determine the propagation rates in loose,
granular confined pyrotechnic compositions when initiated thermally.
Representative materials included flash, igniter and flare compositions."
All compositions were tested confined in steel pipe 48" long by 2"id.
both ends of which were sealed with heavy end caps. An igniter pack
placed in the bottom of the column was used for thermal ignition.
Conclusions: "All of the compositions tested developed fast reactions
which could cause explosions and be extremely hazardous ***. The
reactions are therefore all classed as detonative." [Emphasis added.]
Of the four basic compositions tested, PFP-555 [Aluminum 15u 40.0%,
Barium nitrate 140u 30.0%, and Potassium perchlorate 20u 30.0%] "can
develop either a low-velocity or high-velocity detonation when
thermally ignited. Test 1- 920 meters/sec. Test 2-546 meters/sec."

Explosive Power of Pyrotechnic Compositions. 1.M. Jenkins, Et. All,
19th Explosives Safety Seminar, Calif. 1980 Page 77 &ff.

"Various pyrotechnic compositions were assessed in three experiments:
1-To measure and assess the explosive power from various
initiating stimuli.

2-To measure the explosive power expressed in terms of the
equivalent mass of TNT per unit mass.

3-The likelihood and effect of sympathetic initiation in a
practical storage situation."

Three initiating stimuli were used: 1/fuzehead 2/electric detonator,
and 3/a detonator boosted with a tetryl pellet. The composition being
placed in a paper mache pot, with the initiator being placed at the
geometric center of the charge mass.

Composition #11: Photoflash [40/60 Aluminum/Potassium Percolate] when
ignited by source number three, resulted in an "equivalent mass
approximation kg. TNT per unit mass" of 0.42. More rigorous testing
using piezo-electric pressure transducers to measure air blast and
other experiments using foil gauges raised the TNT equivalence to 50%.

TNT Equivalencies of Black Powder. Volume 1: Management Summary and
Technical Discussion, H.S. Napadensk and J.J. Swatosh Jr., lTIRJ6265-3,
Sept. 1972, NTIS ADA-044444. 69 pages + vii.

"Black powder charges ranging in weight from 8 to 150 pounds were
evaluated under different levels of confinement. The TNT equivalence
for the final product were found to range between zero to 43% for
impulse and zero to 24% for pressure, depending upon the level of
confinement, the weight of explosive and booster, and the distance
form the explosion."

The generally quoted figure for the detonation velocity of BP is 400
meters/sec. However A.F. Belyaev and RKh. Kurbangalina; Russ. J. Phy-
s.Chem. 38:309-310,1964, as quoted in the LLNL Explosives Handbook,
URCL-52997, provide the following figures Density g/cm3 appx. 0.7, det
velocity appx. 1.3 km/cm3, 1.35 km/sec.


Hazards Testing of Ammonium Perchlorate. F.L. McIntyre, et al, 58
pages. NTIS ADA-114966

A series of hazard classification tests were conducted on ammonium
perchlorate, nominal 200 micron size, packed in 30 gallon, 20 Ga. steel
drums with bolted ring closures, each container containing
approximately 250 lbs. of material.

Tests using a S94 squib and 2 oz. of FFF black powder resulted in NO
explosion, NO over pressure detected, and NO rupture, splitting, or
fragmenting of the drums.

A second series of tests using a number 8 blasting cap produced the
same results. Thermally decomposition, with NO evidence of an
explosion.

It would be well to remember however that Ammonium perchlorate in
particle size below 15 micron is considered to be an explosive
material under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40. And that it can be sensitized
with reducing agents.

PATR 2700 provides the following detonation velocities for Ammonium
perchlorate: (Original reference: RH. Richardson, Hazards Evaluation of
the Cast Double-Based Manufacturing Process, ABL/X-47 (1960) AD
250858. [Not seen by me.]

Dry 400 m/s Wet-ethyl alcohol Wet-acetone 4200 m/s 4500 m/sec.

Studies on Fireworks compositions. 1: Combustion or explosion of
crackers and bursting compositions. Noboru Ishikawa and Masao
Kusakabe. "Kogyo Kayaku" 1976,37(6)310-15. [In Japanese]
As almost all of this is in Japanese, only the English summery is
available for inspection:

"Crackers always detonated in spite of their small quantities or
weak initiation with igniters.

"Reaction of bursting compositions was always initiated as
combustion and accelerated to detonation in the case of sufficiently
large amounts of the charge.

"It was shown that the busting composition with potassium erchlorate
was safer than those with potassium chlorate."
Post by Marty
Deleted<
Studies on Fireworks Compositions. (11) Combustion Characteristics of Piled Fireworks
Compositions: Gerbs, Star Grains and Star Composition as Powder; Noboru Ishikawa
and Masao Kusakabe. "Kogyo Kayaku"
1979, 40(4), 277-82 (In Japanese)

This paper reports on work performed by the Japanese government some
six years ago. This report may have served as the model for the ATF
test as the Bureau of Mines has this journal translated on a regular
bases, although the three articles on fireworks that have been
published do not appear in the translated edition. Apparently the
Bureau of Mines feels that information on blowing up fish is more
important then preventing accidents in the fireworks industry!
The following is from the English summery:

Fireworks compositions "were piled on the ground or on a
concrete-floor in 5kg, 30kg, 50kg or 100kg and they were ignited with
two squibs combined with powder pasted paper, Yakushi, or for some
samples with two detonators. From 37 tests the reaction modes were
classified into three: combustion, deflagration and detonation. Most
gerbs showed combustion or deflagration except when a composition
contained fine aluminium, the particle size of which was less then 300
mesh. The reaction of the composition with fine aluminium was promoted
to detonation. [Emphasis added. WiZ] The star grains of 1ookg shifted
to detonation from several ten millisecond combustion and in other
cases they showed combustion or deflagration. The star composition
powders showed combustion even with a quantity of 100kg."


The above information was taken from those parts of the paper that
were in English, i.e. the tables. Just what "star grains" are, is not
reported in English.

Measurement of Pressure and Related Energy Output from Thermally Ignited
Pyrotechnic Compositions Burning in a Partally Vented Vessel P.L.
Farnell. 1981. NTIS ADA-100728.

"The results of the tests described in the report indicate that
pyrotechnic compositions are indeed hazardous and that new criteria
are required to judge their hazardous nature, rather then attempting
to apply nonapplicable ones used for explosives. For example,
explosives reach a high pressure very quickly resulting in a large
blast wave, but the extremely short duration yields a relatively small
impulse imparted to contingent walls of a room. The blast wave also
tends to be more directional. This is more likely to punch a hole in a
wall or break it into small pieces, as form a hammer blow. In
addition, a large pressure from the blast wave is relayed outside the
room, if one wall is left open. Pyrotechnics, on the other hand,
produce lower pressure but last longer, giving a large impulse to the
whole wall which can push the wall down. Little pressure is relayed
outside since the buildup is slow and there is little or no blast
wave. Thus; adjacent buildings would be less endangered from the blast
wave, at a closer distance, then from an explosive. However the
extreme heat developed by some burning pyrotechnics can be of greater
danger than the pressure; ** With proper venting, pressure from the
combustion of pyrotechnics could be held to small values; but the heat
and flame generated could harm people in the area, could set fires, or
could even ignite other compositions located nearby.

Finally, it is possible, with sufficient confinement producing a large
pressure buildup, to cause the burning of some of the pyrotechnics to
become a low velocity detonation at which point explosives criteria
would apply. One should bear in mind, however extremely hazardous
nature of pyrotechnics deflagrations, and the need to develop
appropriate criteria for describing their outputs."

Deficiencies in the Testing and Classification of Dangerous Materials.
J.E. Settles. 1968. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 152,
Art.1. Pages 199-205.

"A total of 103 persons suffered injuries in the 81 accidents.
Seventy-eight fatalities resulted from these 81 accidents.
"Of the 81 accidents included in this analysis, it was concluded
that 23 of them involved only fire, and the principal hazard was
radiant heat. It was further concluded that 44 of the accidents in-
volved both fire and explosion. From information available, it seemed
justified to assume that no more then 14 of the accidents were
characterized by supersonic shock waves that would fall within the
accepted definition of "detonating" reactions.

"The 14 accidents in which detonating forces were present resulted
in injuries to 35 persons and 34 fatalities. It appears from the
information available that only one of these 34 deaths resulted from
the blast overpressures that are associated with a detonating
reaction. However, this one fatality was not the result of blast
damage to human tissue. Rather, the blast pressure caused this
individual to be propelled as a projectile. The other 33 persons who
died in these 14 accidents were located at points where the density of
flying fragments, and in some cases, the lethal searing of radiant
heat were so great that their deaths were certain, even though there
had been no blast effects.

"A SERIOUS AND DISTURBING INCONSISTENCY IS RELATED TO THE PRACTICE
OF ACCEPTING A "FIRE HAZARD ONLY" LABEL ON REACTIONS OF SUCH
VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY AS MEDIUM-VELOCITY DETONATION,
LOW-VELOCITY DETONATIONS, HIGH-RATE EXPLOSIONS, MEDIUM-RATE
EXPLOSIONS, LOW-RATE EXPLOSIONS, AND EVEN REACTIONS THAT DON'T
EXPLODE AT ALL BUT KILL PEOPLE BY BURNING THEM TO DEATH."



--
donald j haarmann - independently dubious
Terry Wilder
2003-09-17 01:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald j haarmann
Post by Marty
My freind John responded with this concerning "flash vs dynamite"
Quote,
Marty,
Everything that I have read puts flash on the borderline of
detonation, and everyone disagrees as to which side it is on. I can tell
you that it is not the full-on high order detonation that is produced by
dynamite.
[snip]
I look at it this way - Deflagtration - large pieces. Detation - small pieces!
-------------
9 Killed as Illegal Fireworks Shed Explodes in Ohio
New York Times 21v85
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio, May 20 (UPI)
A shed full of what local authorities said were illegal fireworks exploded today killing
nine people and leaving two big craters.
The bodies were scattered across a wide area of Beaver Township outside of
Youngstown.
A search of the area determined that nine people were killed in the explosion, which left
one crater 10 feet across and up to 5 feet deep, and another 8 feet across and 3 feet
deep.
They haven't identified anybody yet" officially, Sheriff Nemaeth said. "ITS NOT A
MATTER OF BEING BURNED, IT'S A MATTER OF BEING IN VERY SMALL PIECES."
Fireworks bootlegging is under federal probe.
Chicago Tribune 24iv83
THE SHED behind Theodore BoruchÂ’s bungalow in the west end of Hobart, Ind.
Disappeared in two rapid explosions.
ONE SEVERED HIS LEGS AT THE KNEES; THE OTHER CATAPULTED HIS
FLAMING BODY 150 FEET THROUGH A STAND OF TREES AND INTO A FIELD.
Fireworks factory blast kills 11
‘Bodies lying everywhere’
New York Post, 28v83
BENTON, Tenn. (UPI) ---
An unlicensed fireworks factory exploded on a farm yesterday, killing at least 11 people
in a series of blasts that formed a mushroom cloud and hurled bodies into trees and
through the roof of a nearby house.
“WE HAVE COUNTED 10 TORSOS, BUT IT IS A PRETTY GORY SCENE AND
THERE ARE PARTS OF BODIES. THERE MAY POSSIBLE BE MORE BODIES,
THERE WAS NOT A SINGE BODY THE WAS INTACT,” [County Sheriff Frank] Payne
said.
Def? Det? Who cares?!?
--------------
Hazards from Salute/Flash/Star Compositions A brief literature
survey.
By donald j haarmann aka The WiZ
[Scanned in from.]
The PGII Bulletin No. 65. May 1989
Parts that gagged the scanner and a few others have been deleted.
www.pgii.org
Donald James Haarmann
A Compilation Of Hazard and Test Data For Pyrotechnic Compositions. F. L.
Mclntyre, Report ARLCD-TR-80047, October 1980, NTIS AD 096248. 390 pages.
"This report is a compilation of parametric, stability, sensitivity and
output data on selected pyrotechnic compositions derived from hazards
evaluation and classification testing. This report provides a readily
accessible source of data for some 180 pyrotechnic compositions."
"An accident survey was conducted to identify primary hazards and
cause/effect relationships associated with pyrotechnic operations during
development, manufacturing, transportation and thermally ultimate use.
"There were 18% [103] explosions and 5% [27] accidents that transition
from either a fire to an explosion or multiple explosions. As expected,
the majority of the incidents were fires.
The Significant factor here is that 23% of the incidents RESULTED IN
SOME FORM OF AN EXPLOSION, since pyrotechnic compositions are not
normally considered to be explosive in nature." [Emphasis added.]
Of interest were the TNT equivalence (Hi Explosive equivalence) tests.
Of the six compositions used for producing sound two were tested for TNT
Equivalence with the following results: Air Blast Simulator Mixture, as
used in the M74A1 and M74 Simulator. [Aluminum flake 9%, Black Powder
91%] TNT Equivalence was found to be 45%. Detonation Simulator Mixture,
use: the infamous M80. [************] TNT equivalence 80%. It should be
noted that; "The M80 fire cracker mixture is no longer manufactured but
is reported along with the test data BECAUSE OF SEVERAL CATASTROPHIC
ACCIDENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED." [Emphasis added.]
"Critical Height" and "Critical Diameter" were also measured. "In the
critical height test the "Critical height to explosion data are reported
as the greatest material height in a given container diameter which did
not result in transition from burning to an" explosion.
Critical diameter tests the sample material using C4 as an explosive
donor, to determine the minimum diameter required to induce a explosive
reaction.
The critical Diameter for the M80 composition was found to be 0.01
meters [4 inches!!!]. and the Critical Height was measured as being
3.96cm. [1.5 inches!!!] [Fools rush in where angles fear to tread.]
Of the photoflash mixtures tested, TNT Equivalence of: 30-36-50% were
measured. And even closer to homer a Yellow Star Mixture [Magnesium 18%,
Barium Nitrate 17%, Strontium Nitrate 16%, Potassium Perchlorate 17%,
"indicated that this mix would detonate and an explosive equivalence (as
compared to TNT) was greater then 50% in a contained vessel ***" This
mixture was also found to be sensitive to friction and impact.
Propagation Rates In Thermally Ignited Pyrotechnic Compositions. Richard W.
Collett, Tech Report ARLCD-TR-77049, August 1978, NTIS ADA060809.
"Work was performed to determine the propagation rates in loose,
granular confined pyrotechnic compositions when initiated thermally.
Representative materials included flash, igniter and flare compositions."
All compositions were tested confined in steel pipe 48" long by 2"id.
both ends of which were sealed with heavy end caps. An igniter pack
placed in the bottom of the column was used for thermal ignition.
Conclusions: "All of the compositions tested developed fast reactions
which could cause explosions and be extremely hazardous ***. The
reactions are therefore all classed as detonative." [Emphasis added.]
Of the four basic compositions tested, PFP-555 [Aluminum 15u 40.0%,
Barium nitrate 140u 30.0%, and Potassium perchlorate 20u 30.0%] "can
develop either a low-velocity or high-velocity detonation when
thermally ignited. Test 1- 920 meters/sec. Test 2-546 meters/sec."
Explosive Power of Pyrotechnic Compositions. 1.M. Jenkins, Et. All,
19th Explosives Safety Seminar, Calif. 1980 Page 77 &ff.
1-To measure and assess the explosive power from various
initiating stimuli.
2-To measure the explosive power expressed in terms of the
equivalent mass of TNT per unit mass.
3-The likelihood and effect of sympathetic initiation in a
practical storage situation."
Three initiating stimuli were used: 1/fuzehead 2/electric detonator,
and 3/a detonator boosted with a tetryl pellet. The composition being
placed in a paper mache pot, with the initiator being placed at the
geometric center of the charge mass.
Composition #11: Photoflash [40/60 Aluminum/Potassium Percolate] when
ignited by source number three, resulted in an "equivalent mass
approximation kg. TNT per unit mass" of 0.42. More rigorous testing
using piezo-electric pressure transducers to measure air blast and
other experiments using foil gauges raised the TNT equivalence to 50%.
TNT Equivalencies of Black Powder. Volume 1: Management Summary and
Technical Discussion, H.S. Napadensk and J.J. Swatosh Jr., lTIRJ6265-3,
Sept. 1972, NTIS ADA-044444. 69 pages + vii.
"Black powder charges ranging in weight from 8 to 150 pounds were
evaluated under different levels of confinement. The TNT equivalence
for the final product were found to range between zero to 43% for
impulse and zero to 24% for pressure, depending upon the level of
confinement, the weight of explosive and booster, and the distance
form the explosion."
The generally quoted figure for the detonation velocity of BP is 400
meters/sec. However A.F. Belyaev and RKh. Kurbangalina; Russ. J. Phy-
s.Chem. 38:309-310,1964, as quoted in the LLNL Explosives Handbook,
URCL-52997, provide the following figures Density g/cm3 appx. 0.7, det
velocity appx. 1.3 km/cm3, 1.35 km/sec.
Hazards Testing of Ammonium Perchlorate. F.L. McIntyre, et al, 58
pages. NTIS ADA-114966
A series of hazard classification tests were conducted on ammonium
perchlorate, nominal 200 micron size, packed in 30 gallon, 20 Ga. steel
drums with bolted ring closures, each container containing
approximately 250 lbs. of material.
Tests using a S94 squib and 2 oz. of FFF black powder resulted in NO
explosion, NO over pressure detected, and NO rupture, splitting, or
fragmenting of the drums.
A second series of tests using a number 8 blasting cap produced the
same results. Thermally decomposition, with NO evidence of an
explosion.
It would be well to remember however that Ammonium perchlorate in
particle size below 15 micron is considered to be an explosive
material under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40. And that it can be sensitized
with reducing agents.
PATR 2700 provides the following detonation velocities for Ammonium
perchlorate: (Original reference: RH. Richardson, Hazards Evaluation of
the Cast Double-Based Manufacturing Process, ABL/X-47 (1960) AD
250858. [Not seen by me.]
Dry 400 m/s Wet-ethyl alcohol Wet-acetone 4200 m/s 4500 m/sec.
Studies on Fireworks compositions. 1: Combustion or explosion of
crackers and bursting compositions. Noboru Ishikawa and Masao
Kusakabe. "Kogyo Kayaku" 1976,37(6)310-15. [In Japanese]
As almost all of this is in Japanese, only the English summery is
"Crackers always detonated in spite of their small quantities or
weak initiation with igniters.
"Reaction of bursting compositions was always initiated as
combustion and accelerated to detonation in the case of sufficiently
large amounts of the charge.
"It was shown that the busting composition with potassium erchlorate
was safer than those with potassium chlorate."
Post by Marty
Deleted<
Studies on Fireworks Compositions. (11) Combustion Characteristics of Piled Fireworks
Compositions: Gerbs, Star Grains and Star Composition as Powder; Noboru Ishikawa
and Masao Kusakabe. "Kogyo Kayaku"
1979, 40(4), 277-82 (In Japanese)
This paper reports on work performed by the Japanese government some
six years ago. This report may have served as the model for the ATF
test as the Bureau of Mines has this journal translated on a regular
bases, although the three articles on fireworks that have been
published do not appear in the translated edition. Apparently the
Bureau of Mines feels that information on blowing up fish is more
important then preventing accidents in the fireworks industry!
Fireworks compositions "were piled on the ground or on a
concrete-floor in 5kg, 30kg, 50kg or 100kg and they were ignited with
two squibs combined with powder pasted paper, Yakushi, or for some
samples with two detonators. From 37 tests the reaction modes were
classified into three: combustion, deflagration and detonation. Most
gerbs showed combustion or deflagration except when a composition
contained fine aluminium, the particle size of which was less then 300
mesh. The reaction of the composition with fine aluminium was promoted
to detonation. [Emphasis added. WiZ] The star grains of 1ookg shifted
to detonation from several ten millisecond combustion and in other
cases they showed combustion or deflagration. The star composition
powders showed combustion even with a quantity of 100kg."
The above information was taken from those parts of the paper that
were in English, i.e. the tables. Just what "star grains" are, is not
reported in English.
Measurement of Pressure and Related Energy Output from Thermally Ignited
Pyrotechnic Compositions Burning in a Partally Vented Vessel P.L.
Farnell. 1981. NTIS ADA-100728.
"The results of the tests described in the report indicate that
pyrotechnic compositions are indeed hazardous and that new criteria
are required to judge their hazardous nature, rather then attempting
to apply nonapplicable ones used for explosives. For example,
explosives reach a high pressure very quickly resulting in a large
blast wave, but the extremely short duration yields a relatively small
impulse imparted to contingent walls of a room. The blast wave also
tends to be more directional. This is more likely to punch a hole in a
wall or break it into small pieces, as form a hammer blow. In
addition, a large pressure from the blast wave is relayed outside the
room, if one wall is left open. Pyrotechnics, on the other hand,
produce lower pressure but last longer, giving a large impulse to the
whole wall which can push the wall down. Little pressure is relayed
outside since the buildup is slow and there is little or no blast
wave. Thus; adjacent buildings would be less endangered from the blast
wave, at a closer distance, then from an explosive. However the
extreme heat developed by some burning pyrotechnics can be of greater
danger than the pressure; ** With proper venting, pressure from the
combustion of pyrotechnics could be held to small values; but the heat
and flame generated could harm people in the area, could set fires, or
could even ignite other compositions located nearby.
Finally, it is possible, with sufficient confinement producing a large
pressure buildup, to cause the burning of some of the pyrotechnics to
become a low velocity detonation at which point explosives criteria
would apply. One should bear in mind, however extremely hazardous
nature of pyrotechnics deflagrations, and the need to develop
appropriate criteria for describing their outputs."
Deficiencies in the Testing and Classification of Dangerous Materials.
J.E. Settles. 1968. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 152,
Art.1. Pages 199-205.
"A total of 103 persons suffered injuries in the 81 accidents.
Seventy-eight fatalities resulted from these 81 accidents.
"Of the 81 accidents included in this analysis, it was concluded
that 23 of them involved only fire, and the principal hazard was
radiant heat. It was further concluded that 44 of the accidents in-
volved both fire and explosion. From information available, it seemed
justified to assume that no more then 14 of the accidents were
characterized by supersonic shock waves that would fall within the
accepted definition of "detonating" reactions.
"The 14 accidents in which detonating forces were present resulted
in injuries to 35 persons and 34 fatalities. It appears from the
information available that only one of these 34 deaths resulted from
the blast overpressures that are associated with a detonating
reaction. However, this one fatality was not the result of blast
damage to human tissue. Rather, the blast pressure caused this
individual to be propelled as a projectile. The other 33 persons who
died in these 14 accidents were located at points where the density of
flying fragments, and in some cases, the lethal searing of radiant
heat were so great that their deaths were certain, even though there
had been no blast effects.
"A SERIOUS AND DISTURBING INCONSISTENCY IS RELATED TO THE PRACTICE
OF ACCEPTING A "FIRE HAZARD ONLY" LABEL ON REACTIONS OF SUCH
VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY AS MEDIUM-VELOCITY DETONATION,
LOW-VELOCITY DETONATIONS, HIGH-RATE EXPLOSIONS, MEDIUM-RATE
EXPLOSIONS, LOW-RATE EXPLOSIONS, AND EVEN REACTIONS THAT DON'T
EXPLODE AT ALL BUT KILL PEOPLE BY BURNING THEM TO DEATH."
--
donald j haarmann - independently dubious
Who cares? Again no shockwave ==>no detonation and
no detonation==> no sympathetic detonation?
Don't be led down the wrong path.
donald j haarmann
2003-09-17 02:59:26 UTC
Permalink
"Terry Wilder" <***@gte.net>>

Who cares? Again no shockwave ==>no detonation and
Post by Terry Wilder
no detonation==> no sympathetic detonation?
Don't be led down the wrong path.
-------
A Compilation Of Hazard and Test Data For Pyrotechnic Compositions. F. L.
Mclntyre, Report ARLCD-TR-80047, October 1980, NTIS AD 096248. 390 pages.

Reported that when testing cases of M-80's stacked, an "explosion"' in one case would
cause the ohters to "explode". When I talked to him about this some years ago he said that the
results the obtained were those expected when testing high explosives.

Remember the detonation velocity of black powder is only 400 m/sec.



--
donald j haarmann - independently dubious
Terry Wilder
2003-09-17 06:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
Who cares? Again no shockwave ==>no detonation and
Post by Terry Wilder
no detonation==> no sympathetic detonation?
Don't be led down the wrong path.
-------
A Compilation Of Hazard and Test Data For Pyrotechnic Compositions. F. L.
Mclntyre, Report ARLCD-TR-80047, October 1980, NTIS AD 096248. 390 pages.
Reported that when testing cases of M-80's stacked, an "explosion"' in one case would
cause the ohters to "explode". When I talked to him about this some years
ago he said that the
Post by Terry Wilder
results the obtained were those expected when testing high explosives.
Remember the detonation velocity of black powder is only 400 m/sec.
--
donald j haarmann - independently dubious
That NFPA classification I just mentioned does classify Flash and BP
differently. As I'm sure Old Man Miller would agree.
Old Dog
2003-09-17 05:08:53 UTC
Permalink
"donald j haarmann" <donald-***@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:PyM9b.145170
Post by donald j haarmann
Def? Det? Who cares?!?
Precisely. But there is a definition...

A Mazda can kill you just as dead as a Kenworth. That doesn't make a Mazda a
Kenworth.

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-17 01:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty
My freind John responded with this concerning "flash vs dynamite"
Quote,
Marty,
Everything that I have read puts flash on the borderline of
detonation, and everyone disagrees as to which side it is on. I can tell
you that it is not the full-on high order detonation that is produced by
dynamite.
We have a program at work that will calculate heat of combustion,
products, pressure produced, etc by formula. I ran it with straight NG, 40%
and 60% dynamites and black powder with no problems (forgot the results at
work though, will have to get them next week) but when I try to run flash (I
tried 4 different formulas that I had), the program crashes. I cannot
figure out why. The guy that uses the program is in Europe at a conference,
but should be back next week. It looks like I might have to figure it by
hand...
I don't know of any specific comparison tests being ran on the two.
I
Post by Marty
also haven't ran across anyone who has tried to detonate flash with a
blasting cap. I asked my boss if he had ever ran any tests on flash and he
said no, he didn't want to because it is so sensitive, apparently on the
same order as pure PETN and pure RDX (which they also do not run unless they
have to.
I am not sure as to the gaseous output, the shockwave will be greater
from the dynamite, but the volume of products might be surprising. Also, I
have never delt with flash much, can you give me a guesstimate on density?
Also, as I'm sure you probably know, the true definition difference
between defl/det is subsonic/supersonic <in the medium tested.> I believe
that this is one of the reasons that people dissagree, there is some
unsettlement of the speed of sound in a powder (in a pure state, can be
judged by density).
Sorry to leave you with more questions than answers, I'll try to get
some numbers back to you before too long.
John
End Quote
Post by Joe 123
the decomposition products of flash contain a significant amount of Al
oxide
Post by Joe 123
and or Mg oxides. Are these products a gas or are they a solid (liq?)
If
Post by Marty
Post by Joe 123
they are a solid as I suspect than the pressure will be less. They may be
created in the gas phase but realistically they become solid almost as
they
Post by Joe 123
are formed? Solids are not gases and dont follow the same rules as
gasses.
Post by Joe 123
I.e., one mole of gas occupies a much greater volume than one mole of
solid.
Post by Joe 123
SO Flash might have the energy content equal to or greater than some HE's.
problem is flash has a lower yield associated to the high solids in rx
products.
This is simply a thought and I may be totally wrong but it makes sense to
me. To me this is simply way to understand why flash powder dosent seem
to
Post by Joe 123
have the same punch as a HE. The rate of reaction is another reason also.
Joe
Post by Marty
Post by Harry Conover
Still, this entire discussion is a bit off-topic in
rec.pyrotechnics.
Post by Marty
Post by Joe 123
Post by Marty
Post by Harry Conover
Harry C.
Yea,but still a bit informational if not amusing.
A freind of mine is employed to do testing on explosives of all kinds. I
don't know if he has personally done a test of this type or has any
records
Post by Marty
of such,but I will ask. He is of the type that if it hasn't been tested,
give him the params, and he will do the test and make it a matter of
record.
Post by Marty
Marty
Doing this iterative process a few times will put you right up there with
the best of them. A few more then you will far exceed.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-24 01:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty
My freind John responded with this concerning "flash vs dynamite"
Quote,
Marty,
Everything that I have read puts flash on the borderline of
detonation, and everyone disagrees as to which side it is on. I can tell
you that it is not the full-on high order detonation that is produced by
dynamite.
We have a program at work that will calculate heat of combustion,
products, pressure produced, etc by formula. I ran it with straight NG, 40%
and 60% dynamites and black powder with no problems (forgot the results at
work though, will have to get them next week) but when I try to run flash (I
tried 4 different formulas that I had), the program crashes. I cannot
figure out why. The guy that uses the program is in Europe at a conference,
but should be back next week. It looks like I might have to figure it by
hand...
I don't know of any specific comparison tests being ran on the two.
I
Post by Marty
also haven't ran across anyone who has tried to detonate flash with a
blasting cap. I asked my boss if he had ever ran any tests on flash and he
said no, he didn't want to because it is so sensitive, apparently on the
same order as pure PETN and pure RDX (which they also do not run unless they
have to.
I am not sure as to the gaseous output, the shockwave will be greater
from the dynamite, but the volume of products might be surprising. Also, I
have never delt with flash much, can you give me a guesstimate on density?
Also, as I'm sure you probably know, the true definition difference
between defl/det is subsonic/supersonic <in the medium tested.> I believe
that this is one of the reasons that people dissagree, there is some
unsettlement of the speed of sound in a powder (in a pure state, can be
judged by density).
Sorry to leave you with more questions than answers, I'll try to get
some numbers back to you before too long.
John
End Quote
A few years ago I remember hearing of an interpretation given by some
government researcher at Sandia National Laboratories, for such mixtures. He
was likening a wave of detonation to a supersonic magic wand. In
deflagration or combustion you usually have a single advancing subsonic
source/surface of combustion. Wave your magic wand supersonically poof ever
point in its wake is a source.
Eirik van der Meer
2003-09-24 04:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marty
also haven't ran across anyone who has tried to detonate flash with a
blasting cap. I asked my boss if he had ever ran any tests on flash
and he said no, he didn't want to because it is so sensitive,
apparently on the same order as pure PETN and pure RDX (which they
also do not run unless they have to.
I would expect flash to be a helluva lot more sensitive to heat, friction
and impact than RDX or PETN. Detonating cords contain pure PETN, and this
is routinely cut with a knife. Who in their right mind would do that with a
tube filled with flash? You can even set fire to the cord without it going
off, althoug I wouldn't reccomend it.
--
Eirik M

I see fragged people
Terry Wilder
2003-09-03 05:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
Which test? The sand bomb test shows that "flash" has no brisance at all.
The lead block expansion test? That one shows that "flash" is not capable
of
expanding the lead block at all with any reasonable sized sample. In both
tests 1 gram of 40% Dynamite is capable of crushing sand and expanding
Lead.
--
Don Thompson
Ex ROMAD
Post by smeltsmoke
Could you be referring to brisance ?
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:58:57 GMT, "Terry Wilder"
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by smeltsmoke
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question is
meaningless.
Post by smeltsmoke
Post by Terry Wilder
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry C.
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Smeltsmoke
Have you done or heard of these tests being done.
I've heard someone say they have been testing one gram samples on the same
brass plate for years with little or no indentation.
I'm not aware of anyone actually performing any brisance testing
employing flash poweder, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been
done.
Not surprising since the deflagration of flash power is a classical
redox reaction, whereas every high explosive that I am aware of (both
primary and secondary) is a spontaneous decomposition reaction.
There are explosives called cheddites, one of which is a straight secondary
KClO3 with Paraffin as an example, which, the author of that book you were
just referencing, refers to as undergoing detonation. I prefer to think
that in such cases the oxygen doesn't care were its electrons come from. You
would be one of a few to list these along with BP as low order
Post by Harry Conover
Perhaps I'm wrong with this generalization, but to the best of my
knowedge no mixture of chemicals in itself cannot produce a high-order
detonation -- not even Armstrong's mixture.
There is film of Kerosine dispersion devices liquefying air. McLain gives
some examples of High order over ignition also, i.e. cases in which the
reductant doesn't care where its electrons go.
Post by Harry Conover
Still, this entire discussion is a bit off-topic in rec.pyrotechnics.
Harry C.
Actually, who should consider how much damage
that mixture they're working on can do, right on topic?
(BTW those blast shields at the one vendors tables
in Gillette wouldn't give one any peace of mind)
Sometimes comparing apples to oranges does work, giving you a rough
estimate. But you are correct in the inference that one cannot exactly
define detonation, deflagration, combustion or inflammability, they would be
vague at best. But then again it could be argued that anything new or
interesting in the last several years has come where these concepts overlap
in some way.
Mike Swisher
2003-09-03 16:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Harry - what about ammonium nitrate/fuel oil? That is a "mixture of chemicals"
and also a high-order explosive, albeit one with fairly low velocity of
detonation.

The cheddites, and similar mixtures, are also detonating explosives. Davis, p.
358, says: " The French Commission des Substances Explosives in 1897 commenced
its first investigation of these explosives... and concluded that their
sensitivity to shock is less than that of No. 1 dynamite (75% guhr dynamite) and
that when exploded by a fulminate cap they show a considerable brisance which
however is less than that of dynamite. Later studies showed that the Cheddites
had slightly more force than No. 1 dynamite, although they were markedly less
brisant because of their lower velocity of detonation."

Other HE mixtures are sprengel explosives and liquid oxygen explosives.


In article <***@posting.google.com>, Harry Conover
says...
<SNIP>
Post by Harry Conover
Perhaps I'm wrong with this generalization, but to the best of my
knowedge no mixture of chemicals in itself cannot produce a high-order
detonation -- not even Armstrong's mixture.
Still, this entire discussion is a bit off-topic in rec.pyrotechnics.
Harry C.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-03 20:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Swisher
Harry - what about ammonium nitrate/fuel oil? That is a "mixture of chemicals"
and also a high-order explosive, albeit one with fairly low velocity of
detonation.
The cheddites, and similar mixtures, are also detonating explosives. Davis, p.
358, says: " The French Commission des Substances Explosives in 1897 commenced
its first investigation of these explosives... and concluded that their
sensitivity to shock is less than that of No. 1 dynamite (75% guhr dynamite) and
that when exploded by a fulminate cap they show a considerable brisance which
however is less than that of dynamite. Later studies showed that the Cheddites
had slightly more force than No. 1 dynamite, although they were markedly less
brisant because of their lower velocity of detonation."
Other HE mixtures are sprengel explosives and liquid oxygen explosives.
says...
<SNIP>
Post by Harry Conover
Perhaps I'm wrong with this generalization, but to the best of my
knowedge no mixture of chemicals in itself cannot produce a high-order
detonation -- not even Armstrong's mixture.
Still, this entire discussion is a bit off-topic in rec.pyrotechnics.
Harry C.
Also some binary KClO3/ P mixtures can be considered primary high
explosives.
As well as the finer meshed KClO3/Ti or Zr, KClO4/Ti or Zr mixtures, and a
number of B mixtures and a host of other things you would rather not play
with.
Mike Poulton
2003-09-03 22:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Mike Swisher
The cheddites, and similar mixtures, are also detonating explosives.
Also some binary KClO3/ P mixtures can be considered primary high
explosives.
As well as the finer meshed KClO3/Ti or Zr, KClO4/Ti or Zr mixtures,
and a number of B mixtures and a host of other things you would rather
not play with.
In both of these cases you are using a mixture which includes a chemical
with a positive heat of formation, potassium chlorate. It can and will
decompose exothermically without a fuel, though it is not quite detonatable
on it's own (IIRC). As I see it, the fuels in these mixtures are actually
acting as sensitizers which allow detonation of the oxidizer. This is
significantly different, IMHO, than a composition containing no chemicals
capable of exothermic decomposition.
--
Mike Poulton
MTP Technologies

Live free or die! http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/

Unless the government has a really excellent reason, anyone should be
allowed to possess, own, purchase, store, use, publish, say, or do
anything that does not cause demonstrable harm to another person without
that person's consent. "To fight terrorism" in the vague sense is not
even close to sufficient reason.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-04 08:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Poulton
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Mike Swisher
The cheddites, and similar mixtures, are also detonating explosives.
Also some binary KClO3/ P mixtures can be considered primary high
explosives.
As well as the finer meshed KClO3/Ti or Zr, KClO4/Ti or Zr mixtures,
and a number of B mixtures and a host of other things you would rather
not play with.
In both of these cases you are using a mixture which includes a chemical
with a positive heat of formation, potassium chlorate. It can and will
decompose exothermically without a fuel, though it is not quite detonatable
on it's own (IIRC). As I see it, the fuels in these mixtures are actually
acting as sensitizers which allow detonation of the oxidizer. This is
significantly different, IMHO, than a composition containing no chemicals
capable of exothermic decomposition.
--
Mike Poulton
MTP Technologies
Live free or die! http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
Unless the government has a really excellent reason, anyone should be
allowed to possess, own, purchase, store, use, publish, say, or do
anything that does not cause demonstrable harm to another person without
that person's consent. "To fight terrorism" in the vague sense is not
even close to sufficient reason.
Most of these I mentioned can and have been used as initiators.
Mike Poulton
2003-09-03 22:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Swisher
Harry - what about ammonium nitrate/fuel oil? That is a "mixture of
chemicals" and also a high-order explosive, albeit one with fairly low
velocity of detonation.
The issue here is that the "mixture of chemicals" contains one that can
detonate on its own -- ammonium nitrate. Dynamite is a mixture of
chemicals in this respect, too.
--
Mike Poulton
MTP Technologies

Live free or die! http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/

Unless the government has a really excellent reason, anyone should be
allowed to possess, own, purchase, store, use, publish, say, or do
anything that does not cause demonstrable harm to another person without
that person's consent. "To fight terrorism" in the vague sense is not
even close to sufficient reason.
Eirik van der Meer
2003-09-04 16:21:55 UTC
Permalink
At any rate, it does appear that mixtures operating by
reduction-oxidation reactions can produce detonation.
You are absolutely right, a high explosive does not have to be (or at least
contain) a single explosive compound. The best example would probably be
liquid oxygen absorbed in an organic substance (for instance wood meal).
Neither components are explosives yet the mixture is.

BTW. Even primary explosives can be binary. I belive I read about a mixture
of led oxide and an cerium/aluminium alloy that reliably went through a
deflagration-to-detonation transition.
--
Eirik M

Blir du gammel av å leve?
Mike Swisher
2003-09-04 16:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Do you have the citation for the lead oxide - cerium/aluminum
deflagration-to-detonation reaction? I am curious to know when, where, and by
whom this was noted.

This is roughly parallel to the lead oxide - magnalium reaction responsible for
"crackle." When I experimented with this in 1988 I found that a very small piece
of red lead/magnalium composition, consolidated with NC solution, smouldered
then exploded violently, blowing a hole through an aluminum can on which it was
set. See Shimizu's article in Pyrotechnica XIII (August 1990). "Blowing
downwards" is indicative of a high propagation rate and has been noted as a mark
of explosive force since the 17th century when experimenters with fulminating
gold noted that it would blow a hole through a silver spoon (see Davis's article
"Pulvis Fulminans" in Chymia I, for 1949).

In the magnalium crackle compositions, whether oxides of lead, bismuth, or
copper are used for oxidizers, the magnesium of the alloy provides the fuel for
the smoulder reaction, raising the temperature to a point at which the aluminum
left behind reacts with the unreduced metal oxide in a violent flash phase. I
suppose that the cerium fulfils a rôle comparable to the magnesium.

In Mellor there is an account of a nineteenth century accident in which a
chemist named Tissier (not to be confused with the pyrotechnist Tessier) heated
litharge and aluminum together in a kiln, resulting in a violent explosion. I do
not have the exact citation ready to hand but could find it with some effort.

Ellern (Mil. & Civ. Pyr., 1968, p. 245) says of Goldschmidt (thermitic)
reactions that when "oxides are used that have low heats of formation, such as
the oxides of copper, lead, or bismuth, the process may exhbit explosive
violence."

This is a good illustration of how thermodynamics may be used to predict the
course of a reaction - the greater the difference between the heat of formation
of the metal oxide used as oxidizer, and the heat of formation of the oxide of
aluminum (or that of any other metal used as fuel) - the more rapidly the
reaction will take place.



In article <***@193.213.112.21>, Eirik van der
Meer says...
Post by Eirik van der Meer
At any rate, it does appear that mixtures operating by
reduction-oxidation reactions can produce detonation.
You are absolutely right, a high explosive does not have to be (or at least
contain) a single explosive compound. The best example would probably be
liquid oxygen absorbed in an organic substance (for instance wood meal).
Neither components are explosives yet the mixture is.
BTW. Even primary explosives can be binary. I belive I read about a mixture
of led oxide and an cerium/aluminium alloy that reliably went through a
deflagration-to-detonation transition.
--
Eirik M
Blir du gammel av å leve?
Eirik van der Meer
2003-09-04 17:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Swisher
Do you have the citation for the lead oxide - cerium/aluminum
deflagration-to-detonation reaction? I am curious to know when, where,
and by whom this was noted.
I'm sorry but it was many years ago. I belive it was reported in a
"chemical abstract" as a possible safe(r) alternative to common primary
explosives. It was reported to be less sensitive to both friction and
impact than fulminates and azides, and although the effect was reliable
it suffered from a somewhat inconsisten delay that excluded it from use
in millisecond-delay caps.
I guess it could be used in traditional blasting caps but that's not
enough to justify a seperate produgtion line...
Post by Mike Swisher
This is roughly parallel to the lead oxide - magnalium reaction
responsible for "crackle."
My thoughts exactly.
Post by Mike Swisher
When I experimented with this in 1988 I
found that a very small piece of red lead/magnalium composition,
consolidated with NC solution, smouldered then exploded violently,
blowing a hole through an aluminum can on which it was set. See
Shimizu's article in Pyrotechnica XIII (August 1990). "Blowing
downwards" is indicative of a high propagation rate and has been noted
as a mark of explosive force since the 17th century when experimenters
with fulminating gold noted that it would blow a hole through a silver
spoon (see Davis's article "Pulvis Fulminans" in Chymia I, for 1949).
I agree, with small amounts one can pretty much exlude any self-
confinement that could cause this kind of downwards force.
--
Eirik M

Blir du gammel av å leve?
PyroLeo
2003-09-01 06:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Well you can nit-pick all day if you want to. I wasn't the one who mentioned
comparing brightness, I said light output. Even then we'd each be judging by
our own subjective determination of which has more visible light output, unless
we used special instrumentation. I suppose it's likely that in certain
specific wavelengths, dynamite might generate more light than flash.

It's a ridiculous comparison but that's the point, the original question was
ridiculous. He didn't even specify what type or strength of dynamite he was
talking about. Why is this such a big deal to you anyway?

I guess we can assume (since he never said what he meant by stronger), that
he's asking which makes more noise? Or maybe he's asking which one has more
destructive force? If he only wants to make a big noise then either one will
work, but flash is easier to get ahold of. If you really want to shred
something though, then dynamite would work better.

Leo
----------------
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
I don't believe Harry had anything specific in mind, I think that was
his
Post by PyroLeo
point. The person who asked the question is comparing apples and oranges
to
Post by PyroLeo
some extent. As someone else said, if you compared by light output then
flash
Post by PyroLeo
is stronger. If you compared by brisance then dynamite is stronger.
If
you
Post by PyroLeo
compared by detonation velocity then it's invalid since flash doesn't
detonate.
Post by PyroLeo
It's kind of like asking "Which is a better fuel, gasoline or propane?".
That
Post by PyroLeo
depends by which of the many properties of a typical fuel that you're
comparing.
Leo
----------------
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite?
just
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question
is
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry
C.
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Quite possibly mass energy density, although I haven't done actual
comparisons. I seem to recall once seeing a comparison of the energy
density of gasoline with that of dynamite, and that of the gasoline
was greater.
In general terms, you cannot meaningfully compare the detonation of
a
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
high brisance explosive to that of a Redox deflagration, although you
can compare the energy released released but that is a little like
comparing the energy released by gunpowder to that of coal combustion.
Davis covers the subject quite well in his book, and IIRC correctly
he
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
at some poing defines the power of an explosive to correspond roughly
to the heat of reaction multiplied by the detonation velocity.
Harry C.
It sounded like you had something specific in mind.
But brightness isn't a unit of measure, and that sounds like your personal
definition of a detonation.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-01 08:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by PyroLeo
Well you can nit-pick all day if you want to. I wasn't the one who mentioned
comparing brightness, I said light output. Even then we'd each be judging by
our own subjective determination of which has more visible light output, unless
we used special instrumentation. I suppose it's likely that in certain
specific wavelengths, dynamite might generate more light than flash.
It's a ridiculous comparison but that's the point, the original question was
ridiculous. He didn't even specify what type or strength of dynamite he was
talking about. Why is this such a big deal to you anyway?
I guess we can assume (since he never said what he meant by stronger), that
he's asking which makes more noise? Or maybe he's asking which one has more
destructive force? If he only wants to make a big noise then either one will
work, but flash is easier to get ahold of. If you really want to shred
something though, then dynamite would work better.
Leo
----------------
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
I don't believe Harry had anything specific in mind, I think that was
his
Post by PyroLeo
point. The person who asked the question is comparing apples and oranges
to
Post by PyroLeo
some extent. As someone else said, if you compared by light output then
flash
Post by PyroLeo
is stronger. If you compared by brisance then dynamite is stronger.
If
you
Post by PyroLeo
compared by detonation velocity then it's invalid since flash doesn't
detonate.
Post by PyroLeo
It's kind of like asking "Which is a better fuel, gasoline or propane?".
That
Post by PyroLeo
depends by which of the many properties of a typical fuel that you're
comparing.
Leo
----------------
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite?
just
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question
is
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry
C.
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Quite possibly mass energy density, although I haven't done actual
comparisons. I seem to recall once seeing a comparison of the energy
density of gasoline with that of dynamite, and that of the gasoline
was greater.
In general terms, you cannot meaningfully compare the detonation of
a
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
high brisance explosive to that of a Redox deflagration, although you
can compare the energy released released but that is a little like
comparing the energy released by gunpowder to that of coal combustion.
Davis covers the subject quite well in his book, and IIRC correctly
he
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
at some poing defines the power of an explosive to correspond roughly
to the heat of reaction multiplied by the detonation velocity.
Harry C.
It sounded like you had something specific in mind.
But brightness isn't a unit of measure, and that sounds like your personal
definition of a detonation.
From Shimizu: Fireworks The Art Science and Technique." Detonation velocity
64%KClO4, 23%Al
13%S 1427 m/sec" p 44. Detonation usually implies
an inelastic, inharmonic wavefront or shockwave.

I assumed he meant the total energy output per time of duration per gram,
which would be subject to precise definition.
Old Dog
2003-09-01 16:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
From Shimizu: Fireworks The Art Science and Technique." Detonation velocity
64%KClO4, 23%Al
13%S 1427 m/sec" p 44. Detonation usually implies
an inelastic, inharmonic wavefront or shockwave.
Hmmm....remember it is a translation from a language with no one-to-one
relationship to any European languages...

I made the facetious statement "Brightness..." It was intended as a joking
comment on the question and the word "flash". I don't know why anyone is getting
worked up about it. Perhaps I should have said "Subjective light output" which
would imply the visible spectrum and effect on the retina. Probably someone
could have found fault with that, I don't know.

I think you guys need to go light a fuse, like we did last night. Small
community show - 25-30 minutes, tons of 3-6" shells, 2 eights, 3 tens, 5
twelves, salute walls, mine walls, and a flame wall that went a little late ;o).
Zero injuries, thousands of happy people, and I can barely move today for
lifting racks and sunburn where the sunscreen got sweated off working all day in
sunny 95F+ weather, but it was worth it!

-Rich
Joe 123
2003-09-02 16:41:28 UTC
Permalink
does he give energy per wt of this mix.

Joe
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
Well you can nit-pick all day if you want to. I wasn't the one who
mentioned
Post by PyroLeo
comparing brightness, I said light output. Even then we'd each be
judging
Post by PyroLeo
by
Post by PyroLeo
our own subjective determination of which has more visible light output,
unless
Post by PyroLeo
we used special instrumentation. I suppose it's likely that in certain
specific wavelengths, dynamite might generate more light than flash.
It's a ridiculous comparison but that's the point, the original question
was
Post by PyroLeo
ridiculous. He didn't even specify what type or strength of dynamite he
was
Post by PyroLeo
talking about. Why is this such a big deal to you anyway?
I guess we can assume (since he never said what he meant by stronger),
that
Post by PyroLeo
he's asking which makes more noise? Or maybe he's asking which one has
more
Post by PyroLeo
destructive force? If he only wants to make a big noise then either one
will
Post by PyroLeo
work, but flash is easier to get ahold of. If you really want to shred
something though, then dynamite would work better.
Leo
----------------
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
I don't believe Harry had anything specific in mind, I think that was
his
Post by PyroLeo
point. The person who asked the question is comparing apples and
oranges
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
to
Post by PyroLeo
some extent. As someone else said, if you compared by light output
then
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
flash
Post by PyroLeo
is stronger. If you compared by brisance then dynamite is stronger.
If
you
Post by PyroLeo
compared by detonation velocity then it's invalid since flash doesn't
detonate.
Post by PyroLeo
It's kind of like asking "Which is a better fuel, gasoline or
propane?".
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
That
Post by PyroLeo
depends by which of the many properties of a typical fuel that you're
comparing.
Leo
----------------
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite?
just
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
Define what you mean by "more powerful", otherwise your question
is
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
meaningless.
That is, specify the units of comparison.
Harry
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
C.
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by name
What unit of measure would list flash as higher?
Quite possibly mass energy density, although I haven't done actual
comparisons. I seem to recall once seeing a comparison of the energy
density of gasoline with that of dynamite, and that of the gasoline
was greater.
In general terms, you cannot meaningfully compare the detonation of
a
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
high brisance explosive to that of a Redox deflagration, although
you
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
can compare the energy released released but that is a little like
comparing the energy released by gunpowder to that of coal
combustion.
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Davis covers the subject quite well in his book, and IIRC correctly
he
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
at some poing defines the power of an explosive to correspond
roughly
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
to the heat of reaction multiplied by the detonation velocity.
Harry C.
It sounded like you had something specific in mind.
But brightness isn't a unit of measure, and that sounds like your
personal
Post by PyroLeo
Post by PyroLeo
definition of a detonation.
From Shimizu: Fireworks The Art Science and Technique." Detonation velocity
64%KClO4, 23%Al
13%S 1427 m/sec" p 44. Detonation usually implies
an inelastic, inharmonic wavefront or shockwave.
I assumed he meant the total energy output per time of duration per gram,
which would be subject to precise definition.
Joe 123
2003-09-02 16:39:26 UTC
Permalink
first of all power is only a term relevant to how much energy something has
in it and how fast it can release trhat energy.. And what kind of
dynomite you talking about. That is a general term used to describe an
explosive.

Search for energy content and divide by the rate of reaction (VOD or burning
speed). That will give you an estimate of power, energy/sec. make sure
your units are correct and cancel.(and yes this is very simplified but I
feel it is valid) As long as you compare apples with apples you will see a
valid portrail of power. dont compare BTUs with calories or joules you must
convert to same. Dont mix ft/s with Km/s you must convert.

You will end up with i.e, BTU*ft/(sec*gm) which ever one has the larger
value would be the more powerful. for all purposes intended for the LAYMEN.

Joe
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just trying to
settle a dispute.
thanks
Terry Wilder
2003-09-03 20:07:41 UTC
Permalink
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a more
specific
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of flash will
act
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very specific
circumstances
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some knowledgeable people
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just trying to
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will undergo
sympathetic detonation.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-04 09:38:44 UTC
Permalink
"Under very specific circumstances". As in, not under the ordinary
circumstances
in which flash is employed.
Did you read it?
-Rich
Post by Terry Wilder
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a more
specific
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of flash will
act
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very specific
circumstances
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some knowledgeable people
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will undergo
sympathetic detonation.
One can consider it deflagration if they want, but on that same page Shimizu
does give a differing velocity by a different method of initiation, which
comes about only by shock to the system, non-harmonic mass displacement, and
was the point he was making. Apparently Shimizu isn't a good enough
reference for some. OK

"NFPA 44A, Manufacture, Transportation and Storage of Fireworks: Class 6
Characteristics: Detonates from
open burning, small critical mass, very sensitive to spark and friction,
capable of sympathetic detonation........

KClO3, Al or MG, Sb2S3, 6A: KClO3 Al or Mg, S 6A
KClO4,. Al or MG, S 6B " etc etc along with most of these other mixtures I
mentioned in the other thread.
These were written by some pretty good people

Not under very specific circumstances, but under most.
As those who have tried to build those double bottoms
will attest, or those who have tried bundling, which both would be wide
spread if this were not so..
Old Dog
2003-09-04 22:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
"Under very specific circumstances". As in, not under the ordinary
circumstances
in which flash is employed.
Did you read it?
-Rich
Post by Terry Wilder
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a more
specific
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of flash
will
Post by Terry Wilder
act
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very specific
circumstances
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some knowledgeable
people
Post by Terry Wilder
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will undergo
sympathetic detonation.
One can consider it deflagration if they want, but on that same page Shimizu
does give a differing velocity by a different method of initiation, which
comes about only by shock to the system, non-harmonic mass displacement, and
was the point he was making. Apparently Shimizu isn't a good enough
reference for some. OK
"NFPA 44A, Manufacture, Transportation and Storage of Fireworks: Class 6
Characteristics: Detonates from
open burning, small critical mass, very sensitive to spark and friction,
capable of sympathetic detonation........
KClO3, Al or MG, Sb2S3, 6A: KClO3 Al or Mg, S 6A
KClO4,. Al or MG, S 6B " etc etc along with most of these other mixtures I
mentioned in the other thread.
These were written by some pretty good people
Not under very specific circumstances, but under most.
As those who have tried to build those double bottoms
will attest, or those who have tried bundling, which both would be wide
spread if this were not so..
Hardly an acid test. The force of a deflagrating flash comp is quite sufficient
to rupture any paper containers that are in contact and to ignite the contents.

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-05 09:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
"Under very specific circumstances". As in, not under the ordinary
circumstances
in which flash is employed.
Did you read it?
-Rich
Post by Terry Wilder
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a more
specific
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of flash
will
Post by Terry Wilder
act
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very specific
circumstances
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some
knowledgeable
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
people
Post by Terry Wilder
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will undergo
sympathetic detonation.
One can consider it deflagration if they want, but on that same page Shimizu
does give a differing velocity by a different method of initiation, which
comes about only by shock to the system, non-harmonic mass displacement, and
was the point he was making. Apparently Shimizu isn't a good enough
reference for some. OK
"NFPA 44A, Manufacture, Transportation and Storage of Fireworks: Class 6
Characteristics: Detonates from
open burning, small critical mass, very sensitive to spark and friction,
capable of sympathetic detonation........
KClO3, Al or MG, Sb2S3, 6A: KClO3 Al or Mg, S 6A
KClO4,. Al or MG, S 6B " etc etc along with most of these other mixtures I
mentioned in the other thread.
These were written by some pretty good people
Not under very specific circumstances, but under most.
As those who have tried to build those double bottoms
will attest, or those who have tried bundling, which both would be wide
spread if this were not so..
Hardly an acid test. The force of a deflagrating flash comp is quite sufficient
to rupture any paper containers that are in contact and to ignite the contents.
-Rich
Felt and discs intact, are a "litmus test"!
Terry Wilder
2003-09-05 08:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a more
specific
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of flash will
act
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very specific
circumstances
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some knowledgeable people
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will undergo
sympathetic detonation.
Terry, such a reaction is a bit difficult to conceptually visualize.
The term detonation is generally reserved for the spontaneous
decomposition of high explosive compounds that decompose spontaneously
from a solid to a hot gas. Redox deflagration reactions, as fast as
they may be, are quite a different ball game.
Hasn't this subject already been beaten to death over the years in
this newsgroup, and what difference does it make anyway?
Harry C.
Sympathetic detonation clearly implies detonation.
Does knowing whether that barricade or blast shield will work, or make a
difference, even if it were to stay
intact, matter? If its been beaten to death, how come several seem
unfamiliar with this NFPA classification. You wouldn't suppose this
classifications real purpose is for the (sic) unitiated do you? Someone
asks a question and he gets chided for not knowing how to ask a question.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-05 09:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a more
specific
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of flash
will
Post by Terry Wilder
act
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very specific
circumstances
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some knowledgeable
people
Post by Terry Wilder
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will undergo
sympathetic detonation.
Terry, such a reaction is a bit difficult to conceptually visualize.
The term detonation is generally reserved for the spontaneous
decomposition of high explosive compounds that decompose spontaneously
from a solid to a hot gas. Redox deflagration reactions, as fast as
they may be, are quite a different ball game.
Hasn't this subject already been beaten to death over the years in
this newsgroup, and what difference does it make anyway?
Harry C.
Sympathetic detonation clearly implies detonation.
Does knowing whether that barricade or blast shield will work, or make a
difference, even if it were to stay
intact, matter? If its been beaten to death, how come several seem
unfamiliar with this NFPA classification. You wouldn't suppose this
classifications real purpose is for the (sic) unitiated do you? Someone
asks a question and he gets chided for not knowing how to ask a question.
That should be "uninitiated"
Harry Conover
2003-09-05 16:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a more
specific
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of flash
will
act
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very specific
circumstances
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some knowledgeable
people
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will undergo
sympathetic detonation.
Terry, such a reaction is a bit difficult to conceptually visualize.
The term detonation is generally reserved for the spontaneous
decomposition of high explosive compounds that decompose spontaneously
from a solid to a hot gas. Redox deflagration reactions, as fast as
they may be, are quite a different ball game.
Hasn't this subject already been beaten to death over the years in
this newsgroup, and what difference does it make anyway?
Harry C.
Sympathetic detonation clearly implies detonation.
Does knowing whether that barricade or blast shield will work, or make a
difference, even if it were to stay
intact, matter? If its been beaten to death, how come several seem
unfamiliar with this NFPA classification. You wouldn't suppose this
classifications real purpose is for the (sic) unitiated do you? Someone
asks a question and he gets chided for not knowing how to ask a question.
That should be "uninitiated"
Terry, it doesn't make a difference whether flash detonates or
deflagrates. The point is entirely moot, unless of course you are
trying to use it for purposes in which only high brisance detonation
will accomplish the intended goal -- something that is pretty far
removed from fireworks considerations and in which flash powder has
never been demonstrated capable.

It is also moot from a safety standpoint, because both the human body
and the vast majority of barracade materials will react similarly in
both cases, as contrasted to the reaction of a steel plate in reponse
to a shaped charge of high explosive. Clearly whether or not it
detonates or not, flash is fully capable of converting a human body
into a slurry of pink mush and gobs of fat and bone! You seem to be
suggesting that such an effect requires a high order detonation, when
in fact it does not.

By contrast, the NFPA represents the interests of the insurance
industry...they are neither physical chemists nor do they claim to be
authorities on the subject. Consequently their observations are useful
as general guidelines, sometimes even becoming the basis for
regulations. Still, to assume that NFPA proclamations represent
scientific fact is ridiculous.

Harry C.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-06 01:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a more
specific
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of flash
will
act
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very specific
circumstances
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some knowledgeable
people
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just
trying to
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will undergo
sympathetic detonation.
Terry, such a reaction is a bit difficult to conceptually visualize.
The term detonation is generally reserved for the spontaneous
decomposition of high explosive compounds that decompose
spontaneously
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
from a solid to a hot gas. Redox deflagration reactions, as fast as
they may be, are quite a different ball game.
Hasn't this subject already been beaten to death over the years in
this newsgroup, and what difference does it make anyway?
Harry C.
Sympathetic detonation clearly implies detonation.
Does knowing whether that barricade or blast shield will work, or make a
difference, even if it were to stay
intact, matter? If its been beaten to death, how come several seem
unfamiliar with this NFPA classification. You wouldn't suppose this
classifications real purpose is for the (sic) unitiated do you?
Someone
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
asks a question and he gets chided for not knowing how to ask a question.
That should be "uninitiated"
Terry, it doesn't make a difference whether flash detonates or
deflagrates. The point is entirely moot, unless of course you are
trying to use it for purposes in which only high brisance detonation
will accomplish the intended goal -- something that is pretty far
removed from fireworks considerations and in which flash powder has
never been demonstrated capable.
It is also moot from a safety standpoint, because both the human body
and the vast majority of barracade materials will react similarly in
both cases, as contrasted to the reaction of a steel plate in reponse
to a shaped charge of high explosive. Clearly whether or not it
detonates or not, flash is fully capable of converting a human body
into a slurry of pink mush and gobs of fat and bone! You seem to be
suggesting that such an effect requires a high order detonation, when
in fact it does not.
By contrast, the NFPA represents the interests of the insurance
industry...they are neither physical chemists nor do they claim to be
authorities on the subject. Consequently their observations are useful
as general guidelines, sometimes even becoming the basis for
regulations. Still, to assume that NFPA proclamations represent
scientific fact is ridiculous.
Harry C.
He is not of understanding of the basic facts. The fact is that barricades
can transmit the shock waves necessary to detonate flash powder while
remaining intact. This is what sympathetic detonation is! And would be a
major concern in the manufacture
design, process and storage of any high energy mix.
One would be but foolish to take his word over that of the authors of this.

This reminds me of something akin to the current thread by Donald J.
Haarmann on Death mixes
in the Boric Acid in Flash Powder post. There was a certain manufacturer up
here in the Midwest that a had an explosion, first of several, while mixing
certain "secret" Barium Green mixtures. Well, after the ten by twenty by
thirty crater had sent them packing, but before another dealer told me most
of the surrounding "distanced" sheds were window dressing for the inspectors
and were only rarely used, their lead worker (now deceased, due to mishap)
told me distance tables were only arbitrary guess work. Now just like these
tables, or the knowledge of these Death Mixes these classifications have
many man years of hard gained knowledge and experience and for one to say
some thing like "Still to assume that NFPA proclamations represent
scientific fact is ridiculous". is far more ridiculous in itself, as it is
to say they represent the insurance industry, after all they make money
insuring these endeavors, as some here will definitely attest. (he's
probably still using Tesseyman, however!). This reminds me of this guy
claiming Consumers Report issued UL listings.
.
Do these guys know more than Shimizu, Davis or the engineers and scientists
that authored or were directly referenced for the adoption of these
classifications? Of course not.
Old Dog
2003-09-06 13:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a
more
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
specific
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of
flash
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
will
act
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very
specific
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
circumstances
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some
knowledgeable
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
people
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite?
just
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
trying to
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will
undergo
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
sympathetic detonation.
Terry, such a reaction is a bit difficult to conceptually visualize.
The term detonation is generally reserved for the spontaneous
decomposition of high explosive compounds that decompose
spontaneously
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
from a solid to a hot gas. Redox deflagration reactions, as fast as
they may be, are quite a different ball game.
Hasn't this subject already been beaten to death over the years in
this newsgroup, and what difference does it make anyway?
Harry C.
Sympathetic detonation clearly implies detonation.
Does knowing whether that barricade or blast shield will work, or make
a
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
difference, even if it were to stay
intact, matter? If its been beaten to death, how come several seem
unfamiliar with this NFPA classification. You wouldn't suppose this
classifications real purpose is for the (sic) unitiated do you?
Someone
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
asks a question and he gets chided for not knowing how to ask a
question.
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
That should be "uninitiated"
Terry, it doesn't make a difference whether flash detonates or
deflagrates. The point is entirely moot, unless of course you are
trying to use it for purposes in which only high brisance detonation
will accomplish the intended goal -- something that is pretty far
removed from fireworks considerations and in which flash powder has
never been demonstrated capable.
It is also moot from a safety standpoint, because both the human body
and the vast majority of barracade materials will react similarly in
both cases, as contrasted to the reaction of a steel plate in reponse
to a shaped charge of high explosive. Clearly whether or not it
detonates or not, flash is fully capable of converting a human body
into a slurry of pink mush and gobs of fat and bone! You seem to be
suggesting that such an effect requires a high order detonation, when
in fact it does not.
By contrast, the NFPA represents the interests of the insurance
industry...they are neither physical chemists nor do they claim to be
authorities on the subject. Consequently their observations are useful
as general guidelines, sometimes even becoming the basis for
regulations. Still, to assume that NFPA proclamations represent
scientific fact is ridiculous.
Harry C.
He is not of understanding of the basic facts. The fact is that barricades
can transmit the shock waves necessary to detonate flash powder while
remaining intact. This is what sympathetic detonation is! And would be a
major concern in the manufacture
design, process and storage of any high energy mix.
One would be but foolish to take his word over that of the authors of this.
We already know flash powders can be set off by shock. E.g.: a high velocity
rifle round, travelling at the speed of sound or less. No HE is required. Why
would it be surprising that they can be set off "sympathetically" by an external
shock from an adjacent charge of flash powder?

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-06 16:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a
more
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
specific
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of
flash
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
will
act
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very
specific
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
circumstances
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some
knowledgeable
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
people
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite?
just
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
trying to
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will
undergo
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
sympathetic detonation.
Terry, such a reaction is a bit difficult to conceptually visualize.
The term detonation is generally reserved for the spontaneous
decomposition of high explosive compounds that decompose
spontaneously
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
from a solid to a hot gas. Redox deflagration reactions, as fast as
they may be, are quite a different ball game.
Hasn't this subject already been beaten to death over the years in
this newsgroup, and what difference does it make anyway?
Harry C.
Sympathetic detonation clearly implies detonation.
Does knowing whether that barricade or blast shield will work, or make
a
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
difference, even if it were to stay
intact, matter? If its been beaten to death, how come several seem
unfamiliar with this NFPA classification. You wouldn't suppose this
classifications real purpose is for the (sic) unitiated do you?
Someone
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
asks a question and he gets chided for not knowing how to ask a
question.
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
That should be "uninitiated"
Terry, it doesn't make a difference whether flash detonates or
deflagrates. The point is entirely moot, unless of course you are
trying to use it for purposes in which only high brisance detonation
will accomplish the intended goal -- something that is pretty far
removed from fireworks considerations and in which flash powder has
never been demonstrated capable.
It is also moot from a safety standpoint, because both the human body
and the vast majority of barracade materials will react similarly in
both cases, as contrasted to the reaction of a steel plate in reponse
to a shaped charge of high explosive. Clearly whether or not it
detonates or not, flash is fully capable of converting a human body
into a slurry of pink mush and gobs of fat and bone! You seem to be
suggesting that such an effect requires a high order detonation, when
in fact it does not.
By contrast, the NFPA represents the interests of the insurance
industry...they are neither physical chemists nor do they claim to be
authorities on the subject. Consequently their observations are useful
as general guidelines, sometimes even becoming the basis for
regulations. Still, to assume that NFPA proclamations represent
scientific fact is ridiculous.
Harry C.
He is not of understanding of the basic facts. The fact is that barricades
can transmit the shock waves necessary to detonate flash powder while
remaining intact. This is what sympathetic detonation is! And would be a
major concern in the manufacture
design, process and storage of any high energy mix.
One would be but foolish to take his word over that of the authors of this.
We already know flash powders can be set off by shock. E.g.: a high velocity
rifle round, travelling at the speed of sound or less. No HE is required. Why
would it be surprising that they can be set off "sympathetically" by an external
shock from an adjacent charge of flash powder?
-Rich
Still not understanding! Even so, would one then be surprised that it would
be detonation rather than deflagration, if there is no combustion involved?
You can have the case of a nice layer of another very flammable HE in
between two such sympathetically detonating charges, that remains intact,
unburned and shows no signs of any macroscopic movement. This sometimes
dangerous gap jumping was first observed in chlorate explosives in France,
if I'm not mistaken, by experiments in altering the method of initiating a
main charge ,in situ, by inserting a secondary as a "self" booster. One can
imagine their surprise when they found, it still intact, to no effect
whatsoever. Still there is very little declassified on the subject (a full
CA index search will give perhaps twenty useful pages). However there has
been written accounts of instances in which this property has been used to
disarm weapons by a controlled detonation of a sympathetic component, and
several on the rereview of cases that were previously labelled sabotage..

BTW. That several inches of hardwood isn't arbitrary either
.
Harry Conover
2003-09-06 21:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a
more
specific
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of
flash
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
will
act
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very
specific
circumstances
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some
knowledgeable
people
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite?
just
trying to
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will
undergo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
sympathetic detonation.
Terry, such a reaction is a bit difficult to conceptually visualize.
The term detonation is generally reserved for the spontaneous
decomposition of high explosive compounds that decompose
spontaneously
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
from a solid to a hot gas. Redox deflagration reactions, as fast as
they may be, are quite a different ball game.
Hasn't this subject already been beaten to death over the years in
this newsgroup, and what difference does it make anyway?
Harry C.
Sympathetic detonation clearly implies detonation.
Does knowing whether that barricade or blast shield will work, or make
a
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
difference, even if it were to stay
intact, matter? If its been beaten to death, how come several seem
unfamiliar with this NFPA classification. You wouldn't suppose this
classifications real purpose is for the (sic) unitiated do you?
Someone
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
asks a question and he gets chided for not knowing how to ask a
question.
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
That should be "uninitiated"
Terry, it doesn't make a difference whether flash detonates or
deflagrates. The point is entirely moot, unless of course you are
trying to use it for purposes in which only high brisance detonation
will accomplish the intended goal -- something that is pretty far
removed from fireworks considerations and in which flash powder has
never been demonstrated capable.
It is also moot from a safety standpoint, because both the human body
and the vast majority of barracade materials will react similarly in
both cases, as contrasted to the reaction of a steel plate in reponse
to a shaped charge of high explosive. Clearly whether or not it
detonates or not, flash is fully capable of converting a human body
into a slurry of pink mush and gobs of fat and bone! You seem to be
suggesting that such an effect requires a high order detonation, when
in fact it does not.
By contrast, the NFPA represents the interests of the insurance
industry...they are neither physical chemists nor do they claim to be
authorities on the subject. Consequently their observations are useful
as general guidelines, sometimes even becoming the basis for
regulations. Still, to assume that NFPA proclamations represent
scientific fact is ridiculous.
Harry C.
He is not of understanding of the basic facts. The fact is that barricades
can transmit the shock waves necessary to detonate flash powder while
remaining intact. This is what sympathetic detonation is! And would be a
major concern in the manufacture
design, process and storage of any high energy mix.
One would be but foolish to take his word over that of the authors of this.
We already know flash powders can be set off by shock. E.g.: a high velocity
rifle round, travelling at the speed of sound or less. No HE is required. Why
would it be surprising that they can be set off "sympathetically" by an external
shock from an adjacent charge of flash powder?
-Rich
Exactly. Still, that does not make flash a high explosive using the
accepted definition of a high explosive, NFPA and BATF
notwithstanding.

Generally speaking, many sensitive pyrotechnics mixtures are easily
initiated by shock, including Armstrong's mixture and more notably
some chlorate based comps (particular when they have gone sour). Like
flash powder, none of these qualifies for the definition of a primary
or secondary explosive, hence are not high explosives.

Were I posting in the explosives newsgroup, I would introduce a
discussion of the so called explosive agents, cheddites, and other
curious mixtures that become high explosives as a result of the
combining/reacting of what are generally thought of as non-explosive
materials...but a discussion of the physical chemistry that these
things involve is well beyond the the depth of a newsgroup post, and
well outside of the topics appropriate for discussion in a fireworks
newsgroup. It suffices to say that the reactions observed and the
chemical changes obsersed during the production and detonation of such
materials are not simple redox reactions.

I believe it is a safe generalization that in fireworks, rarely if
ever does one come into contact with materials that qualify for the
accepted scientific definition of being a high explosive. Exceptions
however do exist (or did at one time)...for example picrate based
whistle compounds...and there are probably a few others.

Finally, it is probably important to realize that DOT and BATF
regulations need not adhere to precise scientific accuracy to define
safety regulations. NFPA has, some argue fortunately, no regulator
authority at all. All now tend to focus on the extent of the damage
that can be created by various materials. If the damage produced by
the explosion of a large mass of deflagrating materials is generally
equivalent to that produced by high explosives, there is no
significant difference from a public safety standpoint.
Then too, such determinations are the result of a committee actions
and may change from time to time. By contract, scientific definitions
are somewhat more clinical and precise and tend to serve a a
touchstone or sanity test.

Years back both the explosives and fireworks industry had to be in
compliance with 'The Table of Distances' that was based, not on
experimental measurements, but on a book called 'A History of
Explosions' which examined the damage resulting from perhaps 100-years
of notable, large explosions and the distance over which that damage
took place. It probably wasn't until the mid-20th century that the
Table of Distances became augmented with the result of actual
scientific measurements, and not until the recently passed 15-years
that our federal government displayed any interest in federalizing
what until then had been largely state regulations except where
interstate commerce was involved. IIRC, OSHA became involved in this
subject long before ATF ever took serious note. (Younger readers may
not realize it, but ATF was originally part of the Treasury
Department, and their primary charter through and beyond WWII was to
enforce the collection of federal alcohol, tobacco, and firearms
taxes.)

'Nuff' said on these off-topic subjects.

Harry C.
jimmy
2003-09-07 04:17:21 UTC
Permalink
I understand not everything that goes "boom" detonates, and there may
not be any evidence that it does, but do you have any evidence that it
doesn't? Or can't? I thought I read that some types will detonate if
initiated properly (blasting cap?)
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
There is no way to accurately compare the two unless you ask a
more
specific
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
question. There is, in any case, no equivalent. No amount of
flash
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
will
act
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
"like" any amount of dynamite, because except under very
specific
circumstances
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
flash does not function as a high explosive (and some
knowledgeable
people
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
maintain that it NEVER actually detonates).
-Rich
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite?
just
trying to
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by name
settle a dispute.
thanks
This is an incorrect assertion because most flash powders will
undergo
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
sympathetic detonation.
Terry, such a reaction is a bit difficult to conceptually visualize.
The term detonation is generally reserved for the spontaneous
decomposition of high explosive compounds that decompose
spontaneously
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
from a solid to a hot gas. Redox deflagration reactions, as fast as
they may be, are quite a different ball game.
Hasn't this subject already been beaten to death over the years in
this newsgroup, and what difference does it make anyway?
Harry C.
Sympathetic detonation clearly implies detonation.
Does knowing whether that barricade or blast shield will work, or make
a
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
difference, even if it were to stay
intact, matter? If its been beaten to death, how come several seem
unfamiliar with this NFPA classification. You wouldn't suppose this
classifications real purpose is for the (sic) unitiated do you?
Someone
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
asks a question and he gets chided for not knowing how to ask a
question.
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Harry Conover
Post by Terry Wilder
That should be "uninitiated"
Terry, it doesn't make a difference whether flash detonates or
deflagrates. The point is entirely moot, unless of course you are
trying to use it for purposes in which only high brisance detonation
will accomplish the intended goal -- something that is pretty far
removed from fireworks considerations and in which flash powder has
never been demonstrated capable.
It is also moot from a safety standpoint, because both the human body
and the vast majority of barracade materials will react similarly in
both cases, as contrasted to the reaction of a steel plate in reponse
to a shaped charge of high explosive. Clearly whether or not it
detonates or not, flash is fully capable of converting a human body
into a slurry of pink mush and gobs of fat and bone! You seem to be
suggesting that such an effect requires a high order detonation, when
in fact it does not.
By contrast, the NFPA represents the interests of the insurance
industry...they are neither physical chemists nor do they claim to be
authorities on the subject. Consequently their observations are useful
as general guidelines, sometimes even becoming the basis for
regulations. Still, to assume that NFPA proclamations represent
scientific fact is ridiculous.
Harry C.
He is not of understanding of the basic facts. The fact is that barricades
can transmit the shock waves necessary to detonate flash powder while
remaining intact. This is what sympathetic detonation is! And would be a
major concern in the manufacture
design, process and storage of any high energy mix.
One would be but foolish to take his word over that of the authors of this.
We already know flash powders can be set off by shock. E.g.: a high velocity
rifle round, travelling at the speed of sound or less. No HE is required. Why
would it be surprising that they can be set off "sympathetically" by an external
shock from an adjacent charge of flash powder?
-Rich
Exactly. Still, that does not make flash a high explosive using the
accepted definition of a high explosive, NFPA and BATF
notwithstanding.
Generally speaking, many sensitive pyrotechnics mixtures are easily
initiated by shock, including Armstrong's mixture and more notably
some chlorate based comps (particular when they have gone sour). Like
flash powder, none of these qualifies for the definition of a primary
or secondary explosive, hence are not high explosives.
Were I posting in the explosives newsgroup, I would introduce a
discussion of the so called explosive agents, cheddites, and other
curious mixtures that become high explosives as a result of the
combining/reacting of what are generally thought of as non-explosive
materials...but a discussion of the physical chemistry that these
things involve is well beyond the the depth of a newsgroup post, and
well outside of the topics appropriate for discussion in a fireworks
newsgroup. It suffices to say that the reactions observed and the
chemical changes obsersed during the production and detonation of such
materials are not simple redox reactions.
I believe it is a safe generalization that in fireworks, rarely if
ever does one come into contact with materials that qualify for the
accepted scientific definition of being a high explosive. Exceptions
however do exist (or did at one time)...for example picrate based
whistle compounds...and there are probably a few others.
Finally, it is probably important to realize that DOT and BATF
regulations need not adhere to precise scientific accuracy to define
safety regulations. NFPA has, some argue fortunately, no regulator
authority at all. All now tend to focus on the extent of the damage
that can be created by various materials. If the damage produced by
the explosion of a large mass of deflagrating materials is generally
equivalent to that produced by high explosives, there is no
significant difference from a public safety standpoint.
Then too, such determinations are the result of a committee actions
and may change from time to time. By contract, scientific definitions
are somewhat more clinical and precise and tend to serve a a
touchstone or sanity test.
Years back both the explosives and fireworks industry had to be in
compliance with 'The Table of Distances' that was based, not on
experimental measurements, but on a book called 'A History of
Explosions' which examined the damage resulting from perhaps 100-years
of notable, large explosions and the distance over which that damage
took place. It probably wasn't until the mid-20th century that the
Table of Distances became augmented with the result of actual
scientific measurements, and not until the recently passed 15-years
that our federal government displayed any interest in federalizing
what until then had been largely state regulations except where
interstate commerce was involved. IIRC, OSHA became involved in this
subject long before ATF ever took serious note. (Younger readers may
not realize it, but ATF was originally part of the Treasury
Department, and their primary charter through and beyond WWII was to
enforce the collection of federal alcohol, tobacco, and firearms
taxes.)
'Nuff' said on these off-topic subjects.
Harry C.
George Burkhard
2003-09-07 22:03:06 UTC
Permalink
In a linear solid, this would be true, but almost nothing in real life is
linear and so you may be fooled if you use this in your actual calculations.

George
You could always look at an elastic solid and ask what happens when a
point
exceeds the maximum displacement or the maximum velocity allowed by Hookes
law. The answers should lie along the lines of a deformation or the
generation of a shock wave to disperse the excess kinetic energy.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-08 02:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Burkhard
In a linear solid, this would be true, but almost nothing in real life is
linear and so you may be fooled if you use this in your actual
calculations.
Post by George Burkhard
George
You could always look at an elastic solid and ask what happens when a
point
exceeds the maximum displacement or the maximum velocity allowed by Hookes
law. The answers should lie along the lines of a deformation or the
generation of a shock wave to disperse the excess kinetic energy.
This was merely an example to help qualify the notions involved.
Marty
2003-09-06 03:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Conover
By contrast, the NFPA represents the interests of the insurance
industry...they are neither physical chemists nor do they claim to be
authorities on the subject. Consequently their observations are useful
as general guidelines, sometimes even becoming the basis for
regulations. Still, to assume that NFPA proclamations represent
scientific fact is ridiculous.
Harry C.
Didn't I just read in NFPA 1123 names like Souza, Estes, Freeman as well as
other respected names in pyrotechnics? I think it's safe to consider them
authorities on the subject.
Thank goodness they aren't all Lab Coats. The SEA would be the least of our
worries.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-07 01:42:02 UTC
Permalink
There is a difference between the NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics, which
includes
(among others) fireworks industry representatives, and the NFPA itself.
The
Committee can make recommendations, but these are not necessarily accepted
by
the Association. An example is the ongoing argument over standards for the
storage and exposure for retail sale of consumer fireworks.
Since this is an ongoing activity in the great majority of states, there
is a
perceived need for a sensible standard, addressing such questions as what
quantity of consumer fireworks can be kept in a building open to retail
customers, what sort of distances should be observed between such a
building and
other structures, what kind of fire protection equipment should be on
hand, etc.
The Committee has made its recommendations.
On the other hand the NFPA is institutionally committed to outlawing all
sale of
fireworks to the general public (its "Model Law"), and some NFPA personnel
feel
that setting any other standard with respect to consumer fireworks is
inconsistent with that goal. A cynical view suggests that these folks
would
rather have no standard, and to let those accidents which might be
prevented by
having a standard serve in the absence of one as further arguments for a
total
ban.
In summary, NFPA standards are the product of a political process, and
represent
a compromise between conflicting interests. Bearing that in mind I see no
reason
to disagree with Harry!
Post by Marty
Post by Harry Conover
By contrast, the NFPA represents the interests of the insurance
industry...they are neither physical chemists nor do they claim to be
authorities on the subject. Consequently their observations are useful
as general guidelines, sometimes even becoming the basis for
regulations. Still, to assume that NFPA proclamations represent
scientific fact is ridiculous.
Harry C.
Didn't I just read in NFPA 1123 names like Souza, Estes, Freeman as
well
as
Post by Marty
other respected names in pyrotechnics? I think it's safe to consider them
authorities on the subject.
Thank goodness they aren't all Lab Coats. The SEA would be the least of
our
Post by Marty
worries.
If you were the head of some association, wouldn't you value a members'
customers opinion for some common expense. Further wouldn't you seek that
opinion from those with the best track record.
You mean they put the formulas for the mixtures in a big glass bowl stir
them up and randomly pick ones out for this certain classification. Get
real! Much of this work is adopted from the ordnance industry. If, telling
someone to believe that these mixtures will not detonate and thus not
sympathetically detonate or that a warning is not based on scientific fact ,
when they will and are, doesn't give one any "reason to disagree", it only
shows their lack of knowledge, and of common sense. Exactly what part of
this classification isn't based on scientific fact and hard gained empirical
knowledge?

BTW. If I'm not mistaken their model law is adopted/based upon a certain
opinion of The
US 5th District Court of Appeals decision, and has for the most part been
adopted by several states, and is far more lax than some, and if I'm not
further mistaken was just adopted, for the most part, by the state of
Minnesota.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-07 02:37:50 UTC
Permalink
That should say "5th Circuit"
Post by Mike Poulton
There is a difference between the NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics, which
includes
(among others) fireworks industry representatives, and the NFPA itself.
The
Committee can make recommendations, but these are not necessarily accepted
by
the Association. An example is the ongoing argument over standards for the
storage and exposure for retail sale of consumer fireworks.
Since this is an ongoing activity in the great majority of states, there
is a
perceived need for a sensible standard, addressing such questions as what
quantity of consumer fireworks can be kept in a building open to retail
customers, what sort of distances should be observed between such a
building and
other structures, what kind of fire protection equipment should be on
hand, etc.
The Committee has made its recommendations.
On the other hand the NFPA is institutionally committed to outlawing all
sale of
fireworks to the general public (its "Model Law"), and some NFPA personnel
feel
that setting any other standard with respect to consumer fireworks is
inconsistent with that goal. A cynical view suggests that these folks
would
rather have no standard, and to let those accidents which might be
prevented by
having a standard serve in the absence of one as further arguments for a
total
ban.
In summary, NFPA standards are the product of a political process, and
represent
a compromise between conflicting interests. Bearing that in mind I see no
reason
to disagree with Harry!
Post by Marty
Post by Harry Conover
By contrast, the NFPA represents the interests of the insurance
industry...they are neither physical chemists nor do they claim to be
authorities on the subject. Consequently their observations are
useful
Post by Marty
Post by Harry Conover
as general guidelines, sometimes even becoming the basis for
regulations. Still, to assume that NFPA proclamations represent
scientific fact is ridiculous.
Harry C.
Didn't I just read in NFPA 1123 names like Souza, Estes, Freeman as
well
as
Post by Marty
other respected names in pyrotechnics? I think it's safe to consider
them
Post by Marty
authorities on the subject.
Thank goodness they aren't all Lab Coats. The SEA would be the least of
our
Post by Marty
worries.
If you were the head of some association, wouldn't you value a members'
customers opinion for some common expense. Further wouldn't you seek that
opinion from those with the best track record.
You mean they put the formulas for the mixtures in a big glass bowl stir
them up and randomly pick ones out for this certain classification. Get
real! Much of this work is adopted from the ordnance industry. If, telling
someone to believe that these mixtures will not detonate and thus not
sympathetically detonate or that a warning is not based on scientific fact ,
when they will and are, doesn't give one any "reason to disagree", it only
shows their lack of knowledge, and of common sense. Exactly what part of
this classification isn't based on scientific fact and hard gained empirical
knowledge?
BTW. If I'm not mistaken their model law is adopted/based upon a certain
opinion of The
US 5th District Court of Appeals decision, and has for the most part been
adopted by several states, and is far more lax than some, and if I'm not
further mistaken was just adopted, for the most part, by the state of
Minnesota.
Mike Swisher
2003-09-07 02:45:34 UTC
Permalink
The NFPA/IFMA "Model Law" on fireworks is a complete ban on retail sale and
private use of consumer fireworks. Minnesota repealed the total ban it had
since 1940 (the NFPA model law) and approved the sale of safe-and-sane fireworks
to the public in the spring of 2002. 2002 was the first year of legal consumer
firework sales in Minnesota since 1939.

Do not confuse the Model Law with NFPA Standard 1124. Go to <www.nfpa.org> and
enter "Model Law on Fireworks" in their search window. You will be able to
download the 2000 edition of the Model Law as a pdf, free of charge. I will be
happy to e-mail it to you if you are unable to find it on the NFPA website
(contact me privately in this event). You will have to pay for NFPA Standard
1124, either as a download or as a paper publication. After you have compared
the two, you will see the difference.

Please post the Lexis Law or West Publishing citation for the court decision to
which you refer. I am uncertain to what you refer since you describe it as an
opinion of the "5th District Court of Appeals." Do you mean US District Court,
or the 5th Circuit? A US District court is a federal court of original
jurisdiction. The Circuit Courts (of which the Fifth is one) are courts to which
decisions of the District courts may be appealed.

So far as I know neither the NFPA Standard 1124 nor the Model Law have have
their origins in any court decision. They might be cited in a court decision if
incorporated by reference in some ordinance or statute at issue in litigation
before the court.
Post by Mike Poulton
There is a difference between the NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics, which
includes
(among others) fireworks industry representatives, and the NFPA itself.
The
Committee can make recommendations, but these are not necessarily accepted
by
the Association. An example is the ongoing argument over standards for the
storage and exposure for retail sale of consumer fireworks.
Since this is an ongoing activity in the great majority of states, there
is a
perceived need for a sensible standard, addressing such questions as what
quantity of consumer fireworks can be kept in a building open to retail
customers, what sort of distances should be observed between such a
building and
other structures, what kind of fire protection equipment should be on
hand, etc.
The Committee has made its recommendations.
On the other hand the NFPA is institutionally committed to outlawing all
sale of
fireworks to the general public (its "Model Law"), and some NFPA personnel
feel
that setting any other standard with respect to consumer fireworks is
inconsistent with that goal. A cynical view suggests that these folks
would
rather have no standard, and to let those accidents which might be
prevented by
having a standard serve in the absence of one as further arguments for a
total
ban.
In summary, NFPA standards are the product of a political process, and
represent
a compromise between conflicting interests. Bearing that in mind I see no
reason
to disagree with Harry!
Post by Marty
Post by Harry Conover
By contrast, the NFPA represents the interests of the insurance
industry...they are neither physical chemists nor do they claim to be
authorities on the subject. Consequently their observations are
useful
Post by Marty
Post by Harry Conover
as general guidelines, sometimes even becoming the basis for
regulations. Still, to assume that NFPA proclamations represent
scientific fact is ridiculous.
Harry C.
Didn't I just read in NFPA 1123 names like Souza, Estes, Freeman as
well
as
Post by Marty
other respected names in pyrotechnics? I think it's safe to consider
them
Post by Marty
authorities on the subject.
Thank goodness they aren't all Lab Coats. The SEA would be the least of
our
Post by Marty
worries.
If you were the head of some association, wouldn't you value a members'
customers opinion for some common expense. Further wouldn't you seek that
opinion from those with the best track record.
You mean they put the formulas for the mixtures in a big glass bowl stir
them up and randomly pick ones out for this certain classification. Get
real! Much of this work is adopted from the ordnance industry. If, telling
someone to believe that these mixtures will not detonate and thus not
sympathetically detonate or that a warning is not based on scientific fact ,
when they will and are, doesn't give one any "reason to disagree", it only
shows their lack of knowledge, and of common sense. Exactly what part of
this classification isn't based on scientific fact and hard gained empirical
knowledge?
BTW. If I'm not mistaken their model law is adopted/based upon a certain
opinion of The
US 5th District Court of Appeals decision, and has for the most part been
adopted by several states, and is far more lax than some, and if I'm not
further mistaken was just adopted, for the most part, by the state of
Minnesota.
Mike Swisher
2003-09-07 15:51:29 UTC
Permalink
This is completely useless in trying to find the cases. Please respond with case
name, date, and file number if you genuinely wish to discuss them seriously.

An amicus brief is not part of the Court's decision. Anyone can file an amicus
brief. The court may or may not make use of all or any part of its reasoning.
That the NFPA filed briefs "none of which appeared overly hostile" in cases
involving fireworks has most likely to do with the specific issues of the cases.
It has nothing necessarily to do with the association's LEGISLATIVE agenda,
which has, as long as I can remember, been to pass the NFPA/IFMA Model law, a
total ban on retail sale and private use of consumer fireworks. Please download
and read the pdf of the Model Law from <www.nfpa.org> before making further
representations as to its content.

In article <8RA6b.17323$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Terry Wilder says...
<SNIP>
In USC circa 1984, I believe you will find referenced several Amicus Curiae
filed by the NFPA, none of
which appeared overly hostile.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-08 01:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Swisher
This is completely useless in trying to find the cases. Please respond with case
name, date, and file number if you genuinely wish to discuss them seriously.
An amicus brief is not part of the Court's decision. Anyone can file an amicus
brief. The court may or may not make use of all or any part of its reasoning.
That the NFPA filed briefs "none of which appeared overly hostile" in cases
involving fireworks has most likely to do with the specific issues of the cases.
It has nothing necessarily to do with the association's LEGISLATIVE agenda,
which has, as long as I can remember, been to pass the NFPA/IFMA Model law, a
total ban on retail sale and private use of consumer fireworks. Please download
and read the pdf of the Model Law from <www.nfpa.org> before making further
representations as to its content.
<SNIP>
In USC circa 1984, I believe you will find referenced several Amicus Curiae
filed by the NFPA, none of
which appeared overly hostile.
Let's see I was making the claim that their assertions that flash didn't
detonate were incorrect, so I provided direct quotations to the contrary.

Now your claiming that these classifications are not based on scientific
fact, as in implying there data is somehow often corrupt, and that the NFPA
is seeking a total ban It's your turn. And remember you'll sound quite
pathetic if your trying to salvage someones incorrect pet theory
Mike Swisher
2003-09-08 15:05:01 UTC
Permalink
I am making no such claim as you maintain. I am trying to describe the
distinction between NFPA 1124 and the NFPA/IFMA Model Law, which you confused,
whether innocently or deliberately.

The classification of flash powder as a "high explosive" is quite another
matter. I agree with Harry that it is not based on scientific testing. I do so
on a basis of the regulatory history.

In 1990, following the Aerlex factory explosion in Oklahoma, the BATF placed new
restrictions on the handling of flash powder, which had not previously been
distinguished from other types of pyrotechnic compositions. Flash powder and
bulk aerial salutes since then have been required to be stored in Type 1
magazines (the type specified for high explosives) rather than, as was
previously the case, in Type 4 magazines (the type specified for low
explosives).

This was a political/bureaucratic decision, based in part on response to
pressures from then-Rep. Mike Synar, who was chairman of the House subcommittee
that had oversight of the BATF, and (not coincidentally) was the congressman
from the Oklahoma district in which the Aerlex plant had been situated. He was,
in turn, quite understandably under pressure from angry constituents to "do
something" about this horrible accident. I recall the hapless ATF official who
was summoned before that subcommittee and grilled as to why ATF had given Aerlex
a "clean bill of health" on their last inspection of the plant which had taken
place only a short time before the explosion. Naturally it was not satisfactory
to the subcommittee for him to explain that ATF had inspected only the magazines
and recordkeeping, in accordance with its legal mandate, and that these were in
perfect order.

That flash powder has to be stored in a Type 1 magazine does not say that it IS
a high explosive - only that it must be treated like one. If there is any
objective justification for this requirement, it is based on the output hazard
of flash powder, which is indeed greater than that of most other pyrotechnic
stores.

Naturally NFPA 1124, which is the NFPA "Code for the Manufacture,
Transportation, and Storage of Fireworks," reflects ATF requirements, rather
than the other way around. ATF is a regulatory agency of government - NFPA is
simply a private association which writes fire codes and suggests that state and
local fire authorities adopt them. Many jurisdictions do not require adherence
to NFPA codes, but the ATF has police power to compel your adherence to its
regulations under penalty of law!

Whether or not flash powder is a high explosive in scientific terms depends on
whether the explosive reaction propagates through its mass at a rate equal to or
greater than the speed of sound through its mass. To my knowledge, no experiment
has been performed that conclusively settles this question one way or another. I
suspect that it would be hard to give a generic answer since there are so many
different compositions for flash powder and so many different grades of certain
components, e.g. aluminum powder.

Government does NOT require scientific evidence to make any regulation it may
choose on this subject. It does not require scientific evidence of anything to
make any law! All it requires is publication in the Federal Register, or passage
by a legislature. If memory serves correctly, at one time the Indiana
legislature passed a law to the effect that the ratio between the diameter and
the circumference of a circle was 3:1, whatever those pesky geometers might say
about irrational numbers...
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Mike Swisher
This is completely useless in trying to find the cases. Please respond
with case
Post by Mike Swisher
name, date, and file number if you genuinely wish to discuss them
seriously.
Post by Mike Swisher
An amicus brief is not part of the Court's decision. Anyone can file an
amicus
Post by Mike Swisher
brief. The court may or may not make use of all or any part of its
reasoning.
Post by Mike Swisher
That the NFPA filed briefs "none of which appeared overly hostile" in
cases
Post by Mike Swisher
involving fireworks has most likely to do with the specific issues of the
cases.
Post by Mike Swisher
It has nothing necessarily to do with the association's LEGISLATIVE
agenda,
Post by Mike Swisher
which has, as long as I can remember, been to pass the NFPA/IFMA Model
law, a
Post by Mike Swisher
total ban on retail sale and private use of consumer fireworks. Please
download
Post by Mike Swisher
and read the pdf of the Model Law from &lt;www.nfpa.org> before making
further
Post by Mike Swisher
representations as to its content.
says...
Post by Mike Swisher
&lt;SNIP>
In USC circa 1984, I believe you will find referenced several Amicus
Curiae
Post by Mike Swisher
filed by the NFPA, none of
which appeared overly hostile.
Let's see I was making the claim that their assertions that flash didn't
detonate were incorrect, so I provided direct quotations to the contrary.
Now your claiming that these classifications are not based on scientific
fact, as in implying there data is somehow often corrupt, and that the NFPA
is seeking a total ban It's your turn. And remember you'll sound quite
pathetic if your trying to salvage someones incorrect pet theory
Terry Wilder
2003-09-08 18:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Swisher
I am making no such claim as you maintain. I am trying to describe the
distinction between NFPA 1124 and the NFPA/IFMA Model Law, which you confused,
whether innocently or deliberately.
The classification of flash powder as a "high explosive" is quite another
matter. I agree with Harry that it is not based on scientific testing. I do so
on a basis of the regulatory history.
In 1990, following the Aerlex factory explosion in Oklahoma, the BATF placed new
restrictions on the handling of flash powder, which had not previously been
distinguished from other types of pyrotechnic compositions. Flash powder and
bulk aerial salutes since then have been required to be stored in Type 1
magazines (the type specified for high explosives) rather than, as was
previously the case, in Type 4 magazines (the type specified for low
explosives).
This was a political/bureaucratic decision, based in part on response to
pressures from then-Rep. Mike Synar, who was chairman of the House subcommittee
that had oversight of the BATF, and (not coincidentally) was the congressman
from the Oklahoma district in which the Aerlex plant had been situated. He was,
in turn, quite understandably under pressure from angry constituents to "do
something" about this horrible accident. I recall the hapless ATF official who
was summoned before that subcommittee and grilled as to why ATF had given Aerlex
a "clean bill of health" on their last inspection of the plant which had taken
place only a short time before the explosion. Naturally it was not satisfactory
to the subcommittee for him to explain that ATF had inspected only the magazines
and recordkeeping, in accordance with its legal mandate, and that these were in
perfect order.
That flash powder has to be stored in a Type 1 magazine does not say that it IS
a high explosive - only that it must be treated like one. If there is any
objective justification for this requirement, it is based on the output hazard
of flash powder, which is indeed greater than that of most other pyrotechnic
stores.
Naturally NFPA 1124, which is the NFPA "Code for the Manufacture,
Transportation, and Storage of Fireworks," reflects ATF requirements, rather
than the other way around. ATF is a regulatory agency of government - NFPA is
simply a private association which writes fire codes and suggests that state and
local fire authorities adopt them. Many jurisdictions do not require adherence
to NFPA codes, but the ATF has police power to compel your adherence to its
regulations under penalty of law!
Whether or not flash powder is a high explosive in scientific terms depends on
whether the explosive reaction propagates through its mass at a rate equal to or
greater than the speed of sound through its mass. To my knowledge, no experiment
has been performed that conclusively settles this question one way or another. I
suspect that it would be hard to give a generic answer since there are so many
different compositions for flash powder and so many different grades of certain
components, e.g. aluminum powder.
Government does NOT require scientific evidence to make any regulation it may
choose on this subject. It does not require scientific evidence of anything to
make any law! All it requires is publication in the Federal Register, or passage
by a legislature. If memory serves correctly, at one time the Indiana
legislature passed a law to the effect that the ratio between the diameter and
the circumference of a circle was 3:1, whatever those pesky geometers might say
about irrational numbers...
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Mike Swisher
This is completely useless in trying to find the cases. Please respond
with case
Post by Mike Swisher
name, date, and file number if you genuinely wish to discuss them
seriously.
Post by Mike Swisher
An amicus brief is not part of the Court's decision. Anyone can file an
amicus
Post by Mike Swisher
brief. The court may or may not make use of all or any part of its
reasoning.
Post by Mike Swisher
That the NFPA filed briefs "none of which appeared overly hostile" in
cases
Post by Mike Swisher
involving fireworks has most likely to do with the specific issues of the
cases.
Post by Mike Swisher
It has nothing necessarily to do with the association's LEGISLATIVE
agenda,
Post by Mike Swisher
which has, as long as I can remember, been to pass the NFPA/IFMA Model
law, a
Post by Mike Swisher
total ban on retail sale and private use of consumer fireworks. Please
download
Post by Mike Swisher
and read the pdf of the Model Law from &lt;www.nfpa.org> before making
further
Post by Mike Swisher
representations as to its content.
says...
Post by Mike Swisher
&lt;SNIP>
In USC circa 1984, I believe you will find referenced several Amicus
Curiae
Post by Mike Swisher
filed by the NFPA, none of
which appeared overly hostile.
Let's see I was making the claim that their assertions that flash didn't
detonate were incorrect, so I provided direct quotations to the contrary.
Now your claiming that these classifications are not based on scientific
fact, as in implying there data is somehow often corrupt, and that the NFPA
is seeking a total ban It's your turn. And remember you'll sound quite
pathetic if your trying to salvage someones incorrect pet theory
Here's two very specific questions - dodge them if you wish, the readers
will know

You said you "had to agree with Harry" when he said "Still to assume an NFPA
proclamation is based on scientific fact is ridiculous" Where exactly have
you seen any statistical data tables etc. that they have published that was
contrary to scientific fact? Cite please!

And then you said the NFPA is "instituitionally commited to outlawing all
fireworks to the general public". Exactly where have you seen anything from
them recommending a ban on all fireworks to the general public? Cite
please!

He has it backwards, Flash Powders reduced output hazard was one reason it
was not classified similarly, as some of its brethren originally was,
probably with the fireworker in mind. Add some non-nitrogen containing
carbonaceous material to many a flash powder, such as vaseline , paraffin
etc you decrease the hazard, retain output at best, but have always
increased its classification as from B to A etc


Anybody ever hear of the story of the ridiculous mouse!
Mike Swisher
2003-09-08 20:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
Here's two very specific questions - dodge them if you wish, the readers
will know
You said you "had to agree with Harry" when he said "Still to assume an NFPA
proclamation is based on scientific fact is ridiculous" Where exactly have
you seen any statistical data tables etc. that they have published that was
contrary to scientific fact? Cite please!
I am unaware that the NFPA has EVER published any statistical data to support
the claim that flash powder is a high explosive. If you claim they have, it is
you who should cite it.
Post by Terry Wilder
And then you said the NFPA is "instituitionally commited to outlawing all
fireworks to the general public". Exactly where have you seen anything from
them recommending a ban on all fireworks to the general public? Cite
please!
Go to <www.nfpa.org> and download the NFPA/IFMA Model Fireworks Law, edition of
2000, as previously cited by me. You will find that it states, inter alia:

"1. No person, firm, or corporation shall possess, offer for sale, expose for
sale, sell at retail, or use or explode any fireworks, except as herein
provided.

"2. Fireworks [definitions given omitted for brevity's sake - they except toy
caps and model rocket motors].

"3. The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to adopt reasonable
rules and regulations for the licensing of individuals or granting of permits
for supervised displays of fireworks by municipalities, fair associations,
amusement parks, and other organizations or groups of individuals. Such permits
shall be permitted to be granted upon application to the authority having
jurisdiction and approval in accordance with the regulations for the display and
finling of a bond by the permit application [cites NFPA 1123 and 1126]. Every
such display shall be handled by a competent operator, licensed or certified as
to competency by the authority having jurisdiction. Every such display shall be
of such composition and character and shall be located, discharged, or fired so
as, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, after proper site
inspection, not to be hazardous to person or property. After such privileges
have been granted, sales, possession, use, and distribution of firerworks for
such display shall be lawful for that purpose only. No permit granted hereunder
shall be transferable.

"4. Before any permit for a pyrotechnic display shall be issued, the person,
firm, or corporation making application therefore [sic] shall furnish proof of
financial responsibility to satisfy claims for damages to property or personal
injuriesarising out of any act or omission on the part of such person, firm, or
corporation or any agent or employee thereof, in such amount, character, and
form as this jurisdiction determines to be necessary for the protection of the
public.

"5. Nothing in this law shall be construed to prohibit any of the following:
(a) The sale, at wholesale, of any fireworks for supervised displays by any
approved resident manufacturer, wholesaler, dealer, or jobber, in accordance
with regulations of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (see Title
27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 181) and the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
[(b) through (g) are exceptions for firework manufacturers, indistrial fireworks
such as railroad torpedoes or fusees, blank cartridges, pyrotechnic devices used
by the armed forces, fire and law enforcement authorities, or agricultural use
under the direct supervision of the U.S. Department of the Interior or
corresponding state and local authorities}.

"6. The authority having jurisdiction shall seize, take, remove, or cause to be
removed at the expense of the owner all stocks of fireworks offered or exposed
for sale or stored or held in violation of the law.

"7. Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this law shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor.

"8. Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this law, which
results in a fire, personal injury, or death, shall be guilty of a felony.

"9. Any provisions of this law held to be unconstitutional shall not invalidate
the remainder thereof. Any acts, laws, or parts of laws in conflict with any
provision of this law are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict."

So, there you have it - a complete ban on the sale, possession, or use by the
general public of any and all fireworks. Fireworks are to be used by licensed
operators only under permit which is to be granted by the authority having
jurisdiction upon site inspection and production of an insurance certificate or
other acceptable proof of financial responsibility.

Under "Origin and Development of the Model Fireworks Law," the document states:

"The National Fire Protection Association was among the pioneers who sought
relief for the public from injuries and fires resulting from the indiscriminate
use of fireworks. Its efforts progresed from propagandizing during the early
years of this century to a suggested municipal ordinance and then to a Model
State Fireworks Law. The Model State Fireworks Law was firsrt adopted by the
NFPA in 1938... In 1988, the Board of Directors of the National Fire Protection
Association transferred custodty of the model law from the NFPA Committee on
Pyrotechnics to the Fire Marshals Association of North America (now known as the
International Fire Marshals Association. .. Further changes include a provision
that makes POSSESSION OF FIREWORKS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIONS
OF THE LAW THAT RESULT IN A FIRE, PERSONAL INJURY, OR DEATH A FELONY OFFENSE.
[emphasis mine]

"The 2000 edition updated the law to reflect current fireworks classification,
laws, and codes and standards."

The IFMA shares the address at 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, Massachusetts 02269
with the NFPA, and is not independent from the NFPA. The change of custody of
the Model Law to the IFMA from the NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics was done at
the top level of the NFPA to prevent the Committee on Pyrotechnics from altering
the NFPA's institutional committment to a total ban on fireworks for the general
public. The NFPA's propaganda continues to oppose all use of fireworks by the
general public, and advocates adoption of the Model Fireworks Law.

I'm sorry you didn't bother to look this document up yourself on the NFPA
website, nor did you take advantage of my offer to e-mail it to you privately.
Now your obvious ignorance of this significant NFPA policy position is
explicitly and publicly exposed in detail on this forum.
Post by Terry Wilder
He has it backwards, Flash Powders reduced output hazard was one reason it
was not classified similarly, as some of its brethren originally was,
probably with the fireworker in mind. Add some non-nitrogen containing
carbonaceous material to many a flash powder, such as vaseline , paraffin
etc you decrease the hazard, retain output at best, but have always
increased its classification as from B to A etc
Do you deny that the ATF changed its requirements for storage of flash powder in
1990 from Type 4 to Type 1 magazines, largely in view of the greater output
hazard of flash powder as compared to other pyrotechnic compositions (e.g.,
stars, set piece components, etc.)? Have you ever actually READ the
legislative/regulatory history? Or do you just post your uninformed opinions on
this forum?
Post by Terry Wilder
Anybody ever hear of the story of the ridiculous mouse!
Yes, his name is Terry Wilder.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-08 23:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
Here's two very specific questions - dodge them if you wish, the readers
will know
You said you "had to agree with Harry" when he said "Still to assume an NFPA
proclamation is based on scientific fact is ridiculous" Where exactly have
you seen any statistical data tables etc. that they have published that was
contrary to scientific fact? Cite please!
I am unaware that the NFPA has EVER published any statistical data to support
the claim that flash powder is a high explosive. If you claim they have, it is
you who should cite it.
Post by Terry Wilder
And then you said the NFPA is "instituitionally commited to outlawing all
fireworks to the general public". Exactly where have you seen anything from
them recommending a ban on all fireworks to the general public? Cite
please!
Go to <www.nfpa.org> and download the NFPA/IFMA Model Fireworks Law, edition of
"1. No person, firm, or corporation shall possess, offer for sale, expose for
sale, sell at retail, or use or explode any fireworks, except as herein
provided.
"2. Fireworks [definitions given omitted for brevity's sake - they except toy
caps and model rocket motors].
"3. The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to adopt reasonable
rules and regulations for the licensing of individuals or granting of permits
for supervised displays of fireworks by municipalities, fair associations,
amusement parks, and other organizations or groups of individuals. Such permits
shall be permitted to be granted upon application to the authority having
jurisdiction and approval in accordance with the regulations for the display and
finling of a bond by the permit application [cites NFPA 1123 and 1126]. Every
such display shall be handled by a competent operator, licensed or certified as
to competency by the authority having jurisdiction. Every such display shall be
of such composition and character and shall be located, discharged, or fired so
as, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, after proper site
inspection, not to be hazardous to person or property. After such privileges
have been granted, sales, possession, use, and distribution of firerworks for
such display shall be lawful for that purpose only. No permit granted hereunder
shall be transferable.
"4. Before any permit for a pyrotechnic display shall be issued, the person,
firm, or corporation making application therefore [sic] shall furnish proof of
financial responsibility to satisfy claims for damages to property or personal
injuriesarising out of any act or omission on the part of such person, firm, or
corporation or any agent or employee thereof, in such amount, character, and
form as this jurisdiction determines to be necessary for the protection of the
public.
(a) The sale, at wholesale, of any fireworks for supervised displays by any
approved resident manufacturer, wholesaler, dealer, or jobber, in accordance
with regulations of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (see Title
27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 181) and the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
[(b) through (g) are exceptions for firework manufacturers, indistrial fireworks
such as railroad torpedoes or fusees, blank cartridges, pyrotechnic devices used
by the armed forces, fire and law enforcement authorities, or agricultural use
under the direct supervision of the U.S. Department of the Interior or
corresponding state and local authorities}.
"6. The authority having jurisdiction shall seize, take, remove, or cause to be
removed at the expense of the owner all stocks of fireworks offered or exposed
for sale or stored or held in violation of the law.
"7. Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this law shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor.
"8. Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this law, which
results in a fire, personal injury, or death, shall be guilty of a felony.
"9. Any provisions of this law held to be unconstitutional shall not invalidate
the remainder thereof. Any acts, laws, or parts of laws in conflict with any
provision of this law are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict."
So, there you have it - a complete ban on the sale, possession, or use by the
general public of any and all fireworks. Fireworks are to be used by licensed
operators only under permit which is to be granted by the authority having
jurisdiction upon site inspection and production of an insurance certificate or
other acceptable proof of financial responsibility.
"The National Fire Protection Association was among the pioneers who sought
relief for the public from injuries and fires resulting from the indiscriminate
use of fireworks. Its efforts progresed from propagandizing during the early
years of this century to a suggested municipal ordinance and then to a Model
State Fireworks Law. The Model State Fireworks Law was firsrt adopted by the
NFPA in 1938... In 1988, the Board of Directors of the National Fire Protection
Association transferred custodty of the model law from the NFPA Committee on
Pyrotechnics to the Fire Marshals Association of North America (now known as the
International Fire Marshals Association. .. Further changes include a provision
that makes POSSESSION OF FIREWORKS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIONS
OF THE LAW THAT RESULT IN A FIRE, PERSONAL INJURY, OR DEATH A FELONY OFFENSE.
[emphasis mine]
"The 2000 edition updated the law to reflect current fireworks
classification,
Post by Mike Swisher
laws, and codes and standards."
The IFMA shares the address at 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, Massachusetts 02269
with the NFPA, and is not independent from the NFPA. The change of custody of
the Model Law to the IFMA from the NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics was done at
the top level of the NFPA to prevent the Committee on Pyrotechnics from altering
the NFPA's institutional committment to a total ban on fireworks for the general
public. The NFPA's propaganda continues to oppose all use of fireworks by the
general public, and advocates adoption of the Model Fireworks Law.
I'm sorry you didn't bother to look this document up yourself on the NFPA
website, nor did you take advantage of my offer to e-mail it to you privately.
Now your obvious ignorance of this significant NFPA policy position is
explicitly and publicly exposed in detail on this forum.
Post by Terry Wilder
He has it backwards, Flash Powders reduced output hazard was one reason it
was not classified similarly, as some of its brethren originally was,
probably with the fireworker in mind. Add some non-nitrogen containing
carbonaceous material to many a flash powder, such as vaseline , paraffin
etc you decrease the hazard, retain output at best, but have always
increased its classification as from B to A etc
Do you deny that the ATF changed its requirements for storage of flash powder in
1990 from Type 4 to Type 1 magazines, largely in view of the greater output
hazard of flash powder as compared to other pyrotechnic compositions (e.g.,
stars, set piece components, etc.)? Have you ever actually READ the
legislative/regulatory history? Or do you just post your uninformed opinions on
this forum?
Post by Terry Wilder
Anybody ever hear of the story of the ridiculous mouse!
Yes, his name is Terry Wilder.
That is very funny!.One and Two here sound like he's doing some heavy
omissions. Funnier yet this looks exactly like the model law here in
Michigan, word for word in most parts. What they're doing in wording of this
kind is altering its scope. Funny! The only time I ever been impressed by
anything he has said, I find the same thing being said, or point being made,
at least several minutes earlier in another thread or post by someone else.

He dodges the one question, then sounds as stupid as hell in another!
However this isn't nothing new

Heres even an example of the pot caught calling the kettle black::

"However, Mr. Swisher should realize that scientists perhaps more than any
other group, are quite mindful of the accomplishments and contributions of
past generations of researchers. Science must build on the
results of others if we are to make advances. Certainly the work of
pyrotechnic researchers in the past centuries has contributed significantly
to where the art and science of pyrotechnics is today. I am totally unaware
of any true chemist who, in fact, has a "contempt". Words such as these can
only be written by someone who has not received formal scientific training
and who is therefore unaware of the deep respect given to early scientists."

John A.Conkling, APA



Now who sounds like they have "contempt" for the NFPA

Again, I see no reason to take their word over that of Davis, Shimizu or
that of the NFPA, you have to earn that.
PyroLeo
2003-09-09 01:36:56 UTC
Permalink
To Mike and others. It's quite obvious that Terry is just trolling now and has
no interest in hearing or reading anything other than his own stupid opinions.
This thread should end and if Terry wants to continue on alone with his
keyboard masturbations, so be it.

Leo
------------------
Post by Mike Swisher
says...
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
Here's two very specific questions - dodge them if you wish, the readers
will know
You said you "had to agree with Harry" when he said "Still to assume
an
NFPA
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
proclamation is based on scientific fact is ridiculous" Where exactly
have
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
you seen any statistical data tables etc. that they have published that
was
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
contrary to scientific fact? Cite please!
I am unaware that the NFPA has EVER published any statistical data to
support
Post by Mike Swisher
the claim that flash powder is a high explosive. If you claim they have,
it is
Post by Mike Swisher
you who should cite it.
Post by Terry Wilder
And then you said the NFPA is "instituitionally commited to outlawing
all
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
fireworks to the general public". Exactly where have you seen anything
from
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
them recommending a ban on all fireworks to the general public? Cite
please!
Go to <www.nfpa.org> and download the NFPA/IFMA Model Fireworks Law,
edition of
Post by Mike Swisher
"1. No person, firm, or corporation shall possess, offer for sale, expose
for
Post by Mike Swisher
sale, sell at retail, or use or explode any fireworks, except as herein
provided.
"2. Fireworks [definitions given omitted for brevity's sake - they except
toy
Post by Mike Swisher
caps and model rocket motors].
"3. The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to adopt
reasonable
Post by Mike Swisher
rules and regulations for the licensing of individuals or granting of
permits
Post by Mike Swisher
for supervised displays of fireworks by municipalities, fair associations,
amusement parks, and other organizations or groups of individuals. Such
permits
Post by Mike Swisher
shall be permitted to be granted upon application to the authority having
jurisdiction and approval in accordance with the regulations for the
display and
Post by Mike Swisher
finling of a bond by the permit application [cites NFPA 1123 and 1126].
Every
Post by Mike Swisher
such display shall be handled by a competent operator, licensed or
certified as
Post by Mike Swisher
to competency by the authority having jurisdiction. Every such display
shall be
Post by Mike Swisher
of such composition and character and shall be located, discharged, or
fired so
Post by Mike Swisher
as, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, after proper
site
Post by Mike Swisher
inspection, not to be hazardous to person or property. After such
privileges
Post by Mike Swisher
have been granted, sales, possession, use, and distribution of firerworks
for
Post by Mike Swisher
such display shall be lawful for that purpose only. No permit granted
hereunder
Post by Mike Swisher
shall be transferable.
"4. Before any permit for a pyrotechnic display shall be issued, the
person,
Post by Mike Swisher
firm, or corporation making application therefore [sic] shall furnish
proof of
Post by Mike Swisher
financial responsibility to satisfy claims for damages to property or
personal
Post by Mike Swisher
injuriesarising out of any act or omission on the part of such person,
firm, or
Post by Mike Swisher
corporation or any agent or employee thereof, in such amount, character,
and
Post by Mike Swisher
form as this jurisdiction determines to be necessary for the protection
of
the
Post by Mike Swisher
public.
"5. Nothing in this law shall be construed to prohibit any of the
(a) The sale, at wholesale, of any fireworks for supervised displays by
any
Post by Mike Swisher
approved resident manufacturer, wholesaler, dealer, or jobber, in
accordance
Post by Mike Swisher
with regulations of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
(see
Title
Post by Mike Swisher
27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 181) and the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
[(b) through (g) are exceptions for firework manufacturers, indistrial
fireworks
Post by Mike Swisher
such as railroad torpedoes or fusees, blank cartridges, pyrotechnic
devices used
Post by Mike Swisher
by the armed forces, fire and law enforcement authorities, or agricultural
use
Post by Mike Swisher
under the direct supervision of the U.S. Department of the Interior or
corresponding state and local authorities}.
"6. The authority having jurisdiction shall seize, take, remove, or cause
to be
Post by Mike Swisher
removed at the expense of the owner all stocks of fireworks offered or
exposed
Post by Mike Swisher
for sale or stored or held in violation of the law.
"7. Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this
law
shall
Post by Mike Swisher
be guilty of a misdemeanor.
"8. Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this
law,
which
Post by Mike Swisher
results in a fire, personal injury, or death, shall be guilty of a felony.
"9. Any provisions of this law held to be unconstitutional shall not
invalidate
Post by Mike Swisher
the remainder thereof. Any acts, laws, or parts of laws in conflict with
any
Post by Mike Swisher
provision of this law are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict."
So, there you have it - a complete ban on the sale, possession, or use
by
the
Post by Mike Swisher
general public of any and all fireworks. Fireworks are to be used by
licensed
Post by Mike Swisher
operators only under permit which is to be granted by the authority having
jurisdiction upon site inspection and production of an insurance
certificate or
Post by Mike Swisher
other acceptable proof of financial responsibility.
Under "Origin and Development of the Model Fireworks Law," the document
"The National Fire Protection Association was among the pioneers who
sought
Post by Mike Swisher
relief for the public from injuries and fires resulting from the
indiscriminate
Post by Mike Swisher
use of fireworks. Its efforts progresed from propagandizing during the
early
Post by Mike Swisher
years of this century to a suggested municipal ordinance and then to a
Model
Post by Mike Swisher
State Fireworks Law. The Model State Fireworks Law was firsrt adopted
by
the
Post by Mike Swisher
NFPA in 1938... In 1988, the Board of Directors of the National Fire
Protection
Post by Mike Swisher
Association transferred custodty of the model law from the NFPA Committee
on
Post by Mike Swisher
Pyrotechnics to the Fire Marshals Association of North America (now known
as the
Post by Mike Swisher
International Fire Marshals Association. .. Further changes include a
provision
Post by Mike Swisher
that makes POSSESSION OF FIREWORKS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC ILLEGAL AND
VIOLATIONS
Post by Mike Swisher
OF THE LAW THAT RESULT IN A FIRE, PERSONAL INJURY, OR DEATH A FELONY
OFFENSE.
Post by Mike Swisher
[emphasis mine]
"The 2000 edition updated the law to reflect current fireworks
classification,
Post by Mike Swisher
laws, and codes and standards."
The IFMA shares the address at 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, Massachusetts
02269
Post by Mike Swisher
with the NFPA, and is not independent from the NFPA. The change of
custody of
Post by Mike Swisher
the Model Law to the IFMA from the NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics was
done at
Post by Mike Swisher
the top level of the NFPA to prevent the Committee on Pyrotechnics from
altering
Post by Mike Swisher
the NFPA's institutional committment to a total ban on fireworks for the
general
Post by Mike Swisher
public. The NFPA's propaganda continues to oppose all use of fireworks
by
the
Post by Mike Swisher
general public, and advocates adoption of the Model Fireworks Law.
I'm sorry you didn't bother to look this document up yourself on the NFPA
website, nor did you take advantage of my offer to e-mail it to you
privately.
Post by Mike Swisher
Now your obvious ignorance of this significant NFPA policy position is
explicitly and publicly exposed in detail on this forum.
Post by Terry Wilder
He has it backwards, Flash Powders reduced output hazard was one reason
it
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
was not classified similarly, as some of its brethren originally was,
probably with the fireworker in mind. Add some non-nitrogen containing
carbonaceous material to many a flash powder, such as vaseline , paraffin
etc you decrease the hazard, retain output at best, but have always
increased its classification as from B to A etc
Do you deny that the ATF changed its requirements for storage of flash
powder in
Post by Mike Swisher
1990 from Type 4 to Type 1 magazines, largely in view of the greater
output
Post by Mike Swisher
hazard of flash powder as compared to other pyrotechnic compositions
(e.g.,
Post by Mike Swisher
stars, set piece components, etc.)? Have you ever actually READ the
legislative/regulatory history? Or do you just post your uninformed
opinions on
Post by Mike Swisher
this forum?
Post by Terry Wilder
Anybody ever hear of the story of the ridiculous mouse!
Yes, his name is Terry Wilder.
That is very funny!.One and Two here sound like he's doing some heavy
omissions. Funnier yet this looks exactly like the model law here in
Michigan, word for word in most parts. What they're doing in wording of this
kind is altering its scope. Funny! The only time I ever been impressed by
anything he has said, I find the same thing being said, or point being made,
at least several minutes earlier in another thread or post by someone else.
He dodges the one question, then sounds as stupid as hell in another!
However this isn't nothing new
"However, Mr. Swisher should realize that scientists perhaps more than any
other group, are quite mindful of the accomplishments and contributions of
past generations of researchers. Science must build on the
results of others if we are to make advances. Certainly the work of
pyrotechnic researchers in the past centuries has contributed significantly
to where the art and science of pyrotechnics is today. I am totally unaware
of any true chemist who, in fact, has a "contempt". Words such as these can
only be written by someone who has not received formal scientific training
and who is therefore unaware of the deep respect given to early scientists."
John A.Conkling, APA
Now who sounds like they have "contempt" for the NFPA
Again, I see no reason to take their word over that of Davis, Shimizu or
that of the NFPA, you have to earn that.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-09 01:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by PyroLeo
To Mike and others. It's quite obvious that Terry is just trolling now and has
no interest in hearing or reading anything other than his own stupid opinions.
This thread should end and if Terry wants to continue on alone with his
keyboard masturbations, so be it.
Leo
------------------
Post by Mike Swisher
says...
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
Here's two very specific questions - dodge them if you wish, the readers
will know
You said you "had to agree with Harry" when he said "Still to assume
an
NFPA
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
proclamation is based on scientific fact is ridiculous" Where exactly
have
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
you seen any statistical data tables etc. that they have published that
was
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
contrary to scientific fact? Cite please!
I am unaware that the NFPA has EVER published any statistical data to
support
Post by Mike Swisher
the claim that flash powder is a high explosive. If you claim they have,
it is
Post by Mike Swisher
you who should cite it.
Post by Terry Wilder
And then you said the NFPA is "instituitionally commited to outlawing
all
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
fireworks to the general public". Exactly where have you seen anything
from
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
them recommending a ban on all fireworks to the general public? Cite
please!
Go to <www.nfpa.org> and download the NFPA/IFMA Model Fireworks Law,
edition of
Post by Mike Swisher
"1. No person, firm, or corporation shall possess, offer for sale, expose
for
Post by Mike Swisher
sale, sell at retail, or use or explode any fireworks, except as herein
provided.
"2. Fireworks [definitions given omitted for brevity's sake - they except
toy
Post by Mike Swisher
caps and model rocket motors].
"3. The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to adopt
reasonable
Post by Mike Swisher
rules and regulations for the licensing of individuals or granting of
permits
Post by Mike Swisher
for supervised displays of fireworks by municipalities, fair associations,
amusement parks, and other organizations or groups of individuals. Such
permits
Post by Mike Swisher
shall be permitted to be granted upon application to the authority having
jurisdiction and approval in accordance with the regulations for the
display and
Post by Mike Swisher
finling of a bond by the permit application [cites NFPA 1123 and 1126].
Every
Post by Mike Swisher
such display shall be handled by a competent operator, licensed or
certified as
Post by Mike Swisher
to competency by the authority having jurisdiction. Every such display
shall be
Post by Mike Swisher
of such composition and character and shall be located, discharged, or
fired so
Post by Mike Swisher
as, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, after proper
site
Post by Mike Swisher
inspection, not to be hazardous to person or property. After such
privileges
Post by Mike Swisher
have been granted, sales, possession, use, and distribution of firerworks
for
Post by Mike Swisher
such display shall be lawful for that purpose only. No permit granted
hereunder
Post by Mike Swisher
shall be transferable.
"4. Before any permit for a pyrotechnic display shall be issued, the
person,
Post by Mike Swisher
firm, or corporation making application therefore [sic] shall furnish
proof of
Post by Mike Swisher
financial responsibility to satisfy claims for damages to property or
personal
Post by Mike Swisher
injuriesarising out of any act or omission on the part of such person,
firm, or
Post by Mike Swisher
corporation or any agent or employee thereof, in such amount, character,
and
Post by Mike Swisher
form as this jurisdiction determines to be necessary for the protection
of
the
Post by Mike Swisher
public.
"5. Nothing in this law shall be construed to prohibit any of the
(a) The sale, at wholesale, of any fireworks for supervised displays by
any
Post by Mike Swisher
approved resident manufacturer, wholesaler, dealer, or jobber, in
accordance
Post by Mike Swisher
with regulations of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
(see
Title
Post by Mike Swisher
27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 181) and the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
[(b) through (g) are exceptions for firework manufacturers, indistrial
fireworks
Post by Mike Swisher
such as railroad torpedoes or fusees, blank cartridges, pyrotechnic
devices used
Post by Mike Swisher
by the armed forces, fire and law enforcement authorities, or agricultural
use
Post by Mike Swisher
under the direct supervision of the U.S. Department of the Interior or
corresponding state and local authorities}.
"6. The authority having jurisdiction shall seize, take, remove, or cause
to be
Post by Mike Swisher
removed at the expense of the owner all stocks of fireworks offered or
exposed
Post by Mike Swisher
for sale or stored or held in violation of the law.
"7. Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this
law
shall
Post by Mike Swisher
be guilty of a misdemeanor.
"8. Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this
law,
which
Post by Mike Swisher
results in a fire, personal injury, or death, shall be guilty of a felony.
"9. Any provisions of this law held to be unconstitutional shall not
invalidate
Post by Mike Swisher
the remainder thereof. Any acts, laws, or parts of laws in conflict with
any
Post by Mike Swisher
provision of this law are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict."
So, there you have it - a complete ban on the sale, possession, or use
by
the
Post by Mike Swisher
general public of any and all fireworks. Fireworks are to be used by
licensed
Post by Mike Swisher
operators only under permit which is to be granted by the authority having
jurisdiction upon site inspection and production of an insurance
certificate or
Post by Mike Swisher
other acceptable proof of financial responsibility.
Under "Origin and Development of the Model Fireworks Law," the document
"The National Fire Protection Association was among the pioneers who
sought
Post by Mike Swisher
relief for the public from injuries and fires resulting from the
indiscriminate
Post by Mike Swisher
use of fireworks. Its efforts progresed from propagandizing during the
early
Post by Mike Swisher
years of this century to a suggested municipal ordinance and then to a
Model
Post by Mike Swisher
State Fireworks Law. The Model State Fireworks Law was firsrt adopted
by
the
Post by Mike Swisher
NFPA in 1938... In 1988, the Board of Directors of the National Fire
Protection
Post by Mike Swisher
Association transferred custodty of the model law from the NFPA Committee
on
Post by Mike Swisher
Pyrotechnics to the Fire Marshals Association of North America (now known
as the
Post by Mike Swisher
International Fire Marshals Association. .. Further changes include a
provision
Post by Mike Swisher
that makes POSSESSION OF FIREWORKS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC ILLEGAL AND
VIOLATIONS
Post by Mike Swisher
OF THE LAW THAT RESULT IN A FIRE, PERSONAL INJURY, OR DEATH A FELONY
OFFENSE.
Post by Mike Swisher
[emphasis mine]
"The 2000 edition updated the law to reflect current fireworks
classification,
Post by Mike Swisher
laws, and codes and standards."
The IFMA shares the address at 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy,
Massachusetts
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Mike Swisher
02269
Post by Mike Swisher
with the NFPA, and is not independent from the NFPA. The change of
custody of
Post by Mike Swisher
the Model Law to the IFMA from the NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics was
done at
Post by Mike Swisher
the top level of the NFPA to prevent the Committee on Pyrotechnics from
altering
Post by Mike Swisher
the NFPA's institutional committment to a total ban on fireworks for the
general
Post by Mike Swisher
public. The NFPA's propaganda continues to oppose all use of fireworks
by
the
Post by Mike Swisher
general public, and advocates adoption of the Model Fireworks Law.
I'm sorry you didn't bother to look this document up yourself on the NFPA
website, nor did you take advantage of my offer to e-mail it to you
privately.
Post by Mike Swisher
Now your obvious ignorance of this significant NFPA policy position is
explicitly and publicly exposed in detail on this forum.
Post by Terry Wilder
He has it backwards, Flash Powders reduced output hazard was one reason
it
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
was not classified similarly, as some of its brethren originally was,
probably with the fireworker in mind. Add some non-nitrogen containing
carbonaceous material to many a flash powder, such as vaseline , paraffin
etc you decrease the hazard, retain output at best, but have always
increased its classification as from B to A etc
Do you deny that the ATF changed its requirements for storage of flash
powder in
Post by Mike Swisher
1990 from Type 4 to Type 1 magazines, largely in view of the greater
output
Post by Mike Swisher
hazard of flash powder as compared to other pyrotechnic compositions
(e.g.,
Post by Mike Swisher
stars, set piece components, etc.)? Have you ever actually READ the
legislative/regulatory history? Or do you just post your uninformed
opinions on
Post by Mike Swisher
this forum?
Post by Terry Wilder
Anybody ever hear of the story of the ridiculous mouse!
Yes, his name is Terry Wilder.
That is very funny!.One and Two here sound like he's doing some heavy
omissions. Funnier yet this looks exactly like the model law here in
Michigan, word for word in most parts. What they're doing in wording of this
kind is altering its scope. Funny! The only time I ever been impressed by
anything he has said, I find the same thing being said, or point being made,
at least several minutes earlier in another thread or post by someone else.
He dodges the one question, then sounds as stupid as hell in another!
However this isn't nothing new
"However, Mr. Swisher should realize that scientists perhaps more than any
other group, are quite mindful of the accomplishments and contributions of
past generations of researchers. Science must build on the
results of others if we are to make advances. Certainly the work of
pyrotechnic researchers in the past centuries has contributed
significantly
Post by PyroLeo
Post by Mike Swisher
to where the art and science of pyrotechnics is today. I am totally unaware
of any true chemist who, in fact, has a "contempt". Words such as these can
only be written by someone who has not received formal scientific training
and who is therefore unaware of the deep respect given to early scientists."
John A.Conkling, APA
Now who sounds like they have "contempt" for the NFPA
Again, I see no reason to take their word over that of Davis, Shimizu or
that of the NFPA, you have to earn that.
Is this your contribution! Quite impressive!
If stopping the propagation of possibly dangerous falsehoods,
is what you call trolling I'm all for it.
Harry Conover
2003-09-09 14:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by PyroLeo
To Mike and others. It's quite obvious that Terry is just trolling now
and has
Post by PyroLeo
no interest in hearing or reading anything other than his own stupid
opinions.
Post by PyroLeo
This thread should end and if Terry wants to continue on alone with his
keyboard masturbations, so be it.
Leo
------------------
Leo, your words call to memory the ending phrase of "The Lost
Chord"... specifically: "...The sound of a great Amen!"

Harry C.
Harry Conover
2003-09-09 14:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
If stopping the propagation of possibly dangerous falsehoods,
is what you call trolling I'm all for it.
Terry, what "possibly dangerous falsehoods" are you trying to stop? I
see you only debating a point that is totally moot from a safety
standpoint...but I may have missed something.

I believe that it is safe to assume that most readers (except for
children and KeWl BomZ Dudes) here realize that flash powder is both
sensitive and explosively dangerous notwithstanding whether it
deflagrates or detonates.

Harry C.
Mike Swisher
2003-09-09 04:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
That is very funny!.One and Two here sound like he's doing some heavy
omissions. Funnier yet this looks exactly like the model law here in
Michigan, word for word in most parts.
Of course it looks like the Model Law "here in Michigan"! Where do you think the
Michigan legislature got it? As far as omissions, any reader of this forum
(yourself included) is welcome to look on the NFPA website and may find there
the portions of the NFPA/IFMA Model Fireworks Law that I omitted for the sake of
brevity. They will be found not to make any difference to the principal
intention of the Model Law, (which is, as I have repeatedly pointed out here)
the total ban on sale, possession, or use by the general public of any
fireworks; and the restriction of fireworks use to displays carried out by
licensed operators under permit and insurance requirements.


What they're doing in wording of this
Post by Terry Wilder
kind is altering its scope. Funny! The only time I ever been impressed by
anything he has said, I find the same thing being said, or point being made,
at least several minutes earlier in another thread or post by someone else.
He dodges the one question, then sounds as stupid as hell in another!
However this isn't nothing new
"However, Mr. Swisher should realize that scientists perhaps more than any
other group, are quite mindful of the accomplishments and contributions of
past generations of researchers. Science must build on the
results of others if we are to make advances. Certainly the work of
pyrotechnic researchers in the past centuries has contributed significantly
to where the art and science of pyrotechnics is today. I am totally unaware
of any true chemist who, in fact, has a "contempt". Words such as these can
only be written by someone who has not received formal scientific training
and who is therefore unaware of the deep respect given to early scientists."
John A.Conkling, APA
Now who sounds like they have "contempt" for the NFPA
I don't think Dr. Conkling's comments had anything to do with the NFPA nor do I
suppose he would disagree with anything I have said here about the NFPA.

My comments to Dr. Conkling, which Mr. Wilder here omits, about the contempt for
early research, were made in allusion to those of J R. Partington, D.Sc., Fellow
of Queen Mary College and Emeritus Professor of Chemistry in the University of
London, who said, in his lecture "Chemistry as rationalised alchemy," delivered
before the British Society for the history of Science, 7th May, 1951:

"...I would like to digress for a few moments to consider another matter which
is of some importance to us as member of a society concerned with the welfare of
the history of science. Some of us may forget at times that there is in
existence a deep hostility to the study of that subject..."

I should put the achievement of Prof. Partington as a scientist a few levels
higher than that of Dr. Conkling. So much for the latter's contention that
"words such as these..." etc.
Post by Terry Wilder
Again, I see no reason to take their word over that of Davis, Shimizu or
that of the NFPA, you have to earn that.
Again, where do Davis, Shimizu, or the NFPA ever cite data showing conclusively
that the explosive reaction of flash powder proceeds through its mass faster
than the speed of sound through the same mass (which would establish
detonation)? YOU should cite chapter and verse, if indeed such can be found.

Mr. Wilder, your earlier reference to the "ridiculous mouse" I assume comes from
Horace, Ars poetica, 143: "Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus." This is
certainly an apt description of your postings on this forum! I'm surprised you
remembered this Latin tag. Perhaps your Latin master whipped you more
efficaciously than did the one who failed so spectacularly to teach you logic.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-09 14:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
That is very funny!.One and Two here sound like he's doing some heavy
omissions. Funnier yet this looks exactly like the model law here in
Michigan, word for word in most parts.
Of course it looks like the Model Law "here in Michigan"! Where do you think the
Michigan legislature got it? As far as omissions, any reader of this forum
(yourself included) is welcome to look on the NFPA website and may find there
the portions of the NFPA/IFMA Model Fireworks Law that I omitted for the sake of
brevity. They will be found not to make any difference to the principal
intention of the Model Law, (which is, as I have repeatedly pointed out here)
the total ban on sale, possession, or use by the general public of any
fireworks; and the restriction of fireworks use to displays carried out by
licensed operators under permit and insurance requirements.
What they're doing in wording of this
Post by Terry Wilder
kind is altering its scope. Funny! The only time I ever been impressed by
anything he has said, I find the same thing being said, or point being made,
at least several minutes earlier in another thread or post by someone else.
He dodges the one question, then sounds as stupid as hell in another!
However this isn't nothing new
"However, Mr. Swisher should realize that scientists perhaps more than any
other group, are quite mindful of the accomplishments and contributions of
past generations of researchers. Science must build on the
results of others if we are to make advances. Certainly the work of
pyrotechnic researchers in the past centuries has contributed
significantly
Post by Mike Swisher
Post by Terry Wilder
to where the art and science of pyrotechnics is today. I am totally unaware
of any true chemist who, in fact, has a "contempt". Words such as these can
only be written by someone who has not received formal scientific training
and who is therefore unaware of the deep respect given to early scientists."
John A.Conkling, APA
Now who sounds like they have "contempt" for the NFPA
I don't think Dr. Conkling's comments had anything to do with the NFPA nor do I
suppose he would disagree with anything I have said here about the NFPA.
My comments to Dr. Conkling, which Mr. Wilder here omits, about the contempt for
early research, were made in allusion to those of J R. Partington, D.Sc., Fellow
of Queen Mary College and Emeritus Professor of Chemistry in the University of
London, who said, in his lecture "Chemistry as rationalised alchemy," delivered
"...I would like to digress for a few moments to consider another matter which
is of some importance to us as member of a society concerned with the welfare of
the history of science. Some of us may forget at times that there is in
existence a deep hostility to the study of that subject..."
I should put the achievement of Prof. Partington as a scientist a few levels
higher than that of Dr. Conkling. So much for the latter's contention that
"words such as these..." etc.
Post by Terry Wilder
Again, I see no reason to take their word over that of Davis, Shimizu or
that of the NFPA, you have to earn that.
Again, where do Davis, Shimizu, or the NFPA ever cite data showing conclusively
that the explosive reaction of flash powder proceeds through its mass faster
than the speed of sound through the same mass (which would establish
detonation)? YOU should cite chapter and verse, if indeed such can be found.
Mr. Wilder, your earlier reference to the "ridiculous mouse" I assume comes from
Horace, Ars poetica, 143: "Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus." This is
certainly an apt description of your postings on this forum! I'm surprised you
remembered this Latin tag. Perhaps your Latin master whipped you more
efficaciously than did the one who failed so spectacularly to teach you logic.
There is no total ban on fireworks here in Michigan. Michigan adopted this
"model law" over twenty five years ago.
Only here do you see one trying to draw a distinction between
one and the same.
Flash and other chlorate and perchlorate mixtures do detonate Just as
Shimizu and Davis have said.
Flash and other chlorate and perchlorate mixtures also sympathetically
detonate, which it wouldn't do if it did or could not detonate. Only here
have I have ever seen such a claim. If so I would like them to cite this
also.

Say you were to design, say a loading machine that worked with these
mixtures, and calculated
that an accidental ignition of a certain sized batch on one side of an
obstacle couldn't produce the energy to breach the obstacle. and combust
other batches. You could incorrectly assume all is fine and dandy but you
would be incorrect. That is the purpose for these classifications to save
lives. Only a mental minion would take such a nobel cause and bastardize it
the way he has.
Old Dog
2003-09-10 02:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
Say you were to design, say a loading machine that worked with these
mixtures, and calculated
that an accidental ignition of a certain sized batch on one side of an
obstacle couldn't produce the energy to breach the obstacle. and combust
other batches. You could incorrectly assume all is fine and dandy but you
would be incorrect. That is the purpose for these classifications to save
lives. Only a mental minion would take such a nobel cause and bastardize it
the way he has.
So you are saying that in your opinion any shock-sensitive mixture is a high
explosive?

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-10 17:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
Say you were to design, say a loading machine that worked with these
mixtures, and calculated
that an accidental ignition of a certain sized batch on one side of an
obstacle couldn't produce the energy to breach the obstacle. and combust
other batches. You could incorrectly assume all is fine and dandy but you
would be incorrect. That is the purpose for these classifications to save
lives. Only a mental minion would take such a nobel cause and bastardize it
the way he has.
So you are saying that in your opinion any shock-sensitive mixture is a high
explosive?
-Rich
No! But wouldn't you sure would like to know which mixtures are shock
sensitive, or for which you may have to lower the critical mass on a certain
batch? What have you seen that would dissassociate the notion of a shockwave
from that of a detonation, and associate something else in its place?
Old Dog
2003-09-11 02:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
Say you were to design, say a loading machine that worked with these
mixtures, and calculated
that an accidental ignition of a certain sized batch on one side of an
obstacle couldn't produce the energy to breach the obstacle. and combust
other batches. You could incorrectly assume all is fine and dandy but
you
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
would be incorrect. That is the purpose for these classifications to
save
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
lives. Only a mental minion would take such a nobel cause and bastardize
it
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
the way he has.
So you are saying that in your opinion any shock-sensitive mixture is a
high
Post by Old Dog
explosive?
-Rich
No! But wouldn't you sure would like to know which mixtures are shock
sensitive, or for which you may have to lower the critical mass on a certain
batch? What have you seen that would dissassociate the notion of a shockwave
from that of a detonation, and associate something else in its place?
I'm having trouble picking out what you are calling cause and what is effect.

It sure sounds like according to your reasoning, if I can create enough shock by
striking flash with a hammer to ignite the flash and cause it to explode, the
hammer must be a high explosive.

-Rich
Terry Wilder
2003-09-11 04:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
Say you were to design, say a loading machine that worked with these
mixtures, and calculated
that an accidental ignition of a certain sized batch on one side of an
obstacle couldn't produce the energy to breach the obstacle. and combust
other batches. You could incorrectly assume all is fine and dandy but
you
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
would be incorrect. That is the purpose for these classifications to
save
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
lives. Only a mental minion would take such a nobel cause and bastardize
it
Post by Old Dog
Post by Terry Wilder
the way he has.
So you are saying that in your opinion any shock-sensitive mixture is a
high
Post by Old Dog
explosive?
-Rich
No! But wouldn't you sure would like to know which mixtures are shock
sensitive, or for which you may have to lower the critical mass on a certain
batch? What have you seen that would dissassociate the notion of a shockwave
from that of a detonation, and associate something else in its place?
I'm having trouble picking out what you are calling cause and what is effect.
It sure sounds like according to your reasoning, if I can create enough shock by
striking flash with a hammer to ignite the flash and cause it to explode, the
hammer must be a high explosive.
-Rich
I said disassociated the notion of shockwave from that of detonation, not
disassociate the notion of a detonation from the shockwave. In logic
Sympathetic Detonation===> Detonation, and Detonation===>
shockwave.
or equivalently.
No shockwave====>No Detonation, and No Detonation====>No Sympathetic
Detonation. This is the same standard convention that can be found in the
Engineering Design Handbooks Series.

These are not two way streets. However, in reference to your example, there
have been devised for some nitroamines at least , high impact hammer tests
that were to establish such equivalencies based on differing impulses, the
main idea was eventually to save money that would be expended in test
shooting real projectiles at real targets. If I'm not mistaken, Arthur D
Little was also doing alot of work in this area at one time.
.
Bill Schowengerdt
2003-09-05 17:36:20 UTC
Permalink
On 4 Sep 2003 18:05:21 -0700, While I was using pressure to stop the
bleeding, ***@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) posted:
.
Hasn't this subject already been beaten to death over the years in
this newsgroup, and what difference does it make anyway?
It might have been several times discussed in the past, but I, as a
newbie, have found the discussion interesting.

Just my two cents,

--
Bill

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" -- M.Python --.
Terry Wilder
2003-09-08 02:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Schowengerdt
On 4 Sep 2003 18:05:21 -0700, While I was using pressure to stop the
.
Hasn't this subject already been beaten to death over the years in
this newsgroup, and what difference does it make anyway?
It might have been several times discussed in the past, but I, as a
newbie, have found the discussion interesting.
Just my two cents,
--
Bill
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" -- M.Python --.
Say if instead of building a shell of shells, you decided
to take a stab at seeing if building a salute of salutes
is possible with mere paper and pyro. If you couldn't rely on what their
saying now, how could you rely on what they said then.
s***@coastal-link.net
2016-09-03 04:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by name
what is more powerful gram for gram flash powder or dynamite? just trying to
settle a dispute.
thanks
I saw a news story that used two old police cars with 2# of flash and 2# dynamite, the car with flash had far more damage. I suspect the demonstration was biased to make flash appear stronger. Not much of a story to show dynamite as being stronger than flash.
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
2016-09-03 21:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@coastal-link.net
I saw a news story that used two old police cars with 2# of flash and
2# dynamite, the car with flash had far more damage.
Of course. Dynamite is brissant, and explodes with virtually no flame
and heat transferred to other surfaces. It destroys objects by shock.
If the charge were placed (say) on a seat, MOST of its destructive energy
would have been applied to the air inside.

In contrast, flash powder emits a much lower-velocity shock wave, but
also evolves a LARGE and destructive fireball -- and some of the
explosion has no completed until that ball of fire and dispersed flash
powder is several feet in diameter. Instead of just shock, it creates a
large, but much 'lower velocity' damage zone.

Those are different effects -- each useful in its purpose, but not a
valid comparison, one-to-the-other in this venue. Let's try breaking
bored rockfaces with one, then the other, and compare results.

Lloyd

Loading...