Science Army researching new enviromentally friendly explosive thats more powerful than TNT - Less toxic and it blows shit up? Sign me up.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...87/tnt-replacement-bis-oxadiazole-los-alamos/

So Long TNT, There's a New Explosive in Town

Bis-oxadiazole could replace TNT and other explosives in military ordnance.

a0580a96-43a9-4c88-9b49-94ab4a062f9a.jpg

By Jay Bennett
Jul 2, 2018
1.6k
050401-f-4729s-008-jpg-1530296168.jpg

U.S. AIR FORCE
The chemistry of explosives is a delicate matter. A little less carbon, a little more nitrogen, and the right amount of oxygen can transform a relatively inert substance into quite the showstopper.

For more than 100 years, TNT has been the premier mixture of chemicals for blowing things up, and it's even used as a metric to measure the yield of nuclear explosions and other monumental blasts. But new research out of Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Army Research Laboratory has discovered a new chemical, bis-oxadiazole (C6H4N6O8), that has many of the advantages of TNT, is thought to be less toxic to produce, and makes a bigger bang.

"It would be about 1.5 times the power of TNT," says David Chavez, an explosives chemist at Los Alamos who worked on the new molecule. "So fairly energetic, quite a nice improvement compared to TNT."

TNT, or trinitrotoluene, is a mixture of the seemingly innocent elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen (C7H5N3O6). Chavez compares such explosive compounds to gasoline, saying that rather than drawing oxygen from the air to serve as an oxidizer for combustion, like an engine does, the molecule simply has everything it needs for the combustive reaction stored within. And because everything is much more densely packed together in a TNT molecule than in the gas-air mixture that powers a car, the resulting explosion is orders of magnitude more powerful.

173193-web-1530296245.jpg

Oxadiazole has a calculated detonation pressure 50 percent higher than that of TNT.
LANL
TNT also has a major advantage when it comes to manufacturing: it's melt-castable. In other words, the melting point of TNT is low enough, about 80 degrees Celsius, that you can safely melt the material down into a liquid without it spontaneously detonating, which happens at about 240 degrees C. This allows manufacturers to pour liquid TNT into molds and shells to produce bombs.

"The place where you see it used most is mortar shells and artillery shells," says Jesse Sabatini, a synthesis chemist with the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

But TNT has some major drawbacks that have led to a "quest to develop new melt-castable explosives," says Sabatini, between the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. TNT and other chemicals used in military explosives produce pollutants during manufacture, and they just aren't as explosive as they could be.

“There is actually quite a bit of waste that’s generated by making TNT," Chavez says. "There’s something that’s called red water, which is the kind of water that’s left over from the nitration of TNT. And then when the TNT itself is actually isolated, it’s washed with more water, and that water is a waste that’s called pink water, and it also has some environmental impacts."

These pollutants can get into soil and water supplies, and TNT, due to its high vapor pressure, has a tendency to produce air pollutants that can harm workers melting down the material with steam. It's also not that explosive, owing to the fact that TNT doesn't have enough oxidizer to burn all its carbon and hydrogen fuel, which is why you see a black cloud of mostly carbon after TNT is detonated. So TNT is generally mixed with other chemicals, such as RDX to form an explosive mixture called Composition B that is found in many bombs. But RDX also produces pollutants that can seep into groundwater, and they don't decompose easily.

“The Army always wants to have enhanced performance," Sabatini says. "They want more blast. They want more power. And TNT is okay... but we want to do better than that."

173192-web-1530296327.jpg

Explosives chemist David Chavez pours an example of melt-castable explosive into a copper mold at Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Technical Area 9.
LANL
Searching for a substitute has been an ongoing effort spanning decades, and in 2016, ARL synthesized a compound with some promising results. Bis-isoxazole, as the compound is known, proved to be cleaner than TNT and melt-castable, but not as powerful. Working with Los Alamos, the Army set out to tweak the recipe.

Bis-isoxazole consists of two five-atom rings with three carbon atoms, one nitrogen, and one oxygen. By swapping out a carbon atom for another nitrogen, the chemists knew they would produce a compound with a higher explosive yield, though they did not know if it would be melt-castable. "There is really no way to predict melting point," Sabatini says.

The result was the new molecule that could replace TNT, bis-oxadiazole. The additional nitrogen adds density to the molecule, and removing carbon helps balance out the oxidizer so all of the fuel can be used up to produce energy in the reaction. And once the researchers had synthesized it in the lab, they realized bis-oxadiazole has a melting point around that of TNT, making it melt-castable.

"There was a little bit of luck sprinkled in there I suppose, but there really was a lot of chemical intuition that was involved," Sabatini says.

There are two primary ways to measure the power of an explosion: detonation velocity and detonation pressure. According to chemical modeling, bis-oxadiazole should have a detonation velocity of around 8.18 km/s and detonation pressure of 29.4 gigapascal, compared to around 7.8 km/s and 26 gigapascal for Composition B. And from what the chemists know about the new material, any residue from manufacturing it should decompose much more easily in the environment.

However, these specific points still need to be tested. In a recent study, the chemists demonstrated the ability to produce the new explosive on a scale of about 25 grams. The next steps are to scale that production up to hundreds of grams or pounds, Sabatini says, so that full toxicity screenings can be done as well as explosive tests in the field.

To measure the detonation velocity and pressure directly, Chavez says, the chemists make cylinders of the material and arrange them on a small steel block. A trigger on top of the setup blows the material, and sensors placed in between the cylinders are used to measure velocity, while the pressure can be calculated from the dent left in the steel.

Once toxicity and detonation tests are conducted, if the results are promising, the material will go through a whole new set of tests to incorporate it into something resembling an artillery shell. Then chemical manufacturing plants could begin the process of producing the material in large quantities.

Chavez says the average time from chemical discovery to manufacture of explosive devices is roughly 5 to 10 years. But if the new explosive material is as promising as it seems, and if the Pentagon decides that it has a need for new weapons sooner rather than later, you could possibly see bis-oxadiazole hit the battlefield even earlier.

“It is a compound that certainly has us excited," Sabatini says.
 
My favorite HX is azidoazide-azide, a purified crystal of lead-azidoazide.

Azidoazide-azide will explode if:

You put it in strong sunlight
You drop it
You handle it carefully
You store it in darkness
You keep it refrigerated
You keep it room temperature
You touch it
You do not touch it
It is kept dry
It is kept moist
You store it in glass
You store it in metal
Loud noises are nearby
It is totally quiet nearby

Azidoazide-azide is some bad fuckin' news. It is the Florida Man of explosive compounds. Extremely dangerous, impossible to contain, no practical application.
 
What about C4?
C-4 is a plasticized hexamine compound explosive, similar to RDX (in fact you can use RDX as a precursor for C-4 as the major difference is the binding ingredients and the elimination of wax from the distillate). while RDX is more energetic than TNT, it, much like any other ammonia derived explosive, trades stability for power. it doesn't help that all such derived explosives are also very toxic, even stable ones like C-4.

the problem with practical use of explosives is safe handling, transport, and storage - so there are many derivatives of the same basic chemistry in order to meet various demands (Semtex, PETN, RDX, C-4, Comp A/B/C, et c). C-4 is cheap and stable in most situations and is energetic enough to get the job done. in larger bombs (GBU, et c) different mixtures are used to achieve the results. heck you still see military dynamite (RDX/TNT/oil/cornstarch) used in artillery pieces. the rate of gas expansion is also very critical for properly propelling kinetic penetrators, or reliably defeat various sorts of barriers.

an alternative to C-4 would be very handy as you get more efficient logistically, and if it's non-toxic we would have less problems with idiots eating the stuff.
 
Last edited:
My favorite HX is azidoazide-azide, a purified crystal of lead-azidoazide.

Azidoazide-azide will explode if:

You put it in strong sunlight
You drop it
You handle it carefully
You store it in darkness
You keep it refrigerated
You keep it room temperature
You touch it
You do not touch it
It is kept dry
It is kept moist
You store it in glass
You store it in metal
Loud noises are nearby
It is totally quiet nearby

Azidoazide-azide is some bad fuckin' news. It is the Florida Man of explosive compounds. Extremely dangerous, impossible to contain, no practical application.
I can think of one application. Give the formula for making it to your worst enemy and the problem should sort itself out.

C-4 is a plasticized hexamine compound explosive, similar to RDX (in fact you can use RDX as a precursor for C-4 as the major difference is the binding ingredients and the elimination of wax from the distillate). while RDX is more energetic than TNT, it, much like any other ammonia derived explosive, trades stability for power. it doesn't help that all such derived explosives are also very toxic, even stable ones like C-4.

the problem with practical use of explosives is safe handling, transport, and storage - so there are many derivatives of the same basic chemistry in order to meet various demands (Semtex, PETN, RDX, C-4, Comp A/B/C, et c). C-4 is cheap and stable in most situations and is energetic enough to get the job done. in larger bombs (GBU, et c) different mixtures are used to achieve the results. heck you still see military dynamite (RDX/TNT/oil/cornstarch) used in artillery pieces. the rate of gas expansion is also very critical for properly propelling kinetic penetrators, or reliably defeated various sorts of barriers.

an alternative to C-4 would be very handy as you get more efficient logistically, and if it's non-toxic we would have less problems with idiots eating the stuff.
I hope you are a chemist or work for the DOD, otherwise your knowledge is....unsettling.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Club Sandwich
it's not unreasonable to know chemistry; it's a basic science subject even in high school still.
I know. I had it in high school too. Just in Ghetto Memorial High School where I went, explosives were the last thing they would let us study. They did let us do archery for a month straight in gym though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RomanesEuntDomus
Now how is an explosive considered environmentally friendly when it's sole purpose is to destroy the environment near it when it detonates?
by not leaving harsh chemical residues during manufacturing, or waste products that are poisonous or corrosive, or have toxic side effects when detonated or burned. i've used C-4 to cook food before, which isn't safe, but is alright if it's just a heating element. dumbasses that try and roast a sausage over a burning pea-sized dot of C-4 are going to get pretty sick from the fumes.
 
I can think of one application. Give the formula for making it to your worst enemy and the problem should sort itself out.

That was trick in Space Station 13 where it was a thing you could make. Somebody starts asking about some top-secret recipe? Give em the ingredients for Azide and laugh your ass off when they blow up almost right away.
 
Now how is an explosive considered environmentally friendly when it's sole purpose is to destroy the environment near it when it detonates?
TNT and other chemicals used in military explosives produce pollutants during manufacture, and they just aren't as explosive as they could be.

“There is actually quite a bit of waste that’s generated by making TNT," Chavez says. "There’s something that’s called red water, which is the kind of water that’s left over from the nitration of TNT. And then when the TNT itself is actually isolated, it’s washed with more water, and that water is a waste that’s called pink water, and it also has some environmental impacts."

These pollutants can get into soil and water supplies, and TNT, due to its high vapor pressure, has a tendency to produce air pollutants that can harm workers melting down the material with steam. It's also not that explosive, owing to the fact that TNT doesn't have enough oxidizer to burn all its carbon and hydrogen fuel, which is why you see a black cloud of mostly carbon after TNT is detonated. So TNT is generally mixed with other chemicals, such as RDX to form an explosive mixture called Composition B that is found in many bombs. But RDX also produces pollutants that can seep into groundwater, and they don't decompose easily.
 
an alternative to C-4 would be very handy as you get more efficient logistically, and if it's non-toxic we would have less problems with idiots eating the stuff

Is that a common problem?


Now how is an explosive considered environmentally friendly when it's sole purpose is to destroy the environment near it when it detonates?

They call it "killing with kindness"
 
My favorite HX is azidoazide-azide, a purified crystal of lead-azidoazide.

Azidoazide-azide will explode if:

You put it in strong sunlight
You drop it
You handle it carefully
You store it in darkness
You keep it refrigerated
You keep it room temperature
You touch it
You do not touch it
It is kept dry
It is kept moist
You store it in glass
You store it in metal
Loud noises are nearby
It is totally quiet nearby

Azidoazide-azide is some bad fuckin' news. It is the Florida Man of explosive compounds. Extremely dangerous, impossible to contain, no practical application.
Derek Lowe covered this in his Pipeline series of 'Things He Won't Work With'.
Link: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipelin...wont_work_with_azidoazide_azides_more_or_less

A particularly amusing quote:

Dr. Lowe said:
The compound exploded in solution, it exploded on any attempts to touch or move the solid, and (most interestingly) it exploded when they were trying to get an infrared spectrum of it. The papers mention several detonations inside the Raman spectrometer as soon as the laser source was turned on, which must have helped the time pass more quickly. This shows a really commendable level of persistence, when you think about it – I don’t know about you, but one exploding spectrometer is generally enough to make recognize a motion to adjourn for the day.
 
What about C4?

Interestingly, the '4' in C4 denotes the 4th attempt at the formula, beaus the previous 3 were considered too toxic even for explosives. And it was the plasticizing agent in it that was to blame. putting it over the top and into "too toxic" territory. The actual explosive part of C4 is indeed just a mix of the aforementioned old-fashioned TNT and WW2 era RDX, explosives they've been using for decades, and while technically toxic, they're considered "safe" to touch with your bare hands, as long as you don't do it all the time.

Kinda like lead, nobody dies from putting a lead sinker on a fishing line, but a hatter using lead forms all day long in a closed shop is going to have a bad day, eventually....

Though when it comes to home-brew chemistry gone wrong (or right as it were) look up the "Nuclear Boyscout" case, the NRC/EPA eventually had to bury his garage in a nuclear waste dump from what he was doing.
 
Speaking of explosive filler, and I realize this is wandering far afield, but you know what one of the chief components of newer hydrogen bombs is? Polystyrene beads. Not in the sense of "Well they cushion stuff" or they're just in there to fill dead space, it's in the warhead.

In the femtosecond after implosion and criticality, as the x-rays are propagating outward from the now sun-hot "pit", they hit the styrofoam and turn it into plasma, which flashes outward and hits the beryllium liner inside the warhead cone and is reflected backwards into the expanding explosion of the pit, strengthening and energizing it, making it hotter and more lethal. It's a perfect medium, really - lightweight enough to not affect the trajectory of the warhead, pennies on the ton, simple to maintain (alpha emissions from the pit will eventually dissolve it, and it has to be replaced)...
 
Back