Print 66 comment(s) - last by Seemonkeyscanf.. on Sep 9 at 6:29 PM

A visualization of the solvent/TATB mix. The red, white, blue and gray moleculese are the explosive, TATB, the green balls are the fluoride anions and the blue/gray regions are the organic cation portion of the solvent. The new solvent promises less toxic processing and safer nuclear weapons, among other potential benefits.  (Source: LLNL)

Commercial grade TATB is shown on the left. Performance is directly correlated to the crystal quality. The new organic solvent-produced TATB is on the right, and offers visibly superior crystals and the vastly superior performance.  (Source: LLNL)
Researchers are replacing toxic inorganic compounds, with "greener" organic compounds during processing

Explosives and green tech aren't two things you might always think of as going hand in hand.  However, new breakthrough research from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) not only promises to improve conventional explosives, but also make processing less toxic through the use of organic compounds.

The research focuses on a class of compounds known as molecular crystals.  Molecular crystals are extremely powerful compounds that are also surprisingly stable.  They are used in drugs, pigments, agrochemicals, dyes and optoelectronics, as well as in explosives.  Since many of these compounds in unusable disordered form are bound together by strong hydrogen bonds, processing via typical organic solvents in nearly impossible due to lack of solubility.

As a result, toxic inorganic solvents are typically used to partially dissolve and reform the material into useful crystals.  The process is inefficient and produces toxic byproducts, such as ammonium chloride.

Researchers at the LLNL, under the Transformational Materials Initiative (TMI) Laboratory Research and Development project, discovered a class of organic solvents that could be used and would process the material more efficiently.  They turned to ionic liquids – a special type of molten salt that becomes liquid under the boiling point of water (100 degrees Celsius).  This type of solvent is considered attractive due to its lack of vapor pressure and tendency not to evaporate even under high temperature (evaporation of solvents can yield toxic fumes and also limits the usable liquid).  Also, scientists can custom tailor the types of positive and negative ions they want to use.

Lead author Amitesh Maiti used quantum simulations to narrow the selection of ions to a class of solvents with fluoride ions, which is very good at dissolving hydrogen bonds.  He describes, "The design of custom solvents through first principles modeling opens up new possibilities for the dissolution of materials that are hard to dissolve."

After the theoretical work was complete, researchers led by Phil Pagoria tested dissolving and reforming molecular crystals with the solvent.  The result was large defect-free (97 percent pure) crystals, which were vastly superior to current commercial offerings.

The key crystal compound tested was a special type of explosive known as TATB (1,3,5-triamino-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene).  This explosive is widely used for its exceptional stability by the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and the mining industry.  The refined crystalline version is even more stable.  Larry Fried, the project’s principal investigator and a co-author of the paper states, "Improving crystal quality and purity leads to explosive materials that are safer (less likely to react violently) when subjected to mechanical impact or heat."

This is of particular interest to national security, as TATB is thought to be used in all of Britain's nuclear warheads, and the majority of the U.S.'s warheads as a detonator, due to its already favorable stability.  The purer crystals could provide detonators capable of surviving even more severe punishment without an accidental detonation.

Aside from TATB the technique could be used to process a broad array of other commercial substances containing molecular crystals, including polymers (plastics) and molecular solids (pharmaceuticals, paints, propellants, explosives).  For example, the same solvents were shown to break down cellulose into basic sugars.  This could prove a boon to efforts to create ethanol and other biofuels from cellulose, a typically energetically intensive process.

In the short term it means the ability to not only process higher quality, safer TATB, but to minimize the environmental impact from processing.

The research is reported in the Sept. 1 issue of the journal Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics.

Other researchers on the project included Alex Gash, Yong Han, Christine Orme and Richard Gee.  

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Organic Bombs
By JasonMick on 9/2/2008 3:12:26 PM , Rating: 3
Obviously you've never heard of Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Crazy people are crazy people no matter what color or country of origin they come from. Don't buy into the Fox News kind of paranoid/racist garbage.

RE: Organic Bombs
By FITCamaro on 9/2/2008 4:09:31 PM , Rating: 3
I'm very well aware of this. I made the comment to make a point.

RE: Organic Bombs
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 9/2/2008 4:57:56 PM , Rating: 3
He said better job not they are the only ones.

9-11 did much more damage and kill more then Timothy McVeigh did.....

If Arabs do not wish to have a reputation for blowing up innocent people (anyone not military is an innocent person for this point). Then they need to stop celebrating suicide bombers by having parades for them and making them martyrs, stop backing High jackers by not shunning them in shame for the cowardly attack on innocent people going from point A to point B. As with most people with issues, we like to look outside of ourself for the problem and blame something other then ourselves. When the reality is you need to look into your own actions and fix those issues first.

P.S. Be fair, no media network is perfect or even close to perfect. I watch Fox and several other media outlets (CBS, NBC, CNN, WGN...). About the only one who does not use paranoid/racist garbage is Fox. The funny thing is, the only people who claim Fox is a bad new source are people who've never watched them and just believe the words of other networks trying to undermine Fox. The other networks hate Fox because they are unbiased as a station - some people on Fox favor Democrats and some Republicans. Fox also keeps winning the awards for honest, accurate reporting of the news. Something the other station fail to do....Think about it, you can fool all and some of the people some of the time, but you will not fool all the people all the time. The majority of the population have realized the misleading reports or the one sided reports given on most networks and have switch over to Fox because they have more accurate and balanced reporting. View their ratings compared to the other stations, you'll see they blow away all the other stations. Beside when was the last time your favorite station made an error in reporting then made it their number one priority to re-explain the story and correctly explain error they made, then apologize on the air for their mistake? It does not happen often on Fox, however when an error is made that is how they handle the issue and they are the only station that I've ever watch do that type of correction. Some station try to slip it in as as a quick announcement when they are going to commercial , most do nothing at all.

Let the haters begin.....

RE: Organic Bombs
By RIPPolaris on 9/2/2008 5:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the first part of your reply (and consider myself more of a Republican than a Democrat), but come on. To say that Fox is unbiased is to ignore half of their programs.
Want an example? Watch the O'Reilly show.

RE: Organic Bombs
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 9/2/2008 6:07:27 PM , Rating: 1
“The other networks hate Fox because they are unbiased as a station - some people on Fox favor Democrats and some Republicans.”
Again, Fox as a station is unbiased. They have people working both sides. Most station do not, or the republican side will be very, very weakly covered at best. People that work for the station maybe bias maybe not, but the station does not lay down rules on what will or will not be reported based on bias beliefs. Right now most stations will not report anything good that President Bush does (been that way for years). He is not evil, not everything he does is bad, not all good too. Most station will only report the bad because the higher ups say to only report the bad things republicans do and only the good things democrats do. Thus, they are a bias station. Fox reports both good and bad for both sides.

As of Bill O'Reilly, well I'd say he is a very passionate man and gets easily up set when he brings someone on his show that does not answer the question he asks. This is not being unbiased, this is just a man trying to go after answers to the questions he would like to know the answers to. Yes, he at times guesses what the answer is and expresses his thoughts to the interviewee. However, he always gives them the chance to state their point of view on the subject. It's when they leave the subject that he is asking about that he seems mean because he trying to keep them on the same subject. It would be like if he asked George Foreman to come in and talk about his Boxing career. On the day of the interview George comes in but only talks about his grill and not his boxing career. Well this would set Bill off. So, I would not call him bias...though he is a republican that is for sure.

RE: Organic Bombs
By threepac3 on 9/2/2008 6:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
Bill O'Reilly is a Liberal compared to Sean Hannity.

RE: Organic Bombs
By threepac3 on 9/2/2008 6:13:01 PM , Rating: 2
...but on the other hand you have Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.

RE: Organic Bombs
By foxtrot9 on 9/3/2008 4:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
That's his show - he is a republican commentator - you need to watch the regular news on the station to judge bias

RE: Organic Bombs
By DASQ on 9/2/2008 6:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because all Arabs are celebrating the death of Americans worldwide.

It's people like you that perpetuate the image that all people from the Middle East are baby-eating bomb strappers who are just jealous of American wealth.

RE: Organic Bombs
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 9/3/2008 10:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for proving my point. As I said before most like to point the blame to someone else and not themselves. Yep it must be the USA fault that some Arabs strap bombs to themselves and blew themselves up in a middle of a crowd of people and it really must be the fault of the USA that a lot of Arabs will get together in the streets and celebrating a false martyrs who blew themselves up to kill their neighbors sons, daughters, wifes, husbands, and maybe wounding a soldier – once in a while killing a soldier (soldiers are wearing better protection then the kids...).
In your world the last thing you want to do is blame the person who built the bomb, blame the person who put the bomb on, blame the person who picked the target, or blame the person who pressed the button. No, it's not people like me that perpetuate the image that all people from the middle east are baby-eating bomb strappers who are just jealous of American wealth. First off I never said baby eating. Second I've always said some Arabs. Third, it's the Fault of the BOMBER – stop suicide bombing and we will have no example to point out....
If they are jealous of the American wealth, then they need to take up this issue with their government who is limiting the distribution of wealth in their nation and not some other country because that country does a better job at distributing the wealth. And yes, there is plenty of wealth to go around in most Arabic nations (oil).

RE: Organic Bombs
By hadifa on 9/2/2008 9:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
Some very good points. So innocent people are =anyone not military.


First, everyone celebrating the death of innocents is a participant in the crime in my view. And 11/9 events were heinous crimes.

Now let me ask a question or two.
What does bombing the INNOCENTS during world war II means? What does that make the Christians/West? What about dropping 2 Nukes on INNOCENTS? What that makes Americans? At least the ones stating it was necessary and it saved more lives.

RE: Organic Bombs
By Digimonkey on 9/2/2008 10:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest difference is that civilians weren't the targets. Hiroshima hosted a major part of the Japanese military power, also a lot of the non essential citizens (kids) had been evacuated before the atomic bomb was dropped.

RE: Organic Bombs
By 16nm on 9/2/2008 11:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest difference is that civilians weren't the targets.

Actually, they probably were. Remember, the emperor called on ALL of his people to fight a possible American invasion. After Iwojima, American forces were very much uninterested in fighting a gorilla war with the Japanese. Iwojima convinced us that invasion would not be a stroll through the park.

What's worth noting is that America and Japan are close allies and at total peace with one another.

RE: Organic Bombs
By JS on 9/3/2008 10:44:50 AM , Rating: 2
Of course civilians were targets. Perhaps not primarily for the nuclear bombs but definitely for the bombings of Berlin, Dresden and other German cities. The allies wanted to kill factory workers and demoralize the enemy. And in the case of Dresden, probably exact a little revenge.

RE: Organic Bombs
By Myg on 9/3/2008 11:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
Can we just get this 10000 pound gorilla out in the open for once?

America and the Allies did sick, disgusting things just like everyone else who wanted to vent their anger; the people who took part in these atrocities (Generals/soldiers/pilots/etc..) were no better then the German/Soviet army or anyone else who tried to hide from the fact that they were supporting the mass killing of people.

I always find it totaly disgusting when I see veterens trying to hide behind "orders" and "that it was war" excuses; because that somehow makes it ok.

To touch on a side point which was mentioned in this threading:
If your in-tune with Muslim teachings; you will find it is commonly taught that there exists the "Muslim World" and the "Rest". The western world being the worst of the "Rest"; and heres the kicker for the lot of you who miss this point: They say "that it was war" when they try to excuse their actions...

Funny how the world works eh? We are all the same, really; all trying to blame others for causing us to do things. This aint the garden of eden (Adam blames Eve, Eve blames snake). We are supposed to know better; and we do.

The point being is that its not the event; its the intent that matters.
Americans wanted to murder Japanese Civilians, they did so, Germans wanted to murder their own + Soviets, they did so,
British wanted to murder the Germans, they did so,
Soviets wanted to murder themselves + Germans, they did so, Japanese wanted to murder the Chinese, they did so...

None of these actions can be escaped from, by either death or denying them. They will permanently perpetuate themselves towards the disorder of the current formation of society untill proper acknowledgement is issued and apologies are provided all around.

Anyways... Back to the more ecologically friendly weapons of mass destruction :-)

RE: Organic Bombs
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 9/9/2008 6:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
"The point being is that its not the event; its the intent that matters. Americans wanted to murder Japanese Civilians"

Incorrect. Americans did not want to get into war at all (except selling weapons, which helped end the Great Depression). Once dragged into the war, the American wanted to end it. The bombs did just that, otherwise millions more would have died (both sides). If the US wanted Japanese Civilians dead, there would have been many more bombings....40 or 50 more (yes, it would have taken time, but know one would have stopped them).

“(Adam blames Eve, Eve blames snake).” Adam blamed Eve, yes. Eve does not blame any one. Adam, really gets in trouble for not controlling his wife's action (letting her eat the forbidden fruit). If Adam was honest with GOD saying, well the serpent told us how we would not die from eating the fruit and we believed him. The human race might not have been punished in the same manner. Instead Adam says some to the effect of, Well Eve picked it and eat of it first.

RE: Organic Bombs
By Starcub on 9/3/2008 6:19:07 AM , Rating: 2
None of the major networks do fair and balanced reporting. I have a preference for the local news channel and PBS since at least they do investigative reporting. As far as the major networks are concerned, Fox is better than most but...

Here in Tampma a local Fox affiliate hired some reporters to do a story on milk safety. When the investigative reporters found some questionable data and insisted that consumers had a right to know, the station took the reporters to court and won the right to withhold the truth!

However on the major networks, I hardly ever see reporters actually getting involved with actual people on the scene, or doing any digging to get all sides of a story. It's usually just some self important talking head giving commentary on what they read on the wire. Worse yet, more and more there is commentary on commentary (and commentators). Most of them aren't as smart as they think they are either.

My guess is that Fox rates highly because if your only choices are garbage, it's best served by good looking hosts.

RE: Organic Bombs
By foolsgambit11 on 9/3/2008 4:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, the 9/11 hijackers didn't even make a bomb. So no, they weren't better bomb-makers than Timothy McVeigh.

And you totally missed the boat - Arabs have a reputation in your mind for celebrating suicide bombers only because that's what you see from the news sources you watch.

Heaven forbid you do a quick search, say, Google "US kills civilians in Afghanistan". The top 4 results are:

US offensive in Afghanistan 'kills 76 civilians' - Telegraph Aug 22, 2008
Airstrike in Afghanistan kills civilians - Los Angeles Times. Mar 06, 2007
US-led force kills eight civilians in Afghanistan. Aug 11, 2008
US-led strikes kills 64 Afghan civilians. Jul 11, 2008.

(The U.S. denies the Interior Ministry's claims about the Aug 22 offensive, saying only 30 militants were killed in U.S. air strikes.)

Sure, the U.S. military doesn't usually target civilians, but neither do the terrorists. They usually target police stations, or military posts, or government centers. All legitimate wartime targets. This is not to deny that Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda affiliated groups don't target civilians. That would be to deny 9/11, and 3/11, and London, &c.

But to argue that that makes Islam a faith that supports violence against civilians, or Arabs a race that do, is to ignore evidence of widespread discontent with Al-Qaeda attacks on civilians within the Middle East. It also shows a blindness and bias, probably caused by a lack of exposure to Islam (maybe not in your case, I don't know, but definitely in most cases).

The reason we don't think of Christianity as a violent faith is because we see nonviolent Christians all the time. Our only exposure to Islam, though, is through media reports of the worst of Muslims. Let's compile an incomplete list of Christian violence (excluding the Holocaust....)

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has logged 167 attacks against abortion clinics over the past 15 years. (Mostly from Christian fundamentalist groups like the Army of God)

The Ku Klux Klan. (Not especially violent for several years, but historically a terrorist fundamentalist Christian movement)

The Aryan Nation - for example, Furrow, who shot up a Jewish Community Center.

Both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict.

We see these as isolated cases by individuals, or freakish extremist groups, but we see the incidences in the Middle East as part of a larger pattern, because we don't have the evidence that refutes that pattern. We've got that evidence for Christianity and the West because we live there.

I've been to the Middle East - Israel, Egypt, and Iraq (the last in the Army), and the average person was no more violent, and the security situation was no more tenuous, than traveling in Peru or Mexico. I know, that's anecdotal, but take it for what it's worth, anyway. I know it may seem odd to say Iraq, but remember, I'm talking about the average person you meet on the street.

RE: Organic Bombs
By Polynikes on 9/2/2008 6:22:13 PM , Rating: 3
Cut the PC crap. Americans aren't worried about another Timothy McVeigh, they're worried about another 9/11.

How many major bombings have occurred that were done by whites in the past 20 years? How many by Arabic/Muslim people?

Here's a key difference: Timothy McVeigh tried to get away with it, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups openly claim responsibility.

So yeah, I hate Arabic/Muslim bombers more than whites like Timothy McVeigh, and I'm more worried about what they're up to than what Joe Redneck is. I'm just forming an opinion based on the trend.

Guess that makes me a racist.

RE: Organic Bombs
By foolsgambit11 on 9/3/2008 4:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
Are we talking about bombings in America? Then one for each. The 1993 bombing of the Word Trade Center, and the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing. The 9/11 attacks weren't bombs.

Add in bombings at U.S. Embassies abroad (something the average American doesn't have to worry about), and the number would be higher for Muslims. Add in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole and the attack on the Marine Barracks in Lebanon (technically outside the 20 year limit you gave), and the number would go up, but these are military targets, so not really fair to count.

If we drop "major" as a qualifier to bombings, though, we'd also add a bunch of bombings to the list - the Unabomber, bomb attacks on abortion clinics, &c, that would add more white faces to the list.

But as to your initial question, I stand by two and one, because I know you mean to include 9/11.

Plus, I'd argue that when it comes to things to be scared about, we've got our priorities all screwed up. <sarcasm> Black people kill way more Americans every year than Arabs do. Maybe we should be afraid of them.

Oh wait, most white Americans already are.... </sarcasm>

RE: Organic Bombs
By Samus on 9/3/2008 6:41:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure white people invented cannons, guns/bullets, the atomic bomb.....don't try telling us we don't like our explosives :P

RE: Organic Bombs
By foolsgambit11 on 9/3/2008 4:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
The Chinese invented guns, didn't they? And they spread to Europe through the Middle East.

But the point is valid - white boys love explosions.

"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook
Related Articles
Russia Rolls Out "Father of all Bombs"
September 12, 2007, 9:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki