121–128 of 128 posts
Somewhat surprisingly, this was NOT filed under "Stuff I Won't Work With"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar to "200 OK", where the number is the important part and the text is just an informative description?
No, meaning that only "Class 1" are explosives. Other classes are not explosives. The classes are US DOT types of hazardous materials you might ship. Like "Class 6" is poisons. In other words, there's no "Class 2" or "Class 3" explosives. If it's explosive, it's "Class 1", including firecrackers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, meaning that only "Class 1" are explosives. Other classes are not explosives. The classes are US DOT types of hazardous materials you might ship. Like "Class 6" is poisons. In other words, there's no "Class 2" or "Class 3" explosives. If it's explosive, it's "Class 1", including firecrackers.
Yes, that’s my point. It’s not like there are many different kinds of OKs, such as the 200 kind and the 404 kind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point. The sub-classification gets into those weeds. For example: 1.1 being "mass explosion hazard", typically high-explosives. 1.4 being "fire or projection hazard", typically consumer fireworks, small arms ammunition. 1.5 is "may mass explode in fire", things like AN fertilizer (Beirut; West, Texas), many industrial blasting agents.
Where would flour fit in in this classification? I assume it's less explosive than fertilizer, but flour dust suspended in air can also explode...
According to some research, combustible dust is not an explicit category under the GHS (United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals), let alone a sub-division of Class 1. I pulled up some Safety Data Sheets[1] for various flours and Combustible Dust is listed under "Hazards Not Otherwise Classified" in section 2, Hazard Identification. Likewise, section 5 (Fire-Fighting Measures) mentions the explosion hazard posed by dispersed dust.
Per Chapter 2.1[2] of the GHS, the definitions of explosives is: "...a solid or liquid substance (or mixture of substances) which is in itself capable by chemical reaction of producing gas at such a temperature and pressure and at such a speed as to cause damage to the surroundings..."
Which led me down a rabbit hole to see why Combustible Dust is listed as "Not Otherwise Classified", going through amendments to the CFR and some papers on working groups looking to add Combustible Dust to the GHS. Of note, page 16 of this[3] presentation.
>"Argentina Intervention
> Concern over the definition of "combustible dust" produced by flours, grains and cereals because of the trade implications that such an inclusion could produce
> Dust originated from flours, grains and cereals should not be classified as "hazardous chemical substances"
> Reasoning:
>> Flours, grain and cereal dust are not a chemical substance
>> Dust originated from flour, grain and cereal have no intrinsic explosive property
>> Dust is not a dangerous substance in itself
> Requested explicit exclusion from definition"
Luckily saner minds prevailed, and we ended up with GHS Annex 11 which is why Combustible Dust is listed on the SDS I linked. But hey there we see, once again, economic interests trying to muddy up the waters when it comes to safety. But that is a whole different (and rant-y) tangent I could go off on, and I should probably get back to work.
[1]http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.agricharts.com/sites/1846/Flou...
[2]https://unece.org/DAM/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev03/Engli...
[3]https://schc.memberclicks.net/assets/meetings/fall_2017/lant...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're overlooking the most important scenario: mass production of it in a factory setting.
I think that falls under my qualification of "people in a lab setting"
"Lab setting" implies bench sized quantities in motion and storage cabinet sized quantities at rest.
"Manufacturing setting" implies reaction tower sized quantities in motion and train car sized quantities at rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only did you misinterpret a lot of what I said (including the fact that I wasn't particularly making an argument, but rather an observation and opinion), your aggressive response certainly doesn't invite dialog and is in violation of multiple HN guidelines. I suggest you read them and consider being kinder in your word choice.
My tone was inappropriate, you didn’t deserve that. It was unnecessary and rude. I’m sorry. Thank you for making a levelheaded reply.
The chemical structure is the clue to the explosive potential. The N-N-N triad is a strange beast that shows up in a lot of explosive materials. They're explosive for similar reasons that ammonia nitrate is explosive. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23399-texas-disaster-... Think of energy as a vertical scale increasing upward. Including a nitrogen triad (like in the drug) pushes the entire molecule up on the…
>The chemical structure is the clue to the explosive potential. The N-N-N triad is a strange beast that shows up in a lot of explosive materials. This makes me wonder - what properties of a substance can you infer from its structure without ever testing the substance itself?
The chemical structure is the clue to the explosive potential. The N-N-N triad is a strange beast that shows up in a lot of explosive materials. They're explosive for similar reasons that ammonia nitrate is explosive. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23399-texas-disaster-... Think of energy as a vertical scale increasing upward. Including a nitrogen triad (like in the drug) pushes the entire molecule up on the…
>The chemical structure is the clue to the explosive potential. The N-N-N triad is a strange beast that shows up in a lot of explosive materials. This makes me wonder - what properties of a substance can you infer from its structure without ever testing the substance itself?
A simple example is solubility. Molecules with amines generally are soluble in acid. Molecules with carboxylic acid groups are usually soluble in base. Molecules with flexible hydrocarbon chains tend to be soluble in oils. Molecules with lots of polar groups tend to be soluble in water. Large, rigid molecules are rarely soluble in anything.
Trained chemists can do this sort of thing with specialized properties (such as metabolic stability, brain penetrating ability, and oral bioavailability) as well, although success depends on specifics.