I saw a show on the history channel about the Texas City disaster
where a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate caught fire and eventually
blew up. Some people at the time had thought that this fire would have
just continued to burn without any explosion. This got me to thinking
about all the explosive compounds that have been discovered over time.
Undoubtably many people have been killed or injured by their latest
discovery. On a visit to the Air & Flight Museum in Seattle my brother
and I took a tour of a Blackbird. The one at Boeing is not an SR71. It
predates that model. But it's still the same basic plane, goes as
fast, and uses the same engines. A fuel was developed for these planes
that is very hard to ignite. This special fuel was used to cool the
plane before it was burned (the fuel, that is), did not vaporize
easily, and in fact would not ignite even when squirted into the
superheated air inside the engines when the plane was at speed. The
compression ratio inside the engine near top speed is 40 to 1 so you
can imagine how hot that air was. A chemical was used to ignite the
fuel. It combusted almost explosively whenever exposed to air. Each
engine was equipped with a 16 oz. cannister of this stuff and a 1 oz.
shot was used each time the engine ignited and each time the
afterburners were lit off. I wonder if this nasty stuff was designed
or found by accident? Do modern chemists have a pretty good idea what
a theoretical compound will do? Can we tell if something is going to
be stable before mixing it up? Just curious. It seems to me that with
physics and chemistry so intertwined that we should have a pretty good
idea what something should behave like before we make it. Not only
that though. We should be able to look at a need and have some idea
what kind of compound we need to fill that need. So just how well can
we predict these things today?
Thanks,
Eric

There are two issues regarding explosives:
1. the relative energy difference between the starting and final chemical
products;
2. How fast these changes occur, ie, the kinetics of the reaction.

(1) tells us if an explosion can happen at all-- the "delta H" of the
reaction *must* be negative, ie, exothermic, for an explosion to take place.
This can be predicted w/ great accuracy, from well-tabulated fundamental
data.
But, (1) is not sufficient.

If (1) says an explosion *can* occur, (2) will tell you if it *will* occur,
ie, does the energy change occur *quickly enough* to "rate" as an explosion.
(2), however, is the variable that is not so easy to predict.
An experienced explosion guy will have a good idea, but will never be able
to say for sure.
For example, picric acid is fine in solution, or moist. When solidified,
such as dried film in a flask, it is truly explosive. They only found that
out the hard way. Ditto nitro/TNT, other stuff.

A really good explosive material will have a very large delta H, occuring
very quickly. Anything else compromises the explosive value.

Interestingly, these very same concepts are at work at body temperature in
enzyme systems in human metabolism. Short of explosions, of course... well,
depending on what you ate....
--
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Eric R Snow" wrote in message
...
I saw a show on the history channel about the Texas City disaster
where a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate caught fire and eventually
blew up. Some people at the time had thought that this fire would have
just continued to burn without any explosion. This got me to thinking
about all the explosive compounds that have been discovered over time.
Undoubtably many people have been killed or injured by their latest
discovery. On a visit to the Air & Flight Museum in Seattle my brother
and I took a tour of a Blackbird. The one at Boeing is not an SR71. It
predates that model. But it's still the same basic plane, goes as
fast, and uses the same engines. A fuel was developed for these planes
that is very hard to ignite. This special fuel was used to cool the
plane before it was burned (the fuel, that is), did not vaporize
easily, and in fact would not ignite even when squirted into the
superheated air inside the engines when the plane was at speed. The
compression ratio inside the engine near top speed is 40 to 1 so you
can imagine how hot that air was. A chemical was used to ignite the
fuel. It combusted almost explosively whenever exposed to air. Each
engine was equipped with a 16 oz. cannister of this stuff and a 1 oz.
shot was used each time the engine ignited and each time the
afterburners were lit off. I wonder if this nasty stuff was designed
or found by accident? Do modern chemists have a pretty good idea what
a theoretical compound will do? Can we tell if something is going to
be stable before mixing it up? Just curious. It seems to me that with
physics and chemistry so intertwined that we should have a pretty good
idea what something should behave like before we make it. Not only
that though. We should be able to look at a need and have some idea
what kind of compound we need to fill that need. So just how well can
we predict these things today?
Thanks,
Eric

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:56:39 -0800, Eric R Snow
wrote:

I saw a show on the history channel about the Texas City disaster
where a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate caught fire and eventually
blew up. Some people at the time had thought that this fire would have
just continued to burn without any explosion.

No-one (still) understands the explosive behaviour of AN. It _shouldn't_
do what it clearly does on rare occasions. We only believe that it can
explode because all the unbelievers are now dead, killed by exploding
AN.

Just look at the hole an AN explosion made in the BASF plant at
Ludwigshafen.

Remember Charles "Bermuda Triangle" Berlitz? His disappearing "innocent
little freighter with a cargo of mere fertiliser" was carrying AN (which
of course he never mentioned). I think we can guess what happened
there....


On a visit to the Air & Flight Museum in Seattle my brother
and I took a tour of a Blackbird. The one at Boeing is not an SR71. It
predates that model.

It's an A-12, the first of the three blackbird models. Actually that
one's an M-21, the version built to carry the D-21 drone, but it's close
enough.

A chemical was used to ignite the
fuel. It combusted almost explosively whenever exposed to air.

Triethyl Borane. Burns with a green flame too

It's not _that_ bad. It's less irritable that AVPIN (isopropyl nitrate)
used as a monopropellant in some jet engine turbine starters. Even the
_exhaust_ from those is highly flammable!

Do modern chemists have a pretty good idea what
a theoretical compound will do?

It's got boron in it, so whatever it does, it will do it energetically.
Search for "boron" "zip fuel" and the "B70" bomber program.

Yes, chemists do everything on blasted screens these days, instead of
cowering behind them for safety. If you're a super-annuated chemist from
back in the days when chemists were _real_ lab chemists, chances are
that you're now unemployed or shovelling **** doing chemwaste cleanup as
a peon.

Eric R Snow wrote:

I saw a show on the history channel about the Texas City disaster
where a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate caught fire and eventually
blew up. Some people at the time had thought that this fire would have
just continued to burn without any explosion. This got me to thinking
about all the explosive compounds that have been discovered over time.
Undoubtably many people have been killed or injured by their latest
discovery.

Well, back in the middle ages, a lot of alchemists died in explosions
accompanied by fireballs and a strong odor of brimstone.

Demons, obviously.

On a visit to the Air & Flight Museum in Seattle my brother
and I took a tour of a Blackbird. The one at Boeing is not an SR71. It
predates that model. But it's still the same basic plane, goes as
fast, and uses the same engines. A fuel was developed for these planes
that is very hard to ignite. This special fuel was used to cool the
plane before it was burned (the fuel, that is), did not vaporize
easily, and in fact would not ignite even when squirted into the
superheated air inside the engines when the plane was at speed. The
compression ratio inside the engine near top speed is 40 to 1 so you
can imagine how hot that air was. A chemical was used to ignite the
fuel. It combusted almost explosively whenever exposed to air. Each
engine was equipped with a 16 oz. cannister of this stuff and a 1 oz.
shot was used each time the engine ignited and each time the
afterburners were lit off. I wonder if this nasty stuff was designed
or found by accident? Do modern chemists have a pretty good idea what
a theoretical compound will do? Can we tell if something is going to
be stable before mixing it up? Just curious. It seems to me that with
physics and chemistry so intertwined that we should have a pretty good
idea what something should behave like before we make it. Not only
that though. We should be able to look at a need and have some idea
what kind of compound we need to fill that need. So just how well can
we predict these things today?
Thanks,
Eric

In the late 1800 and early 1900's a lot of really good Physicists and Chemists
died due to carelessness or lack of knowledge at the time.

The Leyden jar killed more people than it should - and created a depression of research.
The great Chemists - discovering radiation - Curie - died from their
ignorance of radiation.

Dangers exist. Science and Engineering isn't an office job.

Martin

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Tove Momerathsson wrote:
Eric R Snow wrote:

I saw a show on the history channel about the Texas City disaster
where a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate caught fire and eventually
blew up. Some people at the time had thought that this fire would have
just continued to burn without any explosion. This got me to thinking
about all the explosive compounds that have been discovered over time.
Undoubtably many people have been killed or injured by their latest
discovery.


Well, back in the middle ages, a lot of alchemists died in explosions
accompanied by fireballs and a strong odor of brimstone.

Demons, obviously.


On a visit to the Air & Flight Museum in Seattle my brother
and I took a tour of a Blackbird. The one at Boeing is not an SR71. It
predates that model. But it's still the same basic plane, goes as
fast, and uses the same engines. A fuel was developed for these planes
that is very hard to ignite. This special fuel was used to cool the
plane before it was burned (the fuel, that is), did not vaporize
easily, and in fact would not ignite even when squirted into the
superheated air inside the engines when the plane was at speed. The
compression ratio inside the engine near top speed is 40 to 1 so you
can imagine how hot that air was. A chemical was used to ignite the
fuel. It combusted almost explosively whenever exposed to air. Each
engine was equipped with a 16 oz. cannister of this stuff and a 1 oz.
shot was used each time the engine ignited and each time the
afterburners were lit off. I wonder if this nasty stuff was designed
or found by accident? Do modern chemists have a pretty good idea what
a theoretical compound will do? Can we tell if something is going to
be stable before mixing it up? Just curious. It seems to me that with
physics and chemistry so intertwined that we should have a pretty good
idea what something should behave like before we make it. Not only
that though. We should be able to look at a need and have some idea
what kind of compound we need to fill that need. So just how well can
we predict these things today?
Thanks,
Eric

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

What did Ben Franklin say when he grabbed that key, during his "discovery"
of electricity? Gaaawwwdamn!

Bob Swinney


"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
In the late 1800 and early 1900's a lot of really good Physicists and
Chemists
died due to carelessness or lack of knowledge at the time.

The Leyden jar killed more people than it should - and created a
depression of research.
The great Chemists - discovering radiation - Curie - died from their
ignorance of radiation.

Dangers exist. Science and Engineering isn't an office job.

Martin

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Tove Momerathsson wrote:
Eric R Snow wrote:

I saw a show on the history channel about the Texas City disaster
where a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate caught fire and eventually
blew up. Some people at the time had thought that this fire would have
just continued to burn without any explosion. This got me to thinking
about all the explosive compounds that have been discovered over time.
Undoubtably many people have been killed or injured by their latest
discovery.


Well, back in the middle ages, a lot of alchemists died in explosions
accompanied by fireballs and a strong odor of brimstone.

Demons, obviously.


On a visit to the Air & Flight Museum in Seattle my brother
and I took a tour of a Blackbird. The one at Boeing is not an SR71. It
predates that model. But it's still the same basic plane, goes as
fast, and uses the same engines. A fuel was developed for these planes
that is very hard to ignite. This special fuel was used to cool the
plane before it was burned (the fuel, that is), did not vaporize
easily, and in fact would not ignite even when squirted into the
superheated air inside the engines when the plane was at speed. The
compression ratio inside the engine near top speed is 40 to 1 so you
can imagine how hot that air was. A chemical was used to ignite the
fuel. It combusted almost explosively whenever exposed to air. Each
engine was equipped with a 16 oz. cannister of this stuff and a 1 oz.
shot was used each time the engine ignited and each time the
afterburners were lit off. I wonder if this nasty stuff was designed
or found by accident? Do modern chemists have a pretty good idea what
a theoretical compound will do? Can we tell if something is going to
be stable before mixing it up? Just curious. It seems to me that with
physics and chemistry so intertwined that we should have a pretty good
idea what something should behave like before we make it. Not only
that though. We should be able to look at a need and have some idea
what kind of compound we need to fill that need. So just how well can
we predict these things today?
Thanks,
Eric

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

Yep -- Humphry Davy died inhaling oxides of nitrogen. Turned
out they weren't all as much fun as nitrous oxide.

Even the technique we learned in high school, of wafting vapors
toward the nose with the hand, is considered incredibly stupid
these days.

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
In the late 1800 and early 1900's a lot of really good Physicists and
Chemists
died due to carelessness or lack of knowledge at the time.

Triethyl Borane is also pyrophoric which means it spontaneously catches
fire on contact with air (it will even catch fire on contact with dry N2
which says something). Borane compounds are definitely not something you
want to be around. Old boron chemists all have a Parkinson like palsy
that is caused by the boron they've breathed screwing up their motor
neurons. I'm not surprised it would kick start a Blackbird engine. Two
puffs of it would probably blow the engine off the wing.

Most old time explosives like TNT and Nitroglycerine were found by
chance but these days chemists have a pretty good handle on what is
needed to cause an explosion (like an internal oxidizer on the same
molecule as the fuel) and have developed whole families of explosives /
solid rocket fuels (same stuff, just a rocket has a vent on it) with
very tightly controlled characteristics.

There are still surprises, though. I've heard that Triacetone
Triperoxide (TATP), beloved of terrorists because it's high energy, easy
to make and hard to detect, was originally discovered by a guy that was
working on developing industrial epoxies. Glad I wasn't in the lab when
they tested that.

By the way, I think Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO2) explosions are pretty well
understood these days. I don't remember the details, but it has to do
with the temperature and pressure getting high enough that the NO2
starts to break down, releasing O2 which reacts with the NH4.

Jim

Jim McGill wrote:

Most old time explosives like TNT and Nitroglycerine were found by
chance but these days chemists have a pretty good handle on what is
needed to cause an explosion
Jim

My understanding is that gun cotton was discovered before
nitroglycerine. It was not known if gun cotton was modified cotton or
if the cotton was adsorbing and holding the explosive. Someone
recommended an experiment using glycerine in place of the cotton. The
two being similar, but of course the glycerine has no adsorbing power.

Dan

"but it has to do
with the temperature and pressure getting high enough that the NO2 starts
to break down, releasing O2 which reacts with the NH4."

Yeah, sort of an abrupt dissassociation; and that free O2 reacts with
everything around it.

Bob Swinney.


"Jim McGill" wrote in message
...
Triethyl Borane is also pyrophoric which means it spontaneously catches
fire on contact with air (it will even catch fire on contact with dry N2
which says something). Borane compounds are definitely not something you
want to be around. Old boron chemists all have a Parkinson like palsy that
is caused by the boron they've breathed screwing up their motor neurons.
I'm not surprised it would kick start a Blackbird engine. Two puffs of it
would probably blow the engine off the wing.

Most old time explosives like TNT and Nitroglycerine were found by chance
but these days chemists have a pretty good handle on what is needed to
cause an explosion (like an internal oxidizer on the same molecule as the
fuel) and have developed whole families of explosives / solid rocket fuels
(same stuff, just a rocket has a vent on it) with very tightly controlled
characteristics.

There are still surprises, though. I've heard that Triacetone Triperoxide
(TATP), beloved of terrorists because it's high energy, easy to make and
hard to detect, was originally discovered by a guy that was working on
developing industrial epoxies. Glad I wasn't in the lab when they tested
that.

By the way, I think Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO2) explosions are pretty well
understood these days. I don't remember the details, Jim

Great reply, Dan!

I've always wondered, "Why glycerine"; and what specific properties does
glycerine have that makes it the best choice for nitration to this day? I
understand most anything can be nitrated but I often wonder why we still use
glycerine. It was readily availble in the 1860's; but I wonder if some
synthetic is available now that woud be as good, or better, than glycerine
for use in dynamite manufacture.

Bob Swinney
wrote in message
oups.com...

Jim McGill wrote:

Most old time explosives like TNT and Nitroglycerine were found by
chance but these days chemists have a pretty good handle on what is
needed to cause an explosion
Jim

My understanding is that gun cotton was discovered before
nitroglycerine. It was not known if gun cotton was modified cotton or
if the cotton was adsorbing and holding the explosive. Someone
recommended an experiment using glycerine in place of the cotton. The
two being similar, but of course the glycerine has no adsorbing power.

Dan

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:23:16 -0600, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Great reply, Dan!

I've always wondered, "Why glycerine"; and what specific properties does
glycerine have that makes it the best choice for nitration to this day? I
understand most anything can be nitrated but I often wonder why we still use
glycerine. It was readily availble in the 1860's; but I wonder if some
synthetic is available now that woud be as good, or better, than glycerine
for use in dynamite manufacture.

Bob Swinney

It's tri-functional and cheaper than dirt. Now that bio-diesel's big,
there's a glut of glycerine, a huge by-product. Dow just announced
closure of synthetic glycerine production except one plant in Europe.

There's probably a lot of chemists trying to find more uses for the
stuff right now.

Pete Keillor

wrote in message
roups.com...

Jim McGill wrote:

Most old time explosives like TNT and Nitroglycerine were found by
chance but these days chemists have a pretty good handle on what is
needed to cause an explosion
Jim

My understanding is that gun cotton was discovered before
nitroglycerine. It was not known if gun cotton was modified cotton or
if the cotton was adsorbing and holding the explosive. Someone
recommended an experiment using glycerine in place of the cotton. The
two being similar, but of course the glycerine has no adsorbing power.

Dan

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:38:18 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

In the late 1800 and early 1900's a lot of really good Physicists and Chemists
died due to carelessness or lack of knowledge at the time.

The Leyden jar killed more people than it should - and created a depression of research.
The great Chemists - discovering radiation - Curie - died from their
ignorance of radiation.

Dangers exist. Science and Engineering isn't an office job.

Martin


It still happens these days. Karen Wetterhahn died from dimethyl
mercury poisoning (this came up recently in the group, actually) due
to the researchers at Dartmouth not performing tests to find out
whether their gloves were any use at all. A rather sad death since it
wasn't due to a bad lab accident or failure to follow proper
procedure. Proper procedure was simply inadequate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn

---

http://www.FenrirOnline.com

Computer services, custom metal etching,
arts, crafts, and much more.

Like a number of scientists and engineers that died from exposure while
making the two WWII A bombs. So little was known in the new science of nuclear
that even the experts were careless. Some mistakes made and some were to save others.

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Fenrir Enterprises wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:38:18 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:


In the late 1800 and early 1900's a lot of really good Physicists and Chemists
died due to carelessness or lack of knowledge at the time.

The Leyden jar killed more people than it should - and created a depression of research.
The great Chemists - discovering radiation - Curie - died from their
ignorance of radiation.

Dangers exist. Science and Engineering isn't an office job.

Martin



It still happens these days. Karen Wetterhahn died from dimethyl
mercury poisoning (this came up recently in the group, actually) due
to the researchers at Dartmouth not performing tests to find out
whether their gloves were any use at all. A rather sad death since it
wasn't due to a bad lab accident or failure to follow proper
procedure. Proper procedure was simply inadequate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn

---

http://www.FenrirOnline.com

Computer services, custom metal etching,
arts, crafts, and much more.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

There's a book on nittroglycerine, history and manufacture circa
1920's, that I've got. Lots of other nitro esters have been developed,
none with the particular properties that nitroglycerine has and none so
cheap. Glycerine is/was basically a waste product from soap
manufacture, so was dirt cheap when dynamite manufacture began. Once
demand got to the point where it outstripped that source, synthetic
methods took over for glycerine production. As far as commercial
explosives are concerned, dynamite use has declined since the advent of
ANFO and slurries. They're much easier to handle in quarries, cheaper
and safer to store. History Channel just ran a rerun of their Modern
Marvels on dynamite, it touched on a few of those points.

As far as special properties, stability is one big plus(samples have
stayed stable for many years at room temperature), it doesn't evaporate
like a lot of other nitro esters, is relatively inert with regard to
reacting with metals and other substances and is relatively insensitive
compared with other compounds. Plus it's a lot cheaper to make than a
lot of other compounds. Also powerful for the amount of explosive
involved. Manufacture is fairly straightforward but not something you
set up in a populated area.

Stan

Being a chemist is actually still a pretty dangerous occupation. The
American Chemical Society publishes stats once a year and it's a rare
year when only one chemist or grad student is killed. Often it's people
doing research that stumble onto some new toxin or some nasty side
reaction that goes "BOOM". Not a terribly big field, so the actuarial
statistics are pretty ugly.

Just after I got my degree from U.W., Seattle, a grad student I knew was
killed by a major explosion that burned up most of the undergrad organic
lab. It was a series of errors, no one of which would have been bad, but
together were deadly. Poor guy was standing right by the hood when it
went and got a lung full of NO2, which instantly became nitric acid and
dissolved his lungs. Probably dead before he hit the floor but a nasty
way to go.

Mac (happy to be out of the lab and programing computers now)

"Jim McGill" wrote in message
...
Poor guy was standing right by the hood when it went and got a lung full
of NO2, which instantly became nitric acid and dissolved his lungs.
Probably dead before he hit the floor but a nasty way to go.

Unfortunately, I've had some exposure to victims of inhalation of caustic
substances.

It's _never_ "dead before he hit the floor". Rather, it's an excruciatingly
painful, slow death as the person - writhing in pain - slowly drowns in
his/her own body fluids and vomitus.

LLoyd

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:42:24 GMT, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
wrote:


"Jim McGill" wrote in message
...
Poor guy was standing right by the hood when it went and got a lung full
of NO2, which instantly became nitric acid and dissolved his lungs.
Probably dead before he hit the floor but a nasty way to go.

Unfortunately, I've had some exposure to victims of inhalation of caustic
substances.

It's _never_ "dead before he hit the floor". Rather, it's an excruciatingly
painful, slow death as the person - writhing in pain - slowly drowns in
his/her own body fluids and vomitus.

LLoyd


like most nerve gases, mustard gas, phosgene and so forth.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

I knew two lady chem teachers that moved away from chemical plants after loosing a husband.
They had worked in the plant, different lab.

Physics is not as dangerous, but when it gets going - it can be deadly.
Engineering can be dangerous - ever go into a blasted out tunnel ? and have it fall in ?

Real life is often tougher than the banker or shoe salesperson thinks.
The rascals are the insurance people - they keep the numbers and always charge more.

Martin

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Jim McGill wrote:
Being a chemist is actually still a pretty dangerous occupation. The
American Chemical Society publishes stats once a year and it's a rare
year when only one chemist or grad student is killed. Often it's people
doing research that stumble onto some new toxin or some nasty side
reaction that goes "BOOM". Not a terribly big field, so the actuarial
statistics are pretty ugly.

Just after I got my degree from U.W., Seattle, a grad student I knew was
killed by a major explosion that burned up most of the undergrad organic
lab. It was a series of errors, no one of which would have been bad, but
together were deadly. Poor guy was standing right by the hood when it
went and got a lung full of NO2, which instantly became nitric acid and
dissolved his lungs. Probably dead before he hit the floor but a nasty
way to go.

Mac (happy to be out of the lab and programing computers now)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----