22°» =M.C. Lea—Explosive Properties of Methyl Nitrate. 
Art. V.—LEeplosive Properties of Methyl Nitrate; by M. 
CaRrEY Lea, Philadelphia. 
sulting in the death of Mr. Chapman. This, and the remarks 
recently published on the subject by M. Girard, the well-known 
French chemist (an abstract of which lately appeared in the 
pages of this Journal), leads me to make a few observations 
on this subject. 
When I first attempted to prepare this substance by the only 
method published up to that time, I felt convinced that the 
chances were greatly in favor of an accident, though no warn- 
ing was given in the text books. I therefore wore a mask, and 
operated cautiously with moderate quantities in a very large 
flask. A tremendous explosion followed, in which the flask 
entirely disappeared ; no fragment of the body could be found. 
I then tried the use of urea in the same modified manner which 
I had proposed in the case of ethyl nitrate. The operation 
was entirely successful, and was many times repeated without 
any trouble or difficulty. And it is, I presume, in this way 
that it is now commercially manufactured on a large scale. 
Within the last few days I have made the following experi- 
ments on its explosive properties. 
Contrary to what has been stated, I do not find it liable to 
explode by percussion. Some extra thick filtering paper was 
saturated with it, was placed on a piece of iron, and forcibly 
struck with a hammer. This was repeated a dozen times, until 
the paper was broken to pieces, without explosion. 
Five or six drops were placed in a test tube; this was placed 
in a deep cup, and a little aleohol poured into the cup and in- 
fl . In this way the flames played chiefly on the surface 
of the test tube above the liquid, thus preventing its —s 
evaporation at low temperatures. A slight explosion followed, 
which did not break the test tube. 
When ethyl nitrate was similarly treated, it quickly evapo- 
rated without explosion. 
Twenty measured minims of methyl nitrate were then placed 
in the tube, and the experiment repeated. A moderate explo- 
sion followed, breaking the tube. ; 
‘he same quantity as in the first experiment, five or sIx 
drops, was placed in the test tube, and dry sand added more 
than enough to absorb the liquid. The heat was applied in 
the same way as before, but the explosion was not greater than 
without the sand, except that the tube was broken. 
When poured on filtering paper and inflamed, it burns 
quietly with a peculiar livid flame. 
