Searching for a new family of high energy explosives by introducing N atoms, <i>N</i>-oxides, and NO<sub>2</sub> into a cage adamantane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A design strategy that including N atoms, N-oxides, and nitro groups into a cage azaadamantane at the same time was used to design 10 polyazaoxyadamantanes (PAOAs) and eight polynitroazaoxyadamantanes (PNTAOAs). First, four stable azaadamantanes were built by replacing the tertiary C atoms of an adamantane with N atoms. Then, 10 PAOAs were designed by introducing one to four N-oxides into the four azaadamantanes. After that, eight PNTAOAs were formed when the H atoms of four N-oxide-substituted azaadamantanes were replaced with different numbers of nitro groups. Finally, their heats of formation, densities, detonation properties, and impact sensitivity were estimated by using density functional theory. Among the eight PNTAOAs, seven compounds had better detonation performances than CL-20, the outstanding, novel, high-energy, and relatively insensitive cage explosive. Two compounds had higher detonation performance and lower sensitivity than CL-20 and HMX, suggesting that their overall performances are outstanding and they may be considered as the potential candidate of high-energy explosives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".