Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Am I missing something?

Am I missing something?

fvcked - 20-5-2004 at 16:13

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/inde...

Im pretty sure that if you add sulfuric acid to an explosive it doesnt make it more powerful,. I am correct in thinking this right? And sorry if this is in the wrong forum, and also sorry if its not a topic thats allowed.

Geomancer - 20-5-2004 at 17:29

Apparently CNN's audience is unaware that chemistry involves more than simply creating mixtures of chemicals. Score one for US education. I suspect the acid was simply for producing conventional explosives, although it is possible that they intended to disperse it explosively, most likely with the intent to maim rather than kill.

The_Davster - 20-5-2004 at 18:15

Ah media, provokes the sheeple with incorrect information.

unicorn - 21-5-2004 at 03:41

Here's one possible chain of events:

News comes in "sulphuric acid can be used to increase explosive yields"

Investigative journalist "sulphuric acid can be bought off the shelves as drain cleaner!!!"

Government ban OTC sulphuric acid.

vulture - 21-5-2004 at 06:07

Sulfuric acid as a blistering agent...

That would make belgium one of the largest chemical weapon producers in the world! What a load of bullcrap.

DDTea - 21-5-2004 at 06:32

My logic has always been that nothing is a "Chemical Weapon" unless it is weaponized. That is to say, DFP is not necessarily a chemical weapon. I mean, how can you try to pass off a little tincture of the stuff as a Weapon of Mass Destruction? On the other hand, 2 Liters of DFP loaded into a mortar shell is a Chemical Weapon. Similarly, you wouldn't call some Uranium a "Nuclear Weapon." Not even U-235. But you would call U-235 in a sphere of explosives with highly-coordinated electronics a Nuclear Weapon.

The same applies with Sulfuric Acid. Stored by the gallon in plastic containers for cleaning toilet bowls, it is not a weapon. Used in Chemical Reactions, it's not a weapon. But put an explosive charge next to it, and you have a Chemical Weapon--albeit, a crude one. The Department of Homeland Defense does categorize H2SO4 as a "Toxic Industrial Material," a harmful chemical whose primary purpose is legitimate (e.g.: TEPP, Phosgene, Chlorine, Dimethyl Sulfate).

[Edited on 5-21-04 by Samosa]

vulture - 21-5-2004 at 10:38

IMHO, unless diluted, sulfuric acid is much too viscous to achieve satisfactory dispersion.

The_Davster - 21-5-2004 at 14:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Samosa
But you would call U-235 in a sphere of explosives with highly-coordinated electronics a Nuclear Weapon.

IIRC: In a fission device using U-235, the "gun type" design is used, not the implosion type. The gun type is used because it is cheaper and easier. The implosion type is only used with Pu-239 because the gun type design will not work with plutonium.

FritzHaber - 22-5-2004 at 03:22

Quote:

Originally posted by rogue chemist

Quote:

Originally posted by Samosa
But you would call U-235 in a sphere of explosives with highly-coordinated electronics a Nuclear Weapon.

its not reasonable to apply 'gun assembly' method for 239Pu, as the chain reaction with Pu appears too quickly.
but it doesn't mean you can't configure a NW with 235U in an implosion device.
actually, the soviet/russian MRV warheads for their RS-16 - RS-22 ICBM were equipped by triple-phase, 235U-boosted implosion fissile initiation, yielding 0,75 - 1,0 MT.

The_Davster - 22-5-2004 at 09:51

Wow, my bad. I had used info that I had got on the building of Little Boy and Fat Man, I really should have thought of more recent technological advantages.

DDTea - 22-5-2004 at 12:17

Wow. Way to miss the point...but a very interesting way, no doubt