fvcked
Harmless
Posts: 45
Registered: 11-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: Groggy
|
|
Am I missing something?
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
Hazard to Others
Posts: 228
Registered: 21-12-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
Ah media, provokes the sheeple with incorrect information. 
|
|
|
unicorn
Harmless
Posts: 15
Registered: 27-7-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lamp-post
|
|
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
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
DDTea
National Hazard
Posts: 940
Registered: 25-2-2003
Location: Freedomland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Degenerate
|
|
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
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
IMHO, unless diluted, sulfuric acid is much too viscous to achieve satisfactory dispersion.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
| 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
Harmless
Posts: 16
Registered: 14-5-2004
Location: europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| 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.
|
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. |
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
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 940
Registered: 25-2-2003
Location: Freedomland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Degenerate
|
|
Wow. Way to miss the point...but a very interesting way, no doubt
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
