| Pages:
1
2 |
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1012
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Reactive Liners
I have questions on reactive shape charge liners that I think will turn into a good discussion. Some use Ni, Ti, Hf, Al, and Ta. Others use a
combination of PTFE and metal powders.
Is there another fluorine containing molecule that has more fluorine per mass than PTFE and is available (or somewhat available) or is denser than
PTFE's 2.0sg??
The paper I found uses around 77 percent PTFE and 23 Percent Al for a reactive liner. The drawback is the density is so low that penetration is
sacrificed. I was thinking if the Al was replaced by Ti.
Are heats of formation from fluorine oxidation and different metals easily found? The goal being to achieve the highest density jet, and highest
energy of oxidation of the liner material per gram.
Its a bonus if the products can further react with crushed SiO2 from sand or rock....
If I find some answers to my own questions I will update... but my goal is the theoretical maximum damage of igneous (SiO2) based rock; and reactive
liners react once they have penetrated into the rock...
[Edited on 8-5-2018 by MineMan]
|
|
|
violet sin
International Hazard
Posts: 1482
Registered: 2-9-2012
Location: Daydreaming of uraninite...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Good
|
|
I like reading the stuff from you energetics fellows, but know very little my self. That being said: Is this in addition to a copper cone, or by
itself, doing more of a thermal lance type thing? Sorry I have nothing to add as far as your questions.
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1012
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Huh, really thought this would have become a popular discussion. Anyway, from an experimentation stand point the challenge is that PTFE seems to need
pressing and sintering to create a cone, quite the challenge. Perhaps the mixture can be held between two thin plastic cones.
Another difficult part is the sizing of the PTFE and Al... if it is too fine, it can react before penetration. The only values I have found so far
are 28um PTFE and 8um spherical Al... definitely not standard sizes for these materials, as most PTFE powder seems to be 1.6um. Perhaps larger Al can
be used to compensate for the smaller oxidizer size. Maybe these powdered mixtures can be mixed and cast with epoxy. The results from these charges
are too amazing to pass up, the jet, including kinetic energy has a TNT equivalence of 7.7! So, 100 grams of this high energy jet could be equivalent
to 770grams of TNT... buried inside the target!! Truly a shining star for demolition work!
I see Hf, Ta, and Zr as too exotic, not to mention dangerous to test. Al, Ni, And Ti seem like the best metallic fuels for this from my perspective,
maybe Zinc also... and Si being a possibility, but most likely inferior to Al.
My other thought is a cone made from tungsten and graphite, which on impact should form tungsten carbide... a fantastically dense and hard material!
of course at 7km/s materials act hydro-dynamically and hardness does not matter... but the density of the tungsten should keep the jet well below that
speed, the other advantage is the enormous vapor temperature of tungsten carbide, upon impact it should not vaporize, as much....
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
Look into alloying processes that are exothermic, perhaps?
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/technical-documents/articles/ma...
Nickel-Aluminum layered cone? Reasonably dense, adds a few more joules...
They don't show Nickel-Iron here, but that releases energy too, probably not self sustaing though.. The original Pyrenol underwater cutting torch
thermite formula used both Ni and Fe oxides for this reason.
(Edit)
Looks like someone working for Haliburton had a similar idea to OP- Not trying for behind armor effect, intending to use the additional energy to
modify the behavior of perf guns and the initial flow of fluids back into the fired perf gun down hole carrier.
They actually trialed depleted Uranium as an SC liner? Of course they did... Wouldn't you? As long as the DU particles don't end up in MY back yard?
This patent shows up in a bunch of sites, blogs, etc. by anti fracking people because of the inclusion of Uranium in the examples.
Attachment: Fracking perforator .pdf (123kB)
This file has been downloaded 497 times
| Quote: |
[0013] In one embodiment, the shaped charge component
may be formed from or may contain a reactive material such
as a pyrophoric material, a combustible material, a Mixed
Rare Earth (MRE) alloy or the like including, but not limited
to, zinc, aluminum, bismuth, tin, calcium, cerium, cesium,
hafnium, iridium, lead, lithium, palladium, potassium,
sodium, magnesium, titanium, zirconium, cobalt, chromium,
iron, nickel, tantalum, depleted uranium, mischmetal or the
like or combination, alloys, carbides or hydrides of these
materials. In certain embodiments, the shaped charge component
may be formed from the above mentioned materials in
various powdered metal blends. These powdered metals may
also be mixed with oxidizers to form exothermic pyrotechnic
compositions, such as thermites. The oxidizers may include,
but are not limited to, boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide,
chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide,
iron(II, III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, lead(II, III, IV) oxide and
the like. The thermites may also contain fluorine compounds
as additives, such as Teflon. The thermites may include nanothermites
in which the reacting constituents are nanoparticles.
...
[0032] The secondary pressure generators may be formed
as all or a part of a charge case such as charge case 128
including as a coating on the charge case, a liner such as liner
130 or the explosive within a shaped charge such as shaped
charge 126. Preferably, the secondary pressure generators are
formed from a reactive material such as a pyrophoric materials,
a combustible material, a Mixed Rare Earth (MRE)
alloy or the like including, but not limited to, zinc, aluminum,
bismuth, tin, calcium, cerium, cesium, hafnium, iridium,
lead, lithium, palladium, potassium, sodium, magnesium,
titanium, zirconium, cobalt, chromium, iron, nickel, tantalum,
depleted uranium, mischmetal or the like or combination,
alloys, carbides or hydrides of these materials. In certain
embodiments, the secondary pressure generators may be
formed from the above mentioned materials in various powdered
metal blends. These powdered metals may also be
mixed with oxidizers to form exothermic pyrotechnic compositions,
such as thermites. The oxidizers may include, but
are not limited to, boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(
III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron
(II, III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, lead(II, III, IV) oxide and the
like. The thermites may also contain fluorine compounds as
additives, such as Teflon. The thermites may include nanothermites
in which the reacting constituents are nanoparticles.
The reaction generated by the secondary pressure generators
may manifest itself through a thermal effect, a
pressure effect or both. In either case, the reaction causes an
increase in the pressure within perforating gun 100, the near
well bore region or both which counteracts the forces created
by the dynamic underbalance condition in the well bore
|
[Edited on 5-10-2018 by Bert]
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1012
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Ok great tip on the alloying energy, now i know the term to search for.
That patent casts a REALLY wide net... but the thing is another patent could be filed if an easier manufacturing method was obtained... hence if there
is a fluorine thermoplastic, the metal powder could be added in and the cone could be injection molded, perhaps!
I doubt they really intent to only use a one to two of those metals and oxidizers, pretty crappy that the patent office allows this, it should only if
they provide test data for ALL of the materials they use... why not just say basically any metal or transition metal on the periodic table.
I think the best combination would be a Ti, Zr, or Hf hydride with PTFE... that would be unbelievable! As it would produce hydrogen gas.. and that
hydrogen gas could further react into HF...
Perf guns are out of my relm  , at least for now  . No doubt this technology would be good for demolition of buildings and bridges to
|
|
|
simply RED
Hazard to Others
Posts: 209
Registered: 18-8-2005
Location: noitacoL
Member Is Offline
Mood: booM
|
|
MineMan, could you provide the sources (publications) for this? How is TNT equivalence of 7.7 measured? PTFE/Al has energy of 10 MJ/kg. This is 2.5
TNT eq. Even pure Al has 30 MJ/kg, still not 7.7. Not to mention that TNT is capable of fuel-air effects if confinement is presented.
-------------
"The paper I found uses around 77 percent PTFE and 23 Percent Al for a reactive liner. The drawback is the density is so low that penetration is
sacrificed. I was thinking if the Al was replaced by Ti. he only values I have found so far are 28um PTFE and 8um spherical Al... definitely not
standard sizes for these materials, as most PTFE powder seems to be 1.6um. Perhaps larger Al can be used to compensate for the smaller oxidizer size.
Maybe these powdered mixtures can be mixed and cast with epoxy. The results from these charges are too amazing to pass up, the jet, including kinetic
energy has a TNT equivalence of 7.7!"
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead...
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1012
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The paper is: Demolition Mechanism and Behavior of Shaped Chargewith Reactive Liner, Jianguang Xiao et al., 2016
Hi Red, I suppose I better respond to my own thread if I want discussions  !
Your right, Al only gives around 30MJ/Kg when it oxidizes, but when if fluronates it does give off more energy, the value I don't know... maybe one of
our resident chemists can answer?
This would be excluding TNT's FAEs, equivalent TNT comparisons always do. For this one, it seems that they are calculating the equivalence based on
the blasted radius of the rock target, (runway in this case)... so not pure energy or MJ to MJ of course. Here are a few quotes from the paper to
further explain.
"As listed in Table 2, the TNT equivalence factor for reactive
materials calculated by Equation (5) is 3.41, 7.77, and
5.51, respectively. However, theoretical energy contained in
Al/PTFE (26.5/73.5wt-%) is just 14151 J/g
(about four
times of TNT)."
"The relatively larger value estimated in this
paper could be caused by neglecting the kinetic energy
contained in the shaped charge jet, which also does much
damage to these targets. When the average velocity of
a 1 kg jet varies from 2000 to 6000 m/s
, the kinetic energy
could reach 0.6–5.4 times TNT equivalence. The total of kinetic
and chemical energy tends to be consistent with theoretical
calculation results."
|
|
|
simply RED
Hazard to Others
Posts: 209
Registered: 18-8-2005
Location: noitacoL
Member Is Offline
Mood: booM
|
|
Seems interesting, I've seen for the first time TNT eq to be calculated based on the blasted radius of rock target...
Calculating those energies is easy, anyway, they already did it: 14151 J/g. Don't have time to check if it is correct now. From experimental data I
recall it is about 10 MJ/kg, so values are close.
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead...
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1012
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2018/im...
Nickel Al is hard to beat when there is excess oxygen.... but honestly there are a lot of senerios where O2 is not available ( such as piercing an
airplane skin).
PTFE and mixtures look to be the best... the problem is all of the real energetic metals are light in wieght. And the two best contenders (boron and
silicon hydride) are gaseous and liquid...
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1705
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
No details but perhaps of interest.
Real Nickel Aluminum
https://youtube.com/watch?v=-5prFnWiUFU
|
|
|
Dornier 335A
Hazard to Others
Posts: 231
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: Northern Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The lanthanides are quite dense! They also react explosively with PTFE, just as well as magnesium. As a bonus, they emit nice colours too when they
burn.
I would suggest erbium since it is one of the densest at 9 g/cc. A 69/31 mixture with PTFE has a pretty high theoretical max density (4.6 g/cc) and
contains 4.5 MJ/kg (about the same as TNT). That's a whopping 21 MJ/dm3!
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Not really what you are looking for but Zr is already extensively used in shaped charges.
Not the liner itself but an additional ring around the edge of the liner.
I'd be curious to know if this gives a real boost for armor penetration.
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1012
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What does this additional ring do??
|
|
|
simply RED
Hazard to Others
Posts: 209
Registered: 18-8-2005
Location: noitacoL
Member Is Offline
Mood: booM
|
|
Adding some incendiary effect, not really quite effective. More likely adding price to the warhead.
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead...
|
|
|
nitro-genes
International Hazard
Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
Isn't the dragons breath munition zirconium based as well? How much of the burning zirconium would actually make it through the jet channel when
present as a ring at the base of the liner? Is it somehow drawn in by the gasflow created from the charge? Intuitively I'd say Adding the zirconcium
as a hollow stem on top of the cone instead of a ring at the base would be more effective. What kind of behind armour effects would a ring of cheap
elemental sulfur produce?
[Edited on 17-1-2019 by nitro-genes]
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I always thought dragon's breath ammo was phosphorus based. Maybe it just became so popular everybody tried to make their own flavour.
About Zr used as a ring at the base of the liner Simply Red has perfectly expressed my own thoughts and doubts.
I mostly doubt it has any after armor effects: we've all seen what happens to the jet when the liner is not perfectly aligned. So I'm thinking
incendiary as well. It's probably a lot more effective at damaging the equipment outside the tank.
I say tank because I saw that on a dual / tandem charge.
This is a very interesting thread. I've been curious about shaped charges uses to finish oil wells ever since I first heard about it.
I thought of the advantages of mixing PTFE with an OB positive EM but making a liner out of it never crossed my mind.
[Edited on 17-1-2019 by Herr Haber]
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1012
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes. I was really hesitant about posting this. I didn’t want others to see my ideas and possible take it... I am putting my living on the line...
But I also know others might have better ideas than I. So I said. What the hell. Yes reactive materials/fragments are 5x more effective... than
standard. They destroy aircraft bodies like no tomorrow.
Yes. I plan to apply this to perf guns.... for oil and gas.
[Edited on 18-1-2019 by MineMan]
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1012
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Moderators. At my request can we make this topic/page only visible to members??
|
|
|
simply RED
Hazard to Others
Posts: 209
Registered: 18-8-2005
Location: noitacoL
Member Is Offline
Mood: booM
|
|
- reactive materials/fragments are 5x more effective
Still no weapon uses such? (OK, Hellfire AGM-114N MAC does, but only to create TB effect). Do you know any other piece of ordnance to use such
materials?
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead...
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1012
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I don’t know the names of ordances that do, but I am certain some do.... there are reasons I am sure why it is not publicized (classified). Did you
see the link to the PP I attached for Ni/Al.
The military reactive liners I believe are composed of THV and Hf or Ta. High densities and impact velocities of 2000m/s results in a type of
detonation.. 3.4km/s 8Gpa. It’s impressive to say the least.
Surface to air missle sand air to air would be the ordances that use this material. As it will do little damage to a tank or thick armored vehical.
But missle bodies and aluminum wings, it cuts them in a indescrible manner.
[Edited on 24-1-2019 by MineMan]
|
|
|
simply RED
Hazard to Others
Posts: 209
Registered: 18-8-2005
Location: noitacoL
Member Is Offline
Mood: booM
|
|
Source of the picture, Ref [20] ?
Aren't reactive fragments too big (too many grams and volume) to be used in anti-air missile?
One more thing to add, the transition from the lab to the serial weapon is an incredibly difficult process, even more difficult that it ever was -
nowadays.
I do not believe there are secret conventional weapons in existence (except small series for the special forces).
[Edited on 25-1-2019 by simply RED]
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead...
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I again share the same doubts as Simply Red especially for AA missiles.
On the other hand, it's a perfect way to make sure the enemy doesnt put his hands on sensitive tech like that guidance section in addition to self
destruct.
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Just a thought, I'm certain I'm not the first to have that idea:
Gauss gun + NiAl projectile = interesting terminal ballistic effects
Edit: Yup, Google confirms that others have had this idea. And worst !
[Edited on 25-1-2019 by Herr Haber]
|
|
|
nitro-genes
International Hazard
Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
Really nice application of reactive liners seems the vulcan charge, developed by Dr. Sidney Alford. IIRC, it uses a reactive sintered magnesium liner
to safely dispose of ordnance, like mines. Really brilliant, love this guy, on YT there are some seminars given by him, his story at this pyrotechnic
conference was especially funny, it was like I heard him talking about my own earliest adventures in the world of pyrotechnics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRp5tPKn6JE
What I find really curious is why the magnesium liner doesn't induce an immediate detonation of the ordnance to be disposed of, I mean, there is such
a huge amount of energy transfered to the charge in a very focussed way, why does it only deflagerate?
--> https://explosives.net/product/vulcan/
[Edited on 25-1-2019 by nitro-genes]
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1012
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
No. As I mentioned Ta/THV has a density greater than lead...
I will provide a source for the picture if the mods make this private... please understand I Invested a lot of time into this.
Yes nitro. He is an interesting gent. One whom i might advise a company to compete against him.
Are you sure nitro it’s not just a magnesium liner?? To be reactive it must contain a reaction, intermatallic or otherwise. Molten zinc is
hyerglycolic with TNT
[Edited on 27-1-2019 by MineMan]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
