Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Unconventional Shaped Charges


	Not logged in [Login ]

FAQ

Member List

Today's Posts Forum Stats

Stats

Back to:

Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Special Topics » Energetic Materials » Unconventional Shaped Charges

Printable Version

Pages: 1 .. 25 26 27 28 29 .. 68

Lambda

National Hazard

Posts: 566
Registered: 15-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: Euforic Online

posted on 25-2-2010 at 01:52

Quote: Originally posted by Ritter

Here are 3 US patent numbers dealing with the manufacture of shaped charges:

3034393
3924510
4250792

All 3 Patents renamed in PDF-format in one RARed-file attached:

Attachment: Patents.rar (1.3MB)
This file has been downloaded 954 times

Lambda

devongrrl

Hazard to Self

Posts: 91
Registered: 28-7-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: Nucleophilic

posted on 26-2-2010 at 02:12

Nitro-genes:

In your video you used 60 degree angle on your cones but I read in Cooper: Explosives Engineering that the supposed optimum cone angle for a CSC is 42 degrees.

Just curious why you used 60 degs ?

nitro-genes

International Hazard

Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline

posted on 27-2-2010 at 04:24

Well, one reason I used 50-60 degree cones is that the larger angle makes spinning them more easy and with less rounds of reannealing the copper, which negatively affects the properties of the metal.

A second reason is that, although I was aware of the 42 degree optimum, there seems to be little difference in penetrating power between 42 and 60 degrees, as is illustrated by the graph I posted halfway at page 22 of this thread.

A third reason is that 60 degrees liners yield jets with slightly more mass and less extreme velocity gradients, which makes them less sensitive to early particulation by flaws in charge precision. Hemisperical liners are even less affected by charge presicion, probably largely due to the same reasons.

Thanks again for posting the article btw, I knew spun formed liners introduced spin to the jet, but I never would have guessed that it would be spinning at over 800,000 rpm!!

I wonder how effective reannealing the finished liner one more time is to compeletly eliminate this effect...

grndpndr

National Hazard

Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 28-3-2010 at 01:41

Thats an interesting phenomena.We all know CSC's fired from a rifled gun cuts down on the penetration of the CSC.Witnes the effort expended to prevent a rifled gun from imparting this spin
to the CSC warhead.Normally the needed spin to stabilize the warhead is imparted by pop out fins after negating the riflings twist.My understanding is the high rotational forces cause the jet to dissipate quite rapidly rendering the CSC warhead largely ineffective. Im not aware of the rate of twist of a 75-106mmRR,
a 105mm howitzer, or HV tank gun but its far less that 800,000 RPM! A 30-06 which should mimick the spin of an artillery piece or double that of a Recoiless Rifle projectile is less than 180,000 RPM! FWIW?! IF a stationary spun liner imparts 800,000 RPM to the CSC pen jet that would from all ive read concerning rifled HEAT warheads render the jet relatively ineffective.Is there any way to confirm the theory of a stationary spun liner imparting that kind(800,000 RPM) of CSC jet spin? Resources? Patents,published papers? I havent been able to link up with any of the sources mentioned in the last few pages.If It were discovered by the military/industry that spun liners did indeed cause a CSC jet to rotate @800,000 rpm the jet would obviously lose its cohesiveness in short order with accompanying limited penetration/stand-off and any military interest?

[Edited on 28-3-2010 by grndpndr]

grndpndr

National Hazard

Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 5-4-2010 at 17:51

I have serious doubts that forming a CSC liner by spinning could cause any appreciale spin of the CSC jet by itself.
Resources,patents,professional phd dissertations describing the phenomena?!

grndpndr

National Hazard

Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 7-4-2010 at 05:09

Also fascinated by the 'penetration' of the "AL billet" page 26.
'Unique' target effects to say the least!?

Not to mention the fascinating billet dissection, very unusual-varied target 'metal' effects.

[Edited on 7-4-2010 by grndpndr]

NUKE

Harmless

Posts: 17
Registered: 21-2-2006
Location: Slovenia
Member Is Offline

Mood: Detonating with the highest order

posted on 23-4-2010 at 05:48

Since all the "rogue"/radical pages are down/unavailable for one reason or another. It's my best bet to post here. At least someone remotely interested in the subject might find this information useful.

So... Here it is!

Project: Construct and detonate conical copper lined shaped charge and use it in a way that uses it's full potential.

Charge:

Total weigth: 3.7kg

Main components of charge:

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Liner:

Material: Copper
Outer 2r: 89.5mm
Thickness: 2.5mm
Conus: 60°
Heigth: 78mm
Lathed from solid copper rod (90mm 2r; length: 85mm;4.9kg)
Mass of liner: ~430g

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Casing:

Material: Steel
Length: 201mm
Thickness: 6.3mm
Outer 2r: 102.6mm
Inner 2r: 89.9mm
Inner 2r (few mm on bottom of the pipe): 89.5mm
Pipe was solid piece of steel it didn't contain any stitches.

First the liner and casing were put into home electric oven and temperature was let to rise to around 190°C.

Silicone based hotglue was poured all around the bottom side of hot casing which had been lathed for liner to fit in perfectly. Liner was placed on piece of wood with conus upwards and casing was pressed on top of it. Both parts were allowed to cool down on room temperature.

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Another layer of hotglue was used on bottom of the charge afterwards.

Like that weren't enough additional layer of epoxy was added on the inside bottom of the charge.

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Standoff "legs":

Material: Steel
2r: 4mm
Total length: 330mm
Length below bottom of charge: 270mm
Method of fixing on casing: First cyanoacrylate glue (for fixing centered positions), Then two metal clamps and 2-component epoxy resin.

Coupling of legs:

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Curing of epoxy (T=30-40°C):

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Explosive filling:

1501.2g NG/PETN

867.5g NG
633.7g PETN

57.79% NG
42.21% PETN

Density: 1.6g/cm*3+

VOD: Around 8000m/s

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/Rogueweeken...

Final PETN batch added.

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/Rogueweeken...

It looked absolutely delicious! The sheer look of it increased seliva volume in my mouth

. Thermomether played no other role than mixing.

Initiating apparatus:

Booster:

PETN 7.8g
NG 6.2g
RDX 0.8g

Booster holder: Piece of crafted "small particle relatively hard" polystyrene.

Mixture was placed in test tube.

Detonator:

Compound: AgN3, PETN in a drinking straw.

Method of ignition: Electrical

Huge ammounts of effort were made for perfect centric placement of initiating devices.

Charge filled with above mentioned mixture:

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Target:

Steel rod

Length: 422mm
2r: 110-120mm
Weigth: ~39kg

Various pictures of charge before detonation:

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

This one is rather artistic.

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Blends perfectly in it's natural habitat

.

In total charge penetrated 42.2cm of steel target and ~15cm of tree stump underneath.

I wonder what would it do to a armored vehicular property...

Charge luckily exceeded my expectations which was rather low only 43cm of steel.

I declare the project to be a complete success!

hissingnoise

International Hazard

Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

posted on 23-4-2010 at 08:11

Great piece of work Nuke! And well documented too. . .

gnitseretni

Hazard to Others

Posts: 282
Registered: 5-1-2007
Location: Colombia
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 23-4-2010 at 08:36

Showoff!

Just kidding

Great stuff Nuke!

franklyn

International Hazard

Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 23-4-2010 at 22:13

Looks formidable but well within known performance parameters
from the data you supplied
9 cm cone diameter
27 cm standoff
42 cm penetration ( 4.67 X caliber )

You can get by using less explosive if the charge is conical instead
cylindrical and filling the space between it and the casing with wet
sand to provide inertial tamping which will improve performance
somewhat.

P.S.
Having the initiator in contact with the main charge while you
remain in proximity is not safe practice. For the purposes of
photography an inert look alike would serve as well.

.

NUKE

Harmless

Posts: 17
Registered: 21-2-2006
Location: Slovenia
Member Is Offline

Mood: Detonating with the highest order

posted on 24-4-2010 at 07:33

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

P.S.
Having the initiator in contact with the main charge while you
remain in proximity is not safe practice. For the purposes of
photography an inert look alike would serve as well.

.

Yes I'm aware how an ammount of explosive could be reduced.

Regarding the safe practice: I triple checked on the whereabouts of other cable endings. I doubt taking pictures is all that more dangerous than inserting a booster with bare hands.

franklyn

International Hazard

Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 24-4-2010 at 15:57

Quote: Originally posted by NUKE

I doubt taking pictures is all that more dangerous than inserting a booster with bare hands..

It's not what's under your control that matters, what will kill you is
what is not in your control. You are situated under trees , who is
to say something won't drop out of one straight onto your setup.

Also, animals in the wild are a particular risk. I know of no other
instance in which a bird or a squirrel can get you killed. Swerving
a car to avoid deer perhaps.

.

csm9420

Harmless

Posts: 5
Registered: 27-4-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 27-4-2010 at 21:17

Quote: Originally posted by gnitseretni

Made a LSC but didn't work as well as I'd hoped. It was made from copper sheet that was I believe only .025" thick, so not thick. May be that was the reason? Used 50g PETN. (amount in pic was 100g. Mixed 87g PETN with 13% vaseline)

did You made your PETN plasticized by vaseline or did you used something els?

hissingnoise

International Hazard

Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

posted on 28-4-2010 at 02:45

Have a look at NUKE'S excellent post above.
The filler for his shaped-charge was a PETN/NGl mixture around 80/20.

gnitseretni

Hazard to Others

Posts: 282
Registered: 5-1-2007
Location: Colombia
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 28-4-2010 at 05:56

Quote: Originally posted by csm9420

Quote: Originally posted by gnitseretni

did You made your PETN plasticized by vaseline or did you used something els?

The post you quoted clearly says vaseline doesn't it?

grndpndr

National Hazard

Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 9-5-2010 at 02:09

Whats the pink stuff inside the steel casing'Target'?

Ths copper cone looks great, JUST like surplus from a carl gustav 84mm demo heat round.Funny the targets dont resemble steel at all.

Steel,even mild steel has a particular way of reacting to an HE,shattering w.sharp edges w/accompanying spalling etc.I dont see that,why?You fill up a steel casing with some unknown pink substance and claim some 40plus centimeters of penetration of a pink steel target plus 15centimeters of a stump.OOH/Ahhh
Im suitably impressed. OK! Try again with steel target plate next time.This posts worse that the first FX effort.

I spent years in the service as an antitank gunner/as well as learning
improvised AT DEVICES, never seen anything resembling the target or target effects you or the previous poster have presented from HEAT ,SQUASH head or kinetic energy projectiles let alone PINK/sometimes white(nonmetallic) 'steel'.
Obvious what this isnt given the half concealed pics many other inconsistencies.

[Edited on 9-5-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 9-5-2010 by grndpndr]

Jimbo Jones

Hazard to Others

Posts: 102
Registered: 15-10-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 9-5-2010 at 04:14

I don’t think it’s nice to shit on somebody hard work, especially for such a nonsense’s. What pink stuff???? The color inside the target is just the melted cooper from the cone. Add the effect from the photo camera and presto you have the answers. If you really have “spent years in the service as an antitank gunner/as well as learning improvised AT DEVICES” the damages on the target had to be absolutely clear for you. No hard feelings, but when someone share such a hard work with you it’s good to think before make a post. Maybe this person will lose his desire to post anything else….and for what…..
If you really want some quality bullshits look at the end of this thread.

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=7762&a...

hissingnoise

International Hazard

Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

posted on 9-5-2010 at 05:05

I agree with you JJ, re NUKE's fine work, but you seem to be casting some aspersions on the veracity of poor -=HeX=-?

grndpndr

National Hazard

Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 9-5-2010 at 05:33

seem to be?. I see what i see and Im not gonna sugar coat it.Attack real life military experience if you like lets hear your qualifications!?
All thats just a pink wash from the copper cone! crap.Thats FX brother. Just like the post by the previous gent on his supposed shaped charge 'success' That post you can also see whats clearly paint and likely fiberglass judging from what are they you guys steel filaments from a genuine SC.LOL Wake up! some of you may be fair and better chemists but there seems a real lack of real life experince
with actual devices.
Im seeing cracks that appear suspiciously like rotten concrete many other anomalyes.And when did copper shaped charge leave a pink wash over the entire interior of a target.Whats more convenient is all the mi9ssing pieces.Never have i seen that even when the billets imntentionally split into several inch sections and a military charge detonated let alone what would you call it shattering of the target, bannana peeling.
Methinks you all are far to eager.Instead orf bothering to rant Id spend time looking at the photos with a critical eye,like the scientists you claim to be.No youd rather believe like UFOers/truthers than cast a critical eye.shame on you.

[Edited on 9-5-2010 by grndpndr]

hissingnoise

International Hazard

Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

posted on 9-5-2010 at 05:56

Quote: Originally posted by grndpndr

Funny the targets dont resemble steel at all.

Since you mention it, I share your scepticism grndpndr. . .
But that doesn't take away from the work NUKE did.
And my comment wasn't directed at you - it was a mere aside at Jimbo Jones'es seeming scepticism (possibly justified) at HeX's somewhat extravagant claims. . .

Jimbo Jones

Hazard to Others

Posts: 102
Registered: 15-10-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 9-5-2010 at 07:05

http://www.google.bg/imgres?imgurl=http://ocw.mit.edu/ans787...

fficial%26channel%3Ds%26tbs%3Disch:1

Add the photo flash effect and you’ll get the picture. The other colors are just from the rapid heating and the movement of the molten copper jet in the steel. Any other objects like mud or leaves are also possible, so keep this on mind too. By the way, I don’t think someone like Nuke will throw so much effort and care just to impress a bunch of strangers.

Yes hissingnoise, HeX's somewhat extravagant field tests and tall stories are little bit salty for my taste.

grndpndr

National Hazard

Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 9-5-2010 at 07:36

Not at all to detract from the effort but peruse the lower set of photos and what I mean will be very clear I believe.I really doubt the coloration on the target 'billet' is pink from either copper or leaflitter reflection.AND A BILLET WONT FRAG LIKE THAT W/O A DIAMOND CHARGE.
A dedicated sc opf similar size the gustav I was talking about that the cone very much resembles 84mm penetrates some 40cm target steel.Hmm! This from an improvised device?

Microtek

National Hazard

Posts: 869
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 9-5-2010 at 09:30

I would say that those photos look very much like a block of cast iron that has fractured due to the lateral forces exerted by the jet. Also, the pink/salmon coloration looks a lot like vapour deposited copper that has undergone some surface oxidation. Some of the structures seen in the photos look like fragments of the carrot.

It is obviously impossible for me to say that these photos are definitely not fake, but I would say that, for me at least, it would be more difficult to prepare a fake this good than to prepare a genuine shaped charge of this size.

Regarding education received in the armed forces I must say that, judging from the number of erroneous assertions I have heard from that kind of sources (I have served in that institution myself), I would regard that with a fair amount of scepticism.

grndpndr

National Hazard

Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 9-5-2010 at 10:24

I am not basing my belifes on assertion but experience/eyewitness.Can you say the same or is YOUR information secondhand?That looks like
a carrot from a sc and pink copperwash?And white steel inside the longitudinal cracks?Must be a new alloy?

All due respect id take second and third looks at these recent pics and the previous posts alleged billet 'fragmentation' from a sc before you commit.No question in my mind both are fraudulent.

I respect your service but did your MOS bring you into reqular contact with these kinds of phenomena.I trained/served with this kind of thing its not genuine by any stretch.choose any picture and I will point out a # of flaws.Assuming the evidence isnt conveniently half buried in leaf /forest litter.Of course you know BSing cherrys etc
was / is all in good fun as I suspect is this SC post.

[Edited on 9-5-2010 by grndpndr]

franklyn

International Hazard

Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 9-5-2010 at 14:36

From the grey tone and coarse grain it is self evidently a cast iron or high carbon
steel billet , possibly even pig iron from the hearth. These are all very much harder
than any ordinary common steel such as gun barrel or armor plate. It has no
malleability , possessing properties similar to ceramic , so it fails catastrophically
instead of deforming. Having seen a little action grndpndr you cannot draw any
comparisons from the narrow scope of almost identical examples you witnessed
in the field.

Photographic forensics is not my forte but having examined the video frame by
frame there is no doubt some substantial artifact has been exploded. Before the
sparks have even dissipated multiple hits from the high velocity fragments of
the casing are seen from the puffs of smoke as they impact the surroundings.
The brilliant momentary flash seen can only be of hi order explosives , unless you
also believe this to be a cinematographic dubbing. The setup as seen in detail
in the various still photos is plainly there in the woods.

The pictures provided are not of anything other than what is described.
The only flaws are in drawing conclusions without factual basis. Most " flying
saucers " are similarly misidentified with assertions of " I know what I saw ".

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

.

01.JPG - 31kB

Pages: 1 .. 25 26 27 28 29 .. 68

Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Special Topics » Energetic Materials » Unconventional Shaped Charges