| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
..
8 |
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Maybe I misunderstand but the surround charge of a thermobaric warhead contains its own oxidizer/fuel so outside atmosphere isnt nesscessary in fact
the attraction of thermobaric warheads is they work in low/no 02 enviroments.
So I do not understand how a gasoline fuel cloud surround of a thermobaric warhead would starve it(thermobaric warhead) of oxygen?
[Edited on 11-5-2009 by grndpndr]
[Edited on 11-5-2009 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
NameWithheld
Harmless
Posts: 6
Registered: 10-4-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sensitive. (0.3 Nm)
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by grndpndr  | | Maybe I misunderstand but the surround charge of a thermobaric warhead contains its own oxidizer/fuel so outside atmosphere isnt nesscessary in fact
the attraction of thermobaric warheads is they work in low/no 02 enviroments. |
Thermobarics, more or less by definition, utilize atmospheric oxygen.
"Thermobaric weapons distinguish themselves from conventional explosive weapons by using atmospheric oxygen, instead of carrying an oxidizer in their
explosives."
"Volumetric weapons include thermobaric and fuel-air explosives (FAE). Both thermobaric and FAE operate on similar technical principles. In the case
of FAE, when a shell or projectile containing a fuel in the form of gas, liquid or dustexplodes, the fuel or dust like material is introduced into the
air to form acloud. This cloud is then detonated to create a shock wave of extended duration that produces overpressure and expands in all directions.
In a thermobaric weapon, the fuel consists of a monopropellant and energetic particles. The monopropellant detonates in a manner simular to TNT while
the particles burn rapidly in the surrounding air later in time, resulting an intense fireball and high blast overpressure."
Etc.
Whats the worst that could happen...
I'm amused that my rank is "harmless" of all things  |
|
|
497
National Hazard
Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: HSbF6
|
|
| Quote: | | Would it be possible to use such a setup to ignite a FAE? If you can extend the burning time of your alumnium long enough for the cloud to mix with
the air properly, it might be possible to use such a charge to spread the fuel, as well as igniting it at the same time. |
Probably not. It's a great way to make a fireball though. Very similar to the sort of thing they use at the Boomershoot. There will not be enough time for the fuel to mix in the proper proportions with air before igniting. Even if it did mix in perfect
proportions, the chances of achieving a detonation from a weak ignition source like burning Al would be slim.
| Quote: | | the surround charge of a thermobaric warhead contains its own oxidizer/fuel so outside atmosphere isnt nesscessary |
There is never enough oxidizer added to fully burn the metallic fuel. It is simply added to increase the ease/reliability of ignition of the metallic
fuel. Probably 75-90% of the oxygen needed comes from the air.
The reason metalized thermobarics are popular for enclosed oxygen poor spaces is not because they carry their own oxygen, it's because they use a
metallic fuel that can effectively pull oxygen from almost anything that contains it (such as CO, CO2, H2O, SiO2, etc). On the other hand, hydrocarbon
fuels used in FAEs cannot do that, so they must be used in the open with sufficient air.
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Are you saying to me name withheld that thermobarics do not contain an oxidizer?
If so I think your more confused than I.
patent 6955732 and many other related patents describe oxidizers such as AP,AN,
etc etc. In amounts up to 36% in combination with various reactive metals.AL,MG,Boron Titanium. Often with binders that contribute to the detonation
like nitrocellulose
497,your maintaining FAEs do not contain reactive metals in your last paragraph?
With all due respect Im not exactly sure whos the most confused here?
Namewithheld flatly states no oxidizers are used in thermobarics all patents to the contrary and your convoluted explanation doesnt hold water
either regards the reactive metal claim,Im well aware FAEs must be used in the open or 02 rich enviroments, weather permitting,another reason for
thermobarics but FAES use reactive metals as well as thermobarics.You yourself when we discussed dust explosions explained that AL dust was the only
dust IIRC that would make a detonateable FAE.All due respect gents but theres holes here a man could walk through. Why not just dispense altogether
with oxidizers /explosive in thermobaric surrounds and rely on residual / chemically scavenged 02 in all cases assuming reactive metals are so
efficient in scavenging oxygen from any source?Mood?Dubious!
However it is late perhaps Ill dream of solid rocket fuel components that detonate w/o 02 and SFAE.
[Edited on 11-5-2009 by grndpndr]
[Edited on 11-5-2009 by grndpndr]
[Edited on 11-5-2009 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
Leander
Harmless
Posts: 28
Registered: 23-2-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The amount of oxidizer available in such burst surround setups is by far not enough to reach oxygen balance.
When talking about aluminized explosives, there´s simply no such thing as oxygen balance! As 497 already mentions, reactive metals can rip off oxygen
from most combustion products produced by the detonation. Magnesium and alloys can even react with nitrogen. In theory, if the total amount of oxygen
present in the charge compared to the amount of aluminum powder is 2 : 3, you can get full combustion. This is only limited by the fact that above 30%
inerts charges become more difficult to detonate. Also, to make the metals react you need a sufficient temperature and pressure, than practically
cannot be reached this way.
In real life you can really see a significant difference in composition of thermobaric charges. In for example torpedo´s, where charges detonate
under water away from any atmospheric oxygen, they can contain up to 60% AP. The only reason this is not done in above ground situations, is because
apparently the metals can react with atmospheric oxygen quite effectively.
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Clearly Im behind the times.Ive never heard of a thermobaric torpedo. I am also still skeptical of AL having the ability to scavenge as it were 02
from any oxygen containing materials.
Admittedly Im a rank amateur here having read few papers or patents concerning the properties of AL in SFAE/thermobaric devices and never seeing the
properties attributed to AL mentioned in any I cant argue a point Im unsure of.So,I appreciate your kind responses,thanks.
The AL reaction,basically'stealing' oxygen, o is this akin to what happens in a thermite reaction to the iron oxide?
[Edited on 11-5-2009 by grndpndr
[Edited on 11-5-2009 by grndpndr][Edited on 11-5-2009 by grndpndr]
[Edited on 11-5-2009 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
497
National Hazard
Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: HSbF6
|
|
| Quote: | | 497,your maintaining FAEs do not contain reactive metals in your last paragraph? |
True, an FAE could contain a metallic fuel.. But AFAIK there has never been one used in practice that contained much more than some kind of
hydrocarbon mixture. I didn't say FAE's can't contain metal powders, just that they rarely if ever do in practice.
NameWithheald never said they couldn't contain oxidizers, just that they never contain a very significant amount of the oxygen needs of the metallic
fuel.
Yes its kinda like a thermite reaction. Basically Al is a very strong reducing agent, strong enough to reduce most any common oxygen containing
compounds, and even release a good amount of energy too (not quite as much as it would if reacting with O2, but its not a bit difference usually).
|
|
|
markgollum
Hazard to Self
Posts: 53
Registered: 21-2-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If you are wondering if one metal or other fuel can "strip" the oxygen from another, an Ellingham diagram is very useful. Basically it plots the
thermodynamic equilibrium vapour pressure of oxygen above the fuel/metal as a function of temperature. The substance with the lowest oxygen partial
pressure at the temperature of interest is the "winner" in the fight for oxygen. You can use the data to quantitatively determine equilibrium constant
assuming that the activities of the solids are 1 (not always the case, there things you can do to affect the activities, reducing them or even
increasing them beyond one, but this is (to me) a complex topic).
An important note, Ellingham diagrams give thermodynamic solutions and do not consider kinetics, so it is possible that if the reaction conditions are
not maintained for a sufficient time, then the equilibrium constant may be far from realized. However, metal powders typically have rapid kinetics
which become exponentially more rapid as both temperature increases or particle size decreases. Also, I beleive that in thermobaric/enhanced blast
devices, appreciable metallic fuel is likely in the gas phase, making for exceedingly fast kinetics.
A simple google search for "Ellingham diagram" brings up some excellent diagrams along with a tutorial.
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank for all the informative replies.Its very much appreciated
particularly the collective patience shown.
[Edited on 12-5-2009 by grndpndr]
[Edited on 12-5-2009 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
497
National Hazard
Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: HSbF6
|
|
Here is a very useful document. I've been looking for it for a while now, finally got it. Thought I'd share it..
"Of the more than 25 different homogeneous additives tested, the strongest ignition promoters, by far, were found to be the alkyl nitrates and
nitrites..."
"The ignition delay at 1000*K, of Shelldyne-H or H-HCPD was reduced from 180 and 110 milliseconds to 3.5 and 5.3 milliseconds respectively, upon the
addition of 25 volume percent n-propyl nitrate."
"Other additives such as H2O, N2O, CO, H2 or peroxides, esters, polyethers and alcohols had little or no effect on
promoting the autoignition of various hydrocarbons..."
EDIT: The damn file is slightly too big to attach. I'll post a link as soon as I can.
[Edited on 13-5-2009 by 497]
Here's the file I mentioned above. It's worth a read.
http://savefile.com/files/2104562
[Edited on 17-3-2011 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
Bikemaster
Hazard to Others
Posts: 120
Registered: 8-10-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Do it append any probleme to you, because your youtube account have been shout down???
|
|
|
-=HeX=-
Hazard to Others
Posts: 109
Registered: 18-4-2008
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Precipitating
|
|
497: Check your U2U's.
I reckon AL powder MAY make an alright FAE. I tested a bunch of single step FAE's as per the patent - Kudos to Carbonfiend who found the optimal ratio
to be 6% Ferrocene, 47% Diesel, 47% Ether. No second charge, and they went to full detonation
If you give a man a match he will be warm for a moment. Set him alight and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
|
|
|
simply RED
Hazard to Others
Posts: 209
Registered: 18-8-2005
Location: noitacoL
Member Is Offline
Mood: booM
|
|
Hex, this is extremely interesting. May you provide more information on the actual experiments with this one-event FAE.
How powerful is it, does it really detonat and not just burn?
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead...
|
|
|
-=HeX=-
Hazard to Others
Posts: 109
Registered: 18-4-2008
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Precipitating
|
|
IN our experiments, also done by Carbonfiend, we found, in long grass, the thing blasts away 15cm radius with a mere 15ml, set off with 0.75g AgN3.
However, I got a radius of 19cm using 0.70g RDX, 200mg DPNA primary.
Philou Zrealone reckons it may be ineffivient, but hey, it works especially in 1 litre amount set off by 100g RDX. That made a HUGE BANG but it was in
the open. I felt a pressure wave, and I was about 600m away.
I personally think at least SOME makes the DDT. Soon I will build a plywood 'house' (i.e. box) and see can I blast that to shreds
If you give a man a match he will be warm for a moment. Set him alight and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
|
|
|
Lord Emrone
Harmless
Posts: 30
Registered: 5-2-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have the idea to make a fireball with gasoline. 1 liter of it on top of a 200 gr ANFO charge by example. I could use BP or FP but I'm used to
detonations, so I'll use that.
I was thinking to use several grams of red phosphorus tightly packed in tape and place that on top of the gaz bottle. The shock will cause the RP to
burn and burst out of the tape and light the gaz cloud.
Anyone other ideas or suggestions ?
|
|
|
Jimbo Jones
Hazard to Others
Posts: 102
Registered: 15-10-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yeah. Shredded to pieces, dusted with fine aluminum powder Teflon tape. You will also need heavily aluminized booster, but that’s ok. The main
problem will be the choice of good fuel. A charcoals and liquid oxygen are supposed to be nice and spectacular mixture.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Exceptional book that deals with ancient examples of fuel/air concepts from
beginning of recorded history: "GREEK FIRE, Chemical Warfare In The Ancient World" {A. Mayor, 2003}ISBN-158567-348. One of the better historical
accounts of chemical-bio usage in antiquity. Was one of the best [bibliographic-notation & researched] books of it's genre' I have read in a damn
long time.
Points to ancient period of air-fuel usage testing from natural occurring (naphtha & lower hydrocarbons) dispersal mechanisms.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Lord Emrone | I have the idea to make a fireball with gasoline. 1 liter of it on top of a 200 gr ANFO charge by example. I could use BP or FP but I'm used to
detonations, so I'll use that.
I was thinking to use several grams of red phosphorus tightly packed in tape and place that on top of the gaz bottle. The shock will cause the RP to
burn and burst out of the tape and light the gaz cloud.
Anyone other ideas or suggestions ? |
Titanium coarse powder granules or magnesium turnings in a baggie on top of the charge and underneath the gasoline should ignite and remain burning
long enough to make a good igniter for the dispersed vapor cloud of gasoline which otherwise will probably not be ignited by the charge alone.
Coarse graulated magnalium might work also.
[Edited on 18-3-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
Lord Emrone
Harmless
Posts: 30
Registered: 5-2-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
@Jimbo Jones : pieces of Teflon tape dusted with fine aluminum powder ? Is that tape an oxidizer ?
@Rosco : I only have fine Al and magnesium powder. I'll try with RP.
|
|
|
Jimbo Jones
Hazard to Others
Posts: 102
Registered: 15-10-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It’s just more exotic form of thermite.
|
|
|
White Yeti
National Hazard
Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline
Mood: delocalized
|
|
This is probably a stupid question, but how do you ignite the cloud of explosive vapour when the first charge blows up the container and everything in
its proximity? This means that the second igniter has to be far away from the conventional charge, somewhere inside the cloud. Could you use something
similar to an electric arc (not a spark gap) to ignite the cloud? Since the mix will not ignite when it is fuel rich, the arc would only ignite the
mix when the right fuel air ratio is established. Also, wouldn't the heat of the initial explosion be enough to also ignite the fuel air mix?
|
|
|
hiperion42
Hazard to Self
Posts: 75
Registered: 24-8-2009
Location: european mainland
Member Is Offline
Mood: overwhelmed
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti | | This is probably a stupid question, but how do you ignite the cloud of explosive vapour when the first charge blows up the container and everything in
its proximity? |
The energy of the dispersal charge is almost completely absorbed and converted
into the outward movement of the fuel. It is therefore possible to
have the initiating charge located very close to the fuel.
[Edited on 1-7-2012 by hiperion42]
.....ejuu....................................................................Ffg..............................g.............
|
|
|
matheusfredrich13
Harmless
Posts: 3
Registered: 23-7-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
A Fuel Air Explosion is achieved by using a blast to disperse the 'Fuel' into the air and then igniting the fuel cloud allowing all the 'fuel' to burn
within a few milliseconds.
Fuel Air Explosive's rely on the oxygen in the surrounding air, rather then self oxidizing. The fuel is dispersed into the air to forming a cloud of
very small droplets, and exposing a large amount of the 'Fuels' surface area. When the fuel cloud is ignited the 'Fuel' is able to burn almost
instantly due to the fact that its in very small droplets. The smaller the droplets are the faster the fuel cloud will burn, this is the same as with
Flash Powders or Black Powder.
Common fuels like gasoline, kerosine and diesel will not be able to achieve the Fuel Air Effect. To achieve the Fuel Air Effect you will need to use
faster burning fuels such as Isopropyl Nitrite, Diethyl Ether or Heptane. Their are many other fuels that are suitable for use in a FAE but i don't
want to mention them all.
Here is a great video of a True Fuel Air Explosion uploaded by AnonymousUploads (who sadly had to shut down his account due to a explosives related
injury) 
Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dW1qkBg8sM
I hope you find this useful and if you have any questions please ask
|
|
|
hiperion42
Hazard to Self
Posts: 75
Registered: 24-8-2009
Location: european mainland
Member Is Offline
Mood: overwhelmed
|
|
Maby you should go study a little bit extra before giving more advise.
While namewithheld's test was admirable it was not a full detonation.
The camera was running at 600fps and is played back at 30p which
means every second watching the movie is seeing 50ms elapse.
A fuel air cloud detonates in less than 10ms.
The cloud in the movie deflagrates for more than 200ms.
I recall he used a bag of cast etn of unknown quantity to initate the cloud.
Maby it was to little i don't know.
Again i respect the testing he did alot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk
[Edited on 24-7-2012 by hiperion42]
.....ejuu....................................................................Ffg..............................g.............
|
|
|
matheusfredrich13
Harmless
Posts: 3
Registered: 23-7-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes, the FAE in the video i linked to did burn slower than the Fuel Air Cloud in the video you linked to. This could be because the fuels used in the
videos were different. Or because the dispersion charges were different sizes. Either way the Fuel Air Cloud in the video i linked to still burnt at a
abnormally fast rate, and you can clearly see the increase in blast pressure. The fuel might not have detonated as fast as in the video by Discovery
Channel but it still did detonate.
[Edited on 25-7-2012 by matheusfredrich13]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
..
8 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
