VladimirLem
Hazard to Others
Posts: 204
Registered: 24-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have no fear <Vlad> is here.
|
|
Using H2O as an "explosive" ?
Hi guys
i'm very intrested in torpedos and similar stuff (cause they're awsome  ) and
then i read that 1 kg water (1 liter) will make over 1600 liters of gasvolume - compared this with an explosive, like, lets say RDX will make "only"
 around 900l volume.
so, would it work, if someone build a charge with the shape of a grid out of explosive and water around that grid, so that the extreme high
themeratures of the detonation will heat the water up to the steam-phase? (lets say 2.0-2.5kg explosive for 1 liter water)
if yes, then will the steam stay long enough as gas without cooling down to the water-aggregate phase
technical datas:
energy to heat water to steam: 2257 kJ
energy of blackpowder: 2780 kJ
energy of most explosives 3000-6000 kJ
if all that would work, it would be awsome to make 2 chages of 3kg explosive - but one with containing around 1 liter water extra, and the
blast/wave/whatever will be hugher when (both) detonated unterwater
question: if this would work, why dont use seamines that? i doubt it works cause of some fucking chemical/physical process i dont know about, but i
must be sure...come on guys, tell me if im right or wrong
and dont worry about the fishes out there, i know a cool, fishless pond
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There are better things to volatilize. The latent heat of water is among
the highest of any common fluid. It is not just the gas (steam) volume
that matters but the thermodynamic conversion of heat to mechanical
force according to the gas law PV=nrt. Water serves best in it's liquid
state as a tamp or applying it's incompressibility to transmit force. As
an oxidizer for aluminum the energy is 1760 kcal /kg . The gas product
is hydrogen which has the lowest latent heat of any substance and
expands accordingly.
.
|
|
|
Ral123
National Hazard
Posts: 735
Registered: 31-12-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hexogen has density of 1.8g/cm2. Water has density of 1g/cm2. Tell me how one volume of explosive/water matrix with density of 1.3 will give better
performance then one volume of Hexogen at 1.8 with much higher energy? However if you have two equal volumes and equal weights of explosive, and add
some water to one of them, while maintaining the same volume, some performance may be gained.
|
|
|
Fantasma4500
International Hazard
Posts: 1681
Registered: 12-12-2012
Location: Dysrope (aka europe)
Member Is Offline
Mood: dangerously practical
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Ral123  | | Hexogen has density of 1.8g/cm2. Water has density of 1g/cm2. Tell me how one volume of explosive/water matrix with density of 1.3 will give better
performance then one volume of Hexogen at 1.8 with much higher energy? However if you have two equal volumes and equal weights of explosive, and add
some water to one of them, while maintaining the same volume, some performance may be gained. |
im pretty sure he meant as in per kg, as 1 litre of water is 1 kg of... 'gravitational force' aka weight
potentially it could work to have a ammonal or similar with tiny pouches of water in between packed airtight etc.
1 kg AN (1 kg not 1L) equals very very close to 1000 litres of gas which is among the highest gas outputs of what i remember
i think there needs to be very thin pieces of water if you can call it that, in order for this to be effective by any means..
in vietnam war they used daisy cutters, basically AN/Al with as much as 5% water in it, they used it to make clear zones without vegatation etc. so
perhaps it could work this way, but you would need a big nice booster for that but it would in very large scale be worth the effort for sure
|
|
|
Trotsky
Hazard to Others
Posts: 166
Registered: 6-2-2013
Location: US
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What about the ammonium nitrate water gels? Do they not gain extra power over dry AN?
|
|
|
caterpillar
Hazard to Others
Posts: 472
Registered: 8-1-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Nuclear explosion under water evaporates large amount of it and is definitely much more efficient as same explosion in air for ship's destruction. But
if you are talking about usual explosive, there are some of them which uses water as oxidizer (alumotol, for example- Al + TNT). They have very
negative oxygen balance and content Al to reduce water. Water cannot increase total energy of explosion, but it can increase volume of gases (for
example, C + H2O -> CO + H2)
Women are more perilous sometimes, than any hi explosive.
|
|
|
VladimirLem
Hazard to Others
Posts: 204
Registered: 24-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have no fear <Vlad> is here.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by franklyn | There are better things to volatilize. The latent heat of water is among
the highest of any common fluid. It is not just the gas (steam) volume
that matters but the thermodynamic conversion of heat to mechanical
force according to the gas law PV=nrt. Water serves best in it's liquid
state as a tamp or applying it's incompressibility to transmit force. As
an oxidizer for aluminum the energy is 1760 kcal /kg . The gas product
is hydrogen which has the lowest latent heat of any substance and
expands accordingly.
. |
interesting
so, what would be a good choise? stuff like ethanol/acetone/methanol?
acetone have a boiling point of 56 C and a high molecular mass of 58 (sould bring more gas than the others with low value, right)
density is just 0.8g/ml :/
@Ral123:
the size and overall-density of the charge is secondary. no doubt, that 1kg cast-RDX will beat the shit out of some home made amateur-water containing
stuff, i'm just interested, if its possible to exchange explosive material with fuckin water and getting the "same" performace
thats what i was asking, sure the power of the explosion wouldnt be increased, but at unterwater-devices the release of gasvolume is very important,
and so i started this thread
[Edited on 19-5-2013 by VladimirLem]
|
|
|
Ral123
National Hazard
Posts: 735
Registered: 31-12-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by caterpillar | | Nuclear explosion under water evaporates large amount of it and is definitely much more efficient as same explosion in air for ship's destruction. But
if you are talking about usual explosive, there are some of them which uses water as oxidizer (alumotol, for example- Al + TNT). They have very
negative oxygen balance and content Al to reduce water. Water cannot increase total energy of explosion, but it can increase volume of gases (for
example, C + H2O -> CO + H2) |
First the TNT detonates. Then the Al finds itself surrounded by carbon oxides, hydrogen oxides, it doesn't care will it take it's oxygen from the
water or from the TNT. The energy output and the final products are the same.
@VladimirLem
I made few tests, they are on youtube.
Pressed AP explodes with a bit more brisanse.
AP, wetted with AN solution explodes with a bit more gases given off it seems.
|
|
|
VladimirLem
Hazard to Others
Posts: 204
Registered: 24-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have no fear <Vlad> is here.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Ral123 |
First the TNT detonates. Then the Al finds itself surrounded by carbon oxides, hydrogen oxides, it doesn't care will it take it's oxygen from the
water or from the TNT. The energy output and the final products are the same. |
nice to know - i allways wondered why Torpex and other Underwater-Compositions are containing so much AL (and fucking the OB up)...i only read, that
it will make a stronger blast, but that the AL reacts with the water/steam at the Detonation was unknown...
are there other, better avaible substitutes for AL ?
and, does anyone know which liquids could be better than water, that "franklyn" (2nd post in this thread) said...
im not sure if flamable liquides are a good choise^^
|
|
|
papaya
National Hazard
Posts: 615
Registered: 4-4-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: reactive
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by VladimirLem |
i doubt it works cause of some fucking chemical/physical process i dont know about, but i must be sure...come on guys, tell me if im right or
wrong
|
Perhaps that law is the conservation of energy. Another thing is that gasoline contains more energy than any explosive practically used, so 'strength'
is more associated to power (energy/time), introducing water adds lot's of inertia thus 'time' is bigger, so I don't understand why this will be more
powerful.
Btw, it would be very interesting to see a very fast thermite (like CuO/Al) set off underwater
|
|
|
Fantasma4500
International Hazard
Posts: 1681
Registered: 12-12-2012
Location: Dysrope (aka europe)
Member Is Offline
Mood: dangerously practical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by papaya | | Quote: Originally posted by VladimirLem |
i doubt it works cause of some fucking chemical/physical process i dont know about, but i must be sure...come on guys, tell me if im right or
wrong
|
Perhaps that law is the conservation of energy. Another thing is that gasoline contains more energy than any explosive practically used, so 'strength'
is more associated to power (energy/time), introducing water adds lot's of inertia thus 'time' is bigger, so I don't understand why this will be more
powerful.
Btw, it would be very interesting to see a very fast thermite (like CuO/Al) set off underwater |
i could plausibly try CuO + MgAl sensitized with Ferrocerium, it would plausibly not show much results tho as it would be a very small amount (yes..
inside...)
im just abit unsure of what container and how large it should be for a 0.03g charge or so..
wires
steel wool
NC
CuO thermite
duct tape
should work
|
|
|
papaya
National Hazard
Posts: 615
Registered: 4-4-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: reactive
|
|
Isn't 0.03g too little ? Instead I would take some 30g and maybe some 3L of water (numbers out of the air  ). Of course glass must be excloded !
Anyways, if you decide to try in any quantity photos or even a 2h long movie is welcomed!
[Edited on 21-5-2013 by papaya]
|
|
|
Pyro
International Hazard
Posts: 1305
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Gent, Belgium
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
torpedoes work on conc. H2O2. water is one of the hardest things on earth to heat up (4186J/KgxK) so that wouldn't be as economical. Also, the water
on the outside of a ship funnels most of the energy from the explosion into the ship, making a big hole.
Also I think one would have a hard time heating water up fast enough to instantly vaporize it.
all above information is intellectual property of Pyro. |
|
|
caterpillar
Hazard to Others
Posts: 472
Registered: 8-1-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Pyro | torpedoes work on conc. H2O2. water is one of the hardest things on earth to heat up (4186J/KgxK) so that wouldn't be as economical. Also, the water
on the outside of a ship funnels most of the energy from the explosion into the ship, making a big hole.
Also I think one would have a hard time heating water up fast enough to instantly vaporize it. |
There are different sorts of torpedoes. Some of them has accumulators, some use H2O2 + fuel like kerosene, and some have fuel composition, which
reacts with water (reactive torpedoes). As I remember, their fuel contents large amount of of Al + ammonium perchlorate + some binder. But Al in
torpex or alumotol reacts with water, when charge explodes. It is quite clear- otherwise there would be no reason in using explosives with very
negative oxygen balance like alumotol.
Women are more perilous sometimes, than any hi explosive.
|
|
|
APO
National Hazard
Posts: 627
Registered: 28-12-2012
Location: China Lake
Member Is Offline
Mood: Refluxing
|
|
I think Diethyl Ether would work much better as it is more volatile and the resulting cloud of vapor may also detonate, like a true fuel-air
explosive.
"Damn it George! I told you not to drop me!"
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
If you can use the heat released by the explosive to vaporise a liquid you can get some gas. However, water appears to be a poor choice as it takes a
huge amount of heat to transform cold, liquid water into steam, and you are effectively cooling the hot expanding gasses from the explosion, which may
be countereffective.
What would be a good choice of liquid?
The releveant properties here are the heat capacity (energy required to raise the temperature of a substance) and the enthalpy of vaporization (the
energy required to transform a liquid into a gas).
deltaHtotal = C*(Tbp-Tstart) + deltaHVap
where deltaHtotal = total energy required to heat the substance from (Tstart) to its boiling point (Tbp) and vaporise it. C=heat capacity of the
liquid.
You should look for a substance with the lowest deltaHtotal you can find.
example (assuming Tstart=22 deg C / 295.15 K)
water:
deltaH = 75.28 * (100-22) + 40680 = 46551.84 J/mol
acetone (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_(data_page)):
deltaH = 125.5 J/mol * (56.6-22) + 31300 J/mol = 35642.3 J/mol
So, you can see that you can vaporise about 30% more moles of acetone with a given amount of heat. Now go and calculate for various subtances to find
the best one.
However, the above does not take into account that you also get more gas volume if you use the heat release to simply heat the gasses released by the
explosive itself. That may well turn out to be more effective. (Effectively, you would be cooling those hot exapnding gasses with a cold liquid. The
liquid vaporises, but the gas cools and contracts. Which process has the largest effect?)
[Edited on 22-5-2013 by phlogiston]
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
how can you turn water into gas fast enough to make an explosive ?
|
|
|
Dornier 335A
Hazard to Others
Posts: 231
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: Northern Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I made some quick calculations for PETN/H2O, PETN/H2O2 and RDX/H2O2 to compare gas volume (at room temperature) to the detonation temperature.
I didn't include density in the diagrams but it drops with increasing H2O or H2O2 content.
Temperature drops very quickly.
Reaches maximum temperature and minimum volume at stoichiometric ratios.
Same thing happens here, but 30% H2O2 gives same temperature and slightly higher gas volume than 0%. The density is lower though so it's most likely
not a performance improvement.
[Edited on 23-5-2013 by Dornier 335A]
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Water heater explosions, rare as they are, are surprisingly powerful. do an internet search, amazing how much destruction, and how far they can be
blasted away.
|
|
|
Hennig Brand
International Hazard
Posts: 1284
Registered: 7-6-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It looks like those graphs aren't sized properly, it has messed up this thread I think.
Water absorbs energy and explosives produce energy (convert energy). When a charge has water in it that is mass and volume that is not occupied by
explosive (the energy producer), which is not advantageous. Initiating secondary explosives requires very rapid heating of the explosive to high
temperatures. Blasting caps generate high heat and pressure and does PV work on their surroundings when initiated in a main charge. Water heats to its
boiling point temperature (which varies depending on pressure) and then a huge amount of energy is needed to vaporize it (phase change) and forms
steam before any further increase in temperature takes place. Water in explosives not only absorbs/steals energy but also makes overall rapid heating
of the charge more difficult. I think this is one of the big reasons why water makes explosive charges more insensitive to initiation.
The only advantage I can see is that for a given amount of energy liquid water can increase more in volume when it is converted to gas than the
increase realized when the same amount of energy is added to any of the common gaseous explosive products (Unless I messed up the calculation
somehow). There are advantages to using small amounts of water in slurries and emulsions but increasing energy or explosive power is not normally
considered one of them I think.
[Edited on 28-5-2013 by Hennig Brand]
"A risk-free world is a very dull world, one from which we are apt to learn little of consequence." -Geerat Vermeij
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
Interestingly, it turns out small amounts of water catalyse the explosive decomposition of some explosives:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090320150721.ht...
However, the amount released by the decomposition of the H and O containing explosives itself is probably enough already.
[Edited on 11-6-2013 by phlogiston]
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
SM2
Hazard to Others
Posts: 359
Registered: 8-5-2012
Location: the Irish Springs
Member Is Offline
Mood: Affect
|
|
Aaah, entropy, my dear Watson! ,Look at some of this elegant propulsion, militarized!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_50_torpedo
"Old men who speak of victory
shed light upon their stolen life
they - drive by night- and act as if they're
moved by unheard music." B. Currie
|
|
|
Dany
Hazard to Others
Posts: 482
Registered: 3-8-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Surrounding a chemical explosive with a liquid will not generate stronger blast. The idea that the detonation of high explosive can heat and vaporize
liquid in the vicinity is wrong. The reason is that when an explosive detonate, the shock wave that is produced will interact with the surrounded
liquid for a very short duration. The liquid which is on the interface (charge/liquid) will evaporate, but this is a very small quantity. The
rest of the liquid mass will begin to move outward and eventually will begin to break and be dispersed away from the charge. So any liquid will serve
as a confinement for the explosive charge nothing more. However, if the liquid is flammable their is a chance under certain circumstances that the
dispersed liquid fuel will ignite in air generating a deflagration or a detonation which also depend on many factors (e.g., geometry of the
explosive/flammable liquid charge, the power of the initiation, turbulence...). There is another method for generating strong blast wave from rapid
vaporization of water. It's is called a HYDROVOLCANIC EXPLOSION
Quoted from [1]
"A hydrovolcanic explosion is generated by the interaction of hot magma with ground water. It is called Surtseyan after the 1963 explosive
eruption off Iceland. The water flashes to steam and expands explosively. Liquid water becoming water gas at constant volume generates a pressure of
30,000 atmospheres"
The explosion of KRAKATOA volcano is a famous example of generation of Hydrovolcanic explosion, also from [1]:
"Krakatoa exploded August 27, 1883 obliterating 5 square miles of land and leaving a crater 3.5 miles across and 200-300 meters deep. Thirty three
feet high tsunami waves hit Anjer and Merak demolishing the towns and killing over 10,000 people....The air shock generated by the hydrovolcanic
explosion propagated around the world and coupled to the ocean resulting in the explosion being recorded on tide gauges around the world....The
Krakatoa event released 150-200 megatons"
of course the author in [1] was comparing KRAKATOA to a nuclear explosion, so the KRAKATOA hydrovolcanic explosion generate a shock wave equivalent to
a shock wave from the detonation of 150-200 megaton nuclear bomb.
Reference:
[1] Charles L. MADER, NUMERICAL MODEL FOR THE KRAKATOA HYDROVOLCANIC EXPLOSION AND TSUNAMI, Science of Tsunami Hazards, Vol. 24, No. 3, page
174 (2006)
Dany.
[Edited on 17-4-2014 by Dany]
|
|
|
Davin
Harmless
Posts: 36
Registered: 5-12-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Years ago, Axt posted on peroxide watergels using H2O2, Mg, and a binder. There is a section in the Encyclopedia of Explosives and Related Items
about using a mixture of water and Mg as an explosive as well.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
