AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Deploying an Impractical HE By In Situ Preparation, Pros and Cons
Have this theoretical 'explosive' idea for finding a short time frame employment of an otherwise impractical high explosive due to perhaps the
compounds extreme sensitivity upon creation.
The essential goal here, for example, may be a defensive deployment as a deterrent.
Solution: Create and deploy while the HE is in the process of formation, assuming such a feasibility.
Advantages:
>Low risk, as the explosive does not even yet exist.
>Also, not knowing precisely when detonation could occur, may be a potential advantage (as in a mine, a defensive weapon).
>Since this is a high explosive, knowledge of its existence in an area, could accomplish its deterrent mission.
>Detection of a partially buried such a unit may be difficult absent the presence of metal parts.
>Defusing such a unit, after locating, would likely require a high explosive detonation. However, if other such units are present, this would not
really be an option (given the potential of a chain reaction).
>If several units are together mechanical ejected on a provocation up into the air, assuming sensitive to heat, the 1st to land/detonate could
scatter the detonation effect. This would augment the defensive aspects including a fear factor.
>Depending on the specific HE, the reagents to prepare it may be available and relatively inexpensive.
Disadvantages:
>Short term use only as when placed into a detonation site, if highly sensitive, it will, in short order, explode. As such the defensive advantage
is loss.
>Also, not knowing when precisely could be a disadvantage if returning access to the site is required. This would require detonation attempts
(dangerous).
>Creating the HE on a set and leave approach does not guarantee success or a good yield.
>The HE is just too sensitive.
Does anyone have other points I missed?
Note: Please do not suggest or discuss specific HEs or their preparation (I leave this to those knowledge in the art).
[Edited on 24-12-2021 by AJKOER]
|
|
|
violet sin
International Hazard
Posts: 1482
Registered: 2-9-2012
Location: Daydreaming of uraninite...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Good
|
|
I'm sure this isn't new tec. It crossed my mind years back, and I'm by no means a HE or even pyro guy. The idea of a can with small compartments
what dump in a cup, react and then drain leaving HE via slowly soluble or deteriorating seal. Crank the top, starts mixing walk away.
Only way you'd wanna make some of them. Pretty simple for a two components mix with only a few drops of catalyst necessary.
Have fun hashing out your go at it. I left the thought experiment years back and never looked back. Not sure there's much merit to the discussion,
but I'm not into energetics.
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3032
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
So, if I would want to walk into your sensitive mine field, I could just throw in a large firecracker, wait for the big bang and be OK right?
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
binary explosive mixtures are a thing.
You could easily do this with sodium azide and isocyanogen tetrabromide.
I say easy, once you have made the isocyanogen tetrabromide, that synthesis is long and tedious.
large quanities of ammonium tri-iodide fall in this category as well.
Imagine a purple field that explodes if you touch it.
Of course the first bird that lands is going to cause one hell of a mess.
You want to make them where you are going to blow them up.
The government has developed other binary explosives and chemical weapons as well.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The idea has been in use fora little over 120 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyliquit
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Interesting comment by Unionised.
However, per the Wikipedia reference, to quote:
>One of the disadvantages of oxyliquits is that, once mixed, they are sensitive to sparks, shock, and heat, in addition to reported cases of
spontaneous ignition.
So, my thoughts were that the binary mix would not be immediately dangerous, in other words, I like the reduced risk factor above other
characteristics including costs,....
So, oxyliquits are a more dangerous cousin to my original concept, but interesting reading for sure.
The fact that spilled liquid oxygen on asphalt would become explosive is amazing and also suggests a way to demilitarize an air strip.
[Edited on 26-12-2021 by AJKOER]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"The fact that spilled liquid oxygen on asphalt would become explosive is amazing and also suggests a way to demilitarize an air strip."
well, it suggests two ways...
If you have lox you can pour it onto the airstrip + then fire tracer rounds at it or something. Huge bang; no more airstrip.
But imagine you have something like ammonium nitrate or sodium chlorate.
Enemy plane sees your airstrip- apparently intact, tries to land on it and discovers that it's explosively unstable. Nice way to destroy materiel and
morale.
On a vastly more practical note, you can burn asphalt.
|
|
|
Fyndium
International Hazard
Posts: 1192
Registered: 12-7-2020
Location: Not in USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
The practice of spilling liquid oxygen to an airstrip in large enough quantities is pretty utopistic. The military standard practice to get rid of
excess airstrips is to fire low altitude cruise missiles from 300mi away, or drop supersonic bombs from 50000ft from a stealth bomber. Chinese are
mastering the fractional orbital bombardment, where you have a minimum range of 40 000 km. Even the poor countries have artillery, and the poorest
have mortars. Compare that to the need to get within throwing range and having tons of highly compressed and/or cryogenic oxidizer ready to combust
anything that can burn.
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1012
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What about a C-130 filled with 130 tons of gophers with parachutes. Have them dig under the runway…. And they could be radioactive gophers as well.
|
|
|
Triflic Acid
Hazard to Others
Posts: 486
Registered: 27-9-2020
Member Is Offline
Mood: Slowly Oxidizing into Oblivion
|
|
I believe they do this same thing when dropping VX nerve agents. The BLU-80 Missle mixes the precursors after being fired, creating what is known,
ironically, as a "safe chemical weapon"
There wasn't a fire, we just had an uncontrolled rapid oxidation event at the power plant.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Fyndium  | | The practice of spilling liquid oxygen to an airstrip in large enough quantities is pretty utopistic. The military standard practice to get rid of
excess airstrips is to fire low altitude cruise missiles from 300mi away, or drop supersonic bombs from 50000ft from a stealth bomber. Chinese are
mastering the fractional orbital bombardment, where you have a minimum range of 40 000 km. Even the poor countries have artillery, and the poorest
have mortars. Compare that to the need to get within throwing range and having tons of highly compressed and/or cryogenic oxidizer ready to combust
anything that can burn. |
I think the discussion is in the context of withdrawing forces denying their opponent the use of a runway after they leave. At that point they have
perfectly good access to the runway to do as they please.
Gasoline and a lit match seems easier. A bulldozer will do a fine job too (and has the advantage of also working on concrete strips).
A few land mines would be much more fun.
Doesn't stop the enemy landing- just makes them wish (briefly) that they hadn't.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
