| Pages:
1
..
27
28
29
30
31
..
68 |
gnitseretni
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 5-1-2007
Location: Colombia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
NUKE, aren't you curious what material the target was made off? Maybe have someone else take a look at it, someone with a degree in metallurgy. Or
maybe an experienced welder may know, surely there has to be a welder in your area, have him take a look at it. Or maybe the guys here can help you if
you give a little more information?
I mean hell, you have to be a little curious, right??
|
|
|
Plasmapyrobattics
Harmless
Posts: 10
Registered: 29-12-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Plasma...
|
|
At ease. The esteemed cranially flatulent Sergeant may go play with his tank now... granny’s water tank in the back yard... quick!! ...before
neurotic Sergeant Fart goes on another one of those tell-tale erratic, aggressive PTSD trips laced with foaming mouth tourettes ... And don’t go
reading too many books on PMS now... Granny won’t approve... Oh and remember to take some Lithium...
PS: Be openhearted. Try reading this post with a great sense of humor.
|
|
|
NUKE
Harmless
Posts: 17
Registered: 21-2-2006
Location: Slovenia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Detonating with the highest order
|
|
@gnitseretni
Yes I am curious about it! It's just the lathe guy hadn't come by to take a look at it. I'm pretty sure I would get my answer if he had seen it
before... Real life inspection is better than the internet one isn't it?
|
|
|
hinz
Hazard to Others
Posts: 200
Registered: 29-10-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Awesome work, Nuke!
The shrapnel damage of the trees is especially impressive, this is the reason why steel casings are usually avoided =).
The target rod looks also looks like cast iron or hardened to me, as it scatted upon impact and broke without bending.
To determine for sure whether it's cast iron or steel, the easiest method would probably be if you to take a small sample of your target, embed it in
epoxy and polish it.
If no microscope is available, it would be also possible to determine the hardness of the target, as cast iron is usually softer than steel.
The micro structure of cast iron looks different (under an optical microscope) than the micro structure of normal steel, as cast iron with high carbon
content forms graphite flakes:
In low-carbon steel, the grain boundaries are usually visible if polished, so if your sample looks like this under the microscope, its probably
normal steel:
Also normal steel:
To see several examples of polished metal microsctructures, I found a nice page:
http://www.georgesbasement.com/Microstructures/Introduction....
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Spark test.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Tim, I think it's already been subjected to the 'Mother of All' spark tests. . .
The close scrutiny of such testing though, is a bit, er, problematic!
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Spark test for metals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_testing_metals
It must be either cast iron or mild steel. I can't imagine
anyone throwing out a piece like that of any good quality
alloy.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Here is an unconventional shaped charge!
http://new.ba-bamail.co.il/View.aspx?emailid=1295&member...
Very nice design
|
|
|
pjig
Hazard to Others
Posts: 169
Registered: 25-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: always learning
|
|
NICE! Thats a lot of stand off for a charge, but its very effective looking.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
A smaller standoff would be more likely to penetrate doors than knock them in. . .
|
|
|
mabuse_
Hazard to Self
Posts: 56
Registered: 3-6-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi,
i've got one question about these improvised SCs based on cones like Whinebottle bottoms or martini glasses:
Does the glass act as a liner? Or does it just hold the explosive in the right position, giving it the right shape?
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Glass is a very effective liner having reasonable density,
but inferior to metals which are denser.
.
|
|
|
Justin
Hazard to Self
Posts: 84
Registered: 6-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
However as Axt stated, a good glass cone will be much better than a crappy copper one, and its almost impossible to get/make a good metal cone unless
you get one from a dummy military shaped charge, I'll stick with glass as its much cheaper and much much easier to come by than a metal one
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 869
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Density is not the only factor that determines the effectiveness of a given liner material. In fact, bulk modulus or Young modulus may be a better
indicator of suitability.
Quoting myself from the "Martini glass SC" thread:
| Quote: |
In "Liners for Shaped Charges", Held uses a ranking of liner materials based on maximum jet speed times the square root of the liner density. He
further states that, as a rough approximation, max jet speed can be estimated as 2.34 times "bulk sound velocity" of the liner material.
Now, I'm not entirely certain of what he means by bulk sound velocity, but from the numbers in the table (table 1) it seems to be the speed of
longitudinal waves.
The speed of longitudinal waves can be calculated if shear and bulk moduli or Young modulus and Poisson ratio are known, but the interesting point is
that the formula features the square root of the density in the denominator.
In the ranking formula, this cancels out with the square root (density) factor.
This means that as a means of ranking liner materials, you can simply use the square root of (K+ 4G/3), where K is the bulk modulus and G is the shear
modulus. Or you could look up longitudinal sound velocity and multiply that with the square root of the density.
As an even simpler (and less accurate) method you could just use the square root of Youngs modulus.
There are probably many aberrations that would deviate from this ranking system (for instance, it rates steel higher than copper), but it accurately
predicts several well known phenomena such as the fact that lead is very poor, that aluminum is decent and so is glass.
|
Glass and many other ceramics are quite stiff, giving them high bulk sound velocity which is probably what makes them good candidates for SCs.
|
|
|
mabuse_
Hazard to Self
Posts: 56
Registered: 3-6-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks.
I think I'll try winebottle, since i found no other common household object.
Another question:
My ANNMAL is working fine.
Is it worth the effort to try something else?
And if you say yes, than what is the best kind of energetic material to use, considering the fact that i don't have access to nitric acid better than
65% and i've got no distillation equipment.
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 869
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well, if you can get sulfuric acid you could make any of the nitric esters (without distillation). So if you can get pentaerythritol, erythritol,
mannitol and so on, you are ready to go. Also, Your ANNMAl would probably be more effective if you got rid of the Al.
Personally I think that the amount of explosive required for a wine bottle SC (bearing in mind that nitric esters are relatively sensitive) is a bit
much, so I would suggest looking for a smaller cone (a glass funnel maybe if you want to use glass).
The smallest succesful SC I have tested was based on a brass cone 5 mm OD at the base, 0.3 mm wall thickness, 60 degree angle and less than 0.2 g
PETN. It penetrated between 6 and 7 mm steel even though the cone was slightly misaligned. So you see, it is quite possible to experiment with SCs at
a much smaller and therefore safer scale.
|
|
|
domstp
Harmless
Posts: 6
Registered: 24-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
im going to be testing out a candle lightbulb shaped charge soon (30mm tulip shaped glass cone), i will use 30g etn as the filler. the main problem
now is finding 2 inches of steel to test it on. the only thick enough steel i can find is the side of an old large hammer, but then the problem of
aiming the charge correctly arises.
About nukes target material, im suprised no one picked up on this. he measured the rod as: 0.422m with 0.06 radius.
39
-------------------------- = 8200(ish) kgm^-3 =about the density of a mainly ferrous material.
Pi x 0.06^2 x 0.422
as many people have stated, the density of the material is the main factor that affects penetration depth, not hardness. i would be curious to see
this tested, but i currently do not have enough time or resources to produce enough identical charges for an accurate test.
|
|
|
pjig
Hazard to Others
Posts: 169
Registered: 25-5-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: always learning
|
|
I have shot charges a-while back that consisted of ANNM blended with a binder of DBSP ,and Aluminium (@2% or so, to sensitize the mix). This
made a mold-able simi-plastic, It seemed to have a great power output compared to most AN mix's, and work for SC's. It fails terribly in comparison
to nitric esters as a SC filler( for power), but will suffice.
My question Is how much is lost "VOD" when using this small amount of Aluminium?V.S.What is gained in cap sensitivity for the mix? Is it
worth the Aluminium in the mix, or just remove it all together and initiate it with a hotter charge..?
|
|
|
mabuse_
Hazard to Self
Posts: 56
Registered: 3-6-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi,
| Quote: |
a glass funnel maybe if you want to use glass |
yeah, i've allready serched for glass funnels, but they are quite expensive...
| Quote: |
Personally I think that the amount of explosive required for a wine bottle SC (bearing in mind that nitric esters are relatively sensitive) is a bit
much |
Well, It doesn't gets much louder  And ANNM ist not that expensive, about 150 or
200g should do...
I'd like to try smaller ones, but as i haven't found proper cones yet...
| Quote: |
Your ANNMAl would probably be more effective if you got rid of the Al. |
I've read that before somewhere...
| Quote: |
My question Is how much is lost "VOD" when using this small amount of Aluminium?V.S.What is gained in cap sensitivity for the mix? Is it worth the
Aluminium in the mix, or just remove it all together and initiate it with a hotter charge..? |
my solution whould be to use aluminium only close-by to the detonator. This way both advantages should be combined or what do you think?
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Microtek  | Density is not the only factor that determines the effectiveness of a given liner material.
In fact, bulk modulus or Young modulus may be a better indicator of suitability. |
In short , what works is known after exhaustively trying everything
that can be made into a liner. Now it remains to make sense of it in
some formula. There are as already noted many candidates , just as
there are candidate formulas for predicting performance of explosives.
Speed of sound of some substances is seen in the attached tables.
In the lower one , a selection from the CRC handbook ,
Longitudinal ( sound ) speeds are given in the left column marked V1
Substance densities are given in the CRC handbook from 4-39 onward
PS
Beryllium has the distinction of propagating sound at ~ 13 Km/sec
far beyond the detonation velocity of any known explosive. This
makes it incapable of spalling as other metals will do if the applied
detonation wave exceeds it's speed of sound. One reason why it is
used as tamp as well as neutron reflector in implosion atomic bombs.
.
  
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 869
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
@Franklyn:
As you say, many thing have been tested and there is no question that the best compromise between cost and effectiveness is copper, while the highest
performance is achieved with things like tungsten or molybdenum.
However, sometimes it is useful for the amateur to have a predictive tool to give some indication of the usefulness of the materials he has at his
disposal. For instance, copper is not so easily machined with cutting tools while brass is (and additionally, where I am at least, copper rod is not
easy to find in shops), so it is very useful to be able to look at easily found numbers to determine whether it is likely to be a good liner material.
|
|
|
The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Jetcord
My ca. 1973 Jetcord® catalogue (the triangular shaped charge
used for controlled demolitions &c.) notes that they make
it using either - Lead, aluminium, copper or silver.
There is no price listing for silver. The 4 000 gr/ft
RDX, copper was $100 a foot for 50-99 feet and
$29 ft for 1000 feet.
Jetcord is a product of Explosive Technologies, Fairfield
California.
They were developing 7 000 gr/ft Jetcord (over a pound of
explosive per foot.)
The 4 000 had a minimum penetration of 1.3" and a minimum severance of 2+ inches. (Rolled steel.)
|
|
|
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Theres alot to be relearned from the first 10pgs or therabouts of the beginning of the OP.AN/NM/SA makes a first rate simple shaped charge explosive.
Good detail on linear charges even comparisons of how much further a csc will penetrate mild steel as compared armored steel thanks to military charts
unlike claims by others who said I was the one unfamamiliar with the charcteristics of metal as relates to SCs.I would think an effort would be made
to not squander the info thats proven itself and instead apply yourselves to improving on whats gone before.Instead Reinventing the wheel over and
over and not doing a good job at that.
By the way an earlier comment regarding the size of the test plate we so recently debated got me thinking.At the advertised dimensions and my limited
math skills the wieght of the target "steel" is something like 240Lbs!? How is it Nuke you managed to wrestle that through what appears an overgrown
dense forest or does the name really fit?.Being something Im familiar with 12 in of steel rail wieghs 80lbs how is it the entire target wieghs approx
40kilos?And has the shape(irregular form) and color of a white softwood tree branch.Very similar cracks
with same white softwood interior.Are we in fact looking at a northeastern softwood my gullible friends insist is a metal or is the accent not as put
on as it sounds and its a eurasians species.
Also as no one has the time to view the previous genuine amazing SC results made of a sadly done piece of fiberglass no one seems to dare view.This
is now a good haven for members from totse etc. as compared to the first pages of a decent Original posts stickie by very professwional folks now gone
bad.To call anything but the premade cone a well made fabrication is an insult to reality.
Carefully done epoxy securing the CSC? nicely banded standoff leggs LOL. Ther isnt enough standoff in the steel tubing to accomodate the charge and
standoff? Piss poor planning is no substitute for careful assembly.Looks like shit frankly and I suspect the performance matched otherwise we would
see a carefully laid out sequence of the events and a schematic of construction as are in the beginning of this at one time excellent resource.
Finally for the moment Wizard take a look @ AXT's home improvised linear charges and the commercial ones your touting are far from impressive.And yes
I am out to insult most
of you who have posted recently, what little verifiable work thats being done is less than substandard compared to just a few yrs previously.I dont
see anyone trying to turn thir own CSC's,Fabricate single efps let alone multiple efps.Proundly dissapointing for the experts you all are!
[Edited on 10-6-2010 by grndpndr]
[Edited on 10-6-2010 by grndpndr]
[Edited on 10-6-2010 by grndpndr]
[Edited on 10-6-2010 by grndpndr]
|
|
|
nitro-genes
International Hazard
Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
Interesting post Franklyn!
Surprised to see such a high speed of sound for tungsten carbide, at 6655 m/s! It is incredibly dense and abbrassion resistant as well. I wonder if
anyone has been crazy enough to produce a liner out of this material, hehe...
|
|
|
mfilip62
pierced by a crossbow under a bridge while eating Billy goats
Posts: 140
Registered: 25-8-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: I like turtles!
|
|
Liner from that thing would probably barely deform!
Anyone tried an Osmium liner!?
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
27
28
29
30
31
..
68 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
