The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Fuel Air Bombs  (Read 4024 times)

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Fuel Air Bombs
« on: 30/08/2012 02:44:55 »
OK, so now we know that you can't even count.
104.372 has 6 digits (and 3 places of decimals).

"When you release 7,600,000 BTU's in a fraction of a second, you get a blast, like the one at Hiroshima. "
Nope, you get about ^ J or about 2 tons of TNT equivalent.
It would make roughly as much mess as a V2 rocket did (That was 1 ton so 7,600,000 BTU would give a slightly bigger crater if it was released suddenly enough).
It would take out a few buildings, but it wouldn't demolish a good chunk of a city.

Hiroshima was not a ton of oil catching fire.
This is the effect of 300 tonnes of petrol , largely premixed with air catching fire and progressing from a deflagration to a detonation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Hertfordshire_Oil_Storage_Terminal_fire

Death toll nil.

To say that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 300 times less mass of a fuel which doesn't explode readily is not only absurd, but an insult to those who died there .
I'm happy to excuse the typos, but I find it very hard to excuse your delusional ramblings.

This is about 7 grams of acetylene when you mix it just right with oxygen. And create a lens or, volume of explosive area, or volume of high voltage area. The size and or density, and time, the area is kept at extreme abundance, of particles of electricity/heat, create the severity of the blast. That is because the blast is not from the matter itself. Rather the lens that the matter, creates for ambient radiation. It is the structure, of the bomb material that, alters ambient radiation to create the bomb blast.

When I throw the switch to this particular bomb, before it detonates, I am pushed towards the bomb from behind. It is pretty wild. I have done it so many times now, that I can acually just focus on that moment and not even worry about the shock wave that follows. I actually had one of these, but much larger, go off in my hands. I learned something about where and how the forces are created, when it happened.


This blast messed up the camera. I was able to extract the file, and pull individual frames out of it.

It messed up my sister a bit too. Ha-ha. I was not about to make another. Ha-ha.

When that blast goes off, window pains bend, inward as much as a half inch. And then just go back into place. It is very wild. I had my face up against a window, that I knew had been withstanding these blasts for a while. So I had no fear of putting my face near the window, to watch it go off. The bomb was twenty feet away. I was looking out the window and plugging in the detonation system into a 110 volt outlet under the window. Because the outside outlet had blown and we were celebrating the 4rth of July, so I did not want to waste time and find the blown breaker.

When I set it off, the window started to, what can only be described as a balloon skin blowing up or stretching into the house. It was very wild. The shock wave can be seen on the surface of mild choppy water, for as far as the eye can see. When it hit swimmers in the water, way down the canal they screamed. Ha-ha. 


                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

« Last Edit: 30/08/2012 12:09:09 by imatfaal »


 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #1 on: 30/08/2012 04:27:56 »
umm, yes William

7 gram of acetylene, whether you "mix it just right with oxygen" and detonate it, or whether you burn it in a slow fire, will always produce 350 kJ of energy. That is about 330 BTU for those who are still working in the past.

Quote
And create a lens or, volume of explosive area, or volume of high voltage area. The size and or density, and time, the area is kept at extreme abundance, of particles of electricity/heat, create the severity of the blast. That is because the blast is not from the matter itself. Rather the lens that the matter, creates for ambient radiation. It is the structure, of the bomb material that, alters ambient radiation to create the bomb blast.

This is largely pseudo-scientific nonsense. The yield, or total energy output of an explosion is entirely due to the chemical energy of the material involved in the corresponding chemical reaction (or relativistic energy equivalent of the mass lost in a nuclear explosion). The peak power, or blast of an explosion depends on the duration of the explosion, and geometric effects like reflection and focussing. There is no external input from "particles of electricity/heat".

If the energy from 7 gram of acetylene is released over the space of about 1 minute, the peak power will probably be around 10 kW; the average power will be just under 6 kW.
If on the other hand it is (all) released in a shockwave over around 1 ms, the peak power will be in the order of 1GW. That is a significant blast.

However, the yield of the Hiroshima bomb was about 60 TJ, so that even if the shock was evenly spread over a full second (most implausible), the peak power would be at least 60 TW, or 60,000 times greater.

A yield of 7.6 million BTU corresponds to a yield of 8.0 million kJ, or 8.0 GJ. It would take 7500 such blasts to equal the yield of the Hiroshima bomb.

The peak power or blast of an explosion is a very complicated function of geometry, focussing, and similar factors that is not easy to estimate. And the peak power available at any particular place is also a complicated matter. The basic function goes as the inverse cube of the distance from the actual explosion if the explosion is spherically symmetric and takes place in empty space (double the distance, one eighth of the blast), but in practice is somewhere between inverse cube and an inverse square relationship (double distance quarter blast) because the shock wave does not spread evenly in all directions, and especially not in vertical directions. Even that is modified by factors like absorption/dissipation of power between source and reference point (decreases the blast), and any reflection and/or focussing, whether accidental or pre-arranged (may increase or decrease the blast).

Explosions are extremely difficult to compare scientifically, though blast effects can readily be measured and monitored. But when the yield of one explosion (which can be very accurately predicted and determined, unlike the blast) is several thousand times that of another, there is no question about the severity of the effects.

And I am sorry if it is ruled not to be "science" for the purposes of this forum, but there are numerous scientific (medical) studies about the unthinkably cruel effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts on the immediate victims and the survivors.

Quote
When I throw the switch to this particular bomb, before it detonates, I am pushed towards the bomb from behind. It is pretty wild.

The "scientific" explanation of this is that it is the devil pushing on your shoulders, encouraging you to go ahead with such an idiotic experiment.
 ::)
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #2 on: 30/08/2012 06:09:30 »
umm, yes William

7 gram of acetylene, whether you "mix it just right with oxygen" and detonate it, or whether you burn it in a slow fire, will always produce 350 kJ of energy. That is about 330 BTU for those who are still working in the past.

Quote
And create a lens or, volume of explosive area, or volume of high voltage area. The size and or density, and time, the area is kept at extreme abundance, of particles of electricity/heat, create the severity of the blast. That is because the blast is not from the matter itself. Rather the lens that the matter, creates for ambient radiation. It is the structure, of the bomb material that, alters ambient radiation to create the bomb blast.

This is largely pseudo-scientific nonsense. The yield, or total energy output of an explosion is entirely due to the chemical energy of the material involved in the corresponding chemical reaction (or relativistic energy equivalent of the mass lost in a nuclear explosion). The peak power, or blast of an explosion depends on the duration of the explosion, and geometric effects like reflection and focussing. There is no external input from "particles of electricity/heat".

If the energy from 7 gram of acetylene is released over the space of about 1 minute, the peak power will probably be around 10 kW; the average power will be just under 6 kW.
If on the other hand it is (all) released in a shockwave over around 1 ms, the peak power will be in the order of 1GW. That is a significant blast.

However, the yield of the Hiroshima bomb was about 60 TJ, so that even if the shock was evenly spread over a full second (most implausible), the peak power would be at least 60 TW, or 60,000 times greater.

A yield of 7.6 million BTU corresponds to a yield of 8.0 million kJ, or 8.0 GJ. It would take 7500 such blasts to equal the yield of the Hiroshima bomb.

The peak power or blast of an explosion is a very complicated function of geometry, focussing, and similar factors that is not easy to estimate. And the peak power available at any particular place is also a complicated matter. The basic function goes as the inverse cube of the distance from the actual explosion if the explosion is spherically symmetric and takes place in empty space (double the distance, one eighth of the blast), but in practice is somewhere between inverse cube and an inverse square relationship (double distance quarter blast) because the shock wave does not spread evenly in all directions, and especially not in vertical directions. Even that is modified by factors like absorption/dissipation of power between source and reference point (decreases the blast), and any reflection and/or focussing, whether accidental or pre-arranged (may increase or decrease the blast).

Explosions are extremely difficult to compare scientifically, though blast effects can readily be measured and monitored. But when the yield of one explosion (which can be very accurately predicted and determined, unlike the blast) is several thousand times that of another, there is no question about the severity of the effects.

And I am sorry if it is ruled not to be "science" for the purposes of this forum, but there are numerous scientific (medical) studies about the unthinkably cruel effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts on the immediate victims and the survivors.

Quote
When I throw the switch to this particular bomb, before it detonates, I am pushed towards the bomb from behind. It is pretty wild.

The "scientific" explanation of this is that it is the devil pushing on your shoulders, encouraging you to go ahead with such an idiotic experiment.
 ::)

That was seven grams, if I had 365 pounds of acetylene then I would have something 23,000 times more powerful.

But the oil bomb I mentioned, has another principle at play, time. It holds the core so hot, so abundant with particles of electricity, that it cannot explode until each and every atom has unbounded from one another. That alone causes the missing BTU's. Try putting hydrogen through an ARC, the heat released is amazing, it reaches temperatures of the sun. That is the secret of the pure ammonium nitrate core. It reaches temperatures of the sun, because of the ARC that is created by the initiating explosives. Imagine a building sized sun for a few seconds. That is what it was.

When you add helium or hydrogen to a plasma cutter, it suddenly without extra power added, becomes able to slice through two inch stainless steel. It is the breaking of the Siamese bonds of the helium and or hydrogen. That creates the heat. You really will not find much about it today. It just highlights another very obvious error for modern science.

http://www.rockwelder.com/welding/AtomicWelding.pdf

There is nothing wrong with making a bomb, it is how you use it. As George Washington said with much conviction.

"It will be found an unwise and unjust jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."



                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #3 on: 30/08/2012 07:01:04 »
From William McCormick
Quote
That was seven grams, if I had 365 pounds of acetylene then I would have something 23,000 times more powerful.

In terms of yield, yes, but in terms of peak power if you were to use the same design and scale up, then less than 1000 times, because your linear dimension would have to increase by a factor of 30, leading to a 30-fold reduction in peak power.

Quote
But the oil bomb I mentioned, has another principle at play, time. It holds the core so hot, so abundant with particles of electricity, that it cannot explode until each and every atom has unbounded from one another. That alone causes the missing BTU's.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Nothing like this happens in the operation of any bomb powered by chemical energy. Chemical explosions are thoroughly investigated and very well understood.

Also, it is not at all clear what is meant by "missing BTU's". The usual reason for missing BTUs these days is that scientists and engineers have replaced them with kilojoule.

Quote
Try putting hydrogen through an ARC, the heat released is amazing, it reaches temperatures of the sun.

The temperature of the visible surface of the sun (photosphere) is around 10,000C. It is not particularly difficult to achieve higher temperatures than this on Earth. The temperature of the sun's interior ranges very much higher -- millions of degrees and more.

Quote
That is the secret of the pure ammonium nitrate core. It reaches temperatures of the sun, because of the ARC that is created by the initiating explosives. Imagine a building sized sun for a few seconds. That is what it was.

Pure ammonium nitrate is not an explosive. It is unlikely that much of an explosion will be initiated even with fulminate initiator, because the explosive action of ammonium nitrate is bound up in its ability to act as an oxidant in the explosive combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel. ANFO means ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil. Pure ammonium nitrate simply cannot reach the temperature of the sun; it will decompose to water and laughing gas in a fairly gentle reaction at around 250C. ANFO is a very effective and cost efficient explosive because it is quite safe if the two components are stored separately, it can be safely mixed into a slurry and put in place, and it requires a detonator to set off an explosion. The particular mechanism of ammonium nitrate oxidation involves a particularly efficient branching in its detailed radical chain mechanism, so that a shock wave will rapidly produce very large numbers of reactive free radicals to achieve a very fast reaction and propagate an increasing shock.

But this will not and cannot happen in the absence of a fuel or of an initiating shock, and the mechanism certainly does not involve total atomization or ionization of the materials involved in the reaction.

Quote
When you add helium or hydrogen to a plasma cutter, it suddenly without extra power added, becomes able to slice through two inch stainless steel. It is the breaking of the Siamese bonds of the helium and or hydrogen. That creates the heat. You really will not find much about it today. It just highlights another very obvious error for modern science.

No, hydrogen does not have "siamese bonds", and helium has no bonds whatever of any sort. The reason for these two materials having this sort of effect is that they are gases with very light molecules, which therefore move very much faster than molecules of any other gas at the same temperature, and therefore conduct heat a lot better.

Quote
As George Washington said with much conviction.

That gentleman was only ever convicted by the British, and he never had to serve his sentence.

 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Air Bombs
« Reply #4 on: 30/08/2012 12:11:27 »
William

Again - off topic assertions that bear little resemblance to science!   Split and moved to New Theories - I hope for the last time.


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Air Bombs
« Reply #5 on: 30/08/2012 19:49:13 »
"Imagine a building sized sun for a few seconds. That is what it was."
OK, I will.
I finished imagining it now: it wasn't very impressive.
For reasons unlikely to become clear in a hurry I was recently, at work, looking up data on how much heat people dissipate.
Typical values for people sitting round doing nothing are about 100 Watts. World class sprint cyclists dissipate about 2000 W. (That's nearly 3 horsepower, which is quite impressive)

The sun is quite big and heavy.
Roughly 700,000 Km radius
A house is typically smaller- of the order of 7 m radius
The radius is a hundred million times smaller.

So in terms of volume, a house is the cube of that 10^24 times smaller
Now the sun dissipates about 3X10^26 Watts
So our house-sized lump of it would dissipate  about 300 Watts.

Or, if you prefer to use a weight for weight basis,
The mass of the sun is about 2X10^30 Kg
A house weighs something like 100,000 pounds or 50,000 Kg
(according to this)
http://seattletimes.com/html/asktheexpert/2002122968_homehay19.html
So the house is 2.5x10^26 times lighter

That comes out a a power dissipation of about 1 watt.


Please stop cluttering up the site with your nonsense
« Last Edit: 30/08/2012 19:54:26 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Air Bombs
« Reply #6 on: 02/09/2012 06:03:53 »

The "scientific" explanation of this is that it is the devil pushing on your shoulders, encouraging you to go ahead with such an idiotic experiment.
 ::)

Ahem :)
Agreed, and boys will be ...

Ah well, practical experiments in all its glory, but take care William. You don't want to hurt anyone with them, including yourself.
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #7 on: 02/09/2012 20:59:21 »
From William McCormick
Quote
That was seven grams, if I had 365 pounds of acetylene then I would have something 23,000 times more powerful.

In terms of yield, yes, but in terms of peak power if you were to use the same design and scale up, then less than 1000 times, because your linear dimension would have to increase by a factor of 30, leading to a 30-fold reduction in peak power.

Quote
But the oil bomb I mentioned, has another principle at play, time. It holds the core so hot, so abundant with particles of electricity, that it cannot explode until each and every atom has unbounded from one another. That alone causes the missing BTU's.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Nothing like this happens in the operation of any bomb powered by chemical energy. Chemical explosions are thoroughly investigated and very well understood.

Also, it is not at all clear what is meant by "missing BTU's". The usual reason for missing BTUs these days is that scientists and engineers have replaced them with kilojoule.

Quote
Try putting hydrogen through an ARC, the heat released is amazing, it reaches temperatures of the sun.

The temperature of the visible surface of the sun (photosphere) is around 10,000C. It is not particularly difficult to achieve higher temperatures than this on Earth. The temperature of the sun's interior ranges very much higher -- millions of degrees and more.

Quote
That is the secret of the pure ammonium nitrate core. It reaches temperatures of the sun, because of the ARC that is created by the initiating explosives. Imagine a building sized sun for a few seconds. That is what it was.

Pure ammonium nitrate is not an explosive. It is unlikely that much of an explosion will be initiated even with fulminate initiator, because the explosive action of ammonium nitrate is bound up in its ability to act as an oxidant in the explosive combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel. ANFO means ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil. Pure ammonium nitrate simply cannot reach the temperature of the sun; it will decompose to water and laughing gas in a fairly gentle reaction at around 250C. ANFO is a very effective and cost efficient explosive because it is quite safe if the two components are stored separately, it can be safely mixed into a slurry and put in place, and it requires a detonator to set off an explosion. The particular mechanism of ammonium nitrate oxidation involves a particularly efficient branching in its detailed radical chain mechanism, so that a shock wave will rapidly produce very large numbers of reactive free radicals to achieve a very fast reaction and propagate an increasing shock.

But this will not and cannot happen in the absence of a fuel or of an initiating shock, and the mechanism certainly does not involve total atomization or ionization of the materials involved in the reaction.

Quote
When you add helium or hydrogen to a plasma cutter, it suddenly without extra power added, becomes able to slice through two inch stainless steel. It is the breaking of the Siamese bonds of the helium and or hydrogen. That creates the heat. You really will not find much about it today. It just highlights another very obvious error for modern science.

No, hydrogen does not have "siamese bonds", and helium has no bonds whatever of any sort. The reason for these two materials having this sort of effect is that they are gases with very light molecules, which therefore move very much faster than molecules of any other gas at the same temperature, and therefore conduct heat a lot better.

Quote
As George Washington said with much conviction.

They threw me off the forum for a while.

That gentleman was only ever convicted by the British, and he never had to serve his sentence.

H2 and He2 are bonded atoms of hydrogen and helium. There are two atoms bonded together, in what was known as a Siamese bond. Because you have two identical atoms bound together, chemically.

When you break those bonds with an ARC, the substance super heats. If you hit 25 pounds of ammonium nitrate with an initiating explosive from all sides, it raises to a voltage that really cannot be topped, using current methods of measuring voltage. Cosmic radiation is at a higher voltage, but that brings in other arguments.

The point is that, most people think that voltage comes from the initiating explosive, or voltage comes from the battery itself. That is not true at all. The voltage is an effect created by ambient radiation from outside the substance. The substance itself, the initiating explosive, the ammonium nitrate all by themselves are inept structures, with no power whatsoever. However their structures when subjected to the natural ambient radiation, can cause the ambient radiation to expose itself, as disintegrative rays, that we use to turn asphalt or other seemingly benign substances into an explosive. As a kid we used to make initiating explosives to blow up huge craters in the asphalt streets. Using what they called wasp caps in a small metal container, that amplified the current of the initiating explosive.

They use ammonium nitrate because of its ability to transfer high voltage at a very high rate. When you create an area of such voltage, ambient radiation cannot enter that area, because it is repelled by the high voltage in the mass of the ammonium nitrate. That is why standing near a high speed blast you can feel the high speed ambient radiation slowed, by the explosive raising in voltage, it actually creates a form of gravity on your back. If you have never done it and taken in years of "modern science" I guess there is no chance of you even considering it. Yet it is how it is. I have done these blasts for the sole purpose of examining the effect of the pressure behind me before the blast. There is without doubt a pressure from behind, before the thin plastic bag has even been scared.

We have done these at parties, and had ten or more people right after the first blast, say that they felt the same thing on their back before the explosion. So think what you like with your tainted books but we know, by actual experience.

Standing right next to a larger transparent bag of the oxygen and acetylene going off, I saw the time it takes to raise in voltage, and create the explosion. There is a lot of time between initiating action and actual explosion. Almost two seconds. In that time ambient radiation is slowed, and it applies pressure to objects near the bomb, as the radiation is heading towards the bomb. It is silent except for a very high pitched high frequency whine that is heard right before the bomb blast.

In my school we were taught how to make kelvin bombs and how to turn any substance on earth into a powerful explosive. So although this might seem like pseudo science to you or total nonsense. That is how it is in real life. In my circle of friends, this is well known. It is how we learned to make the explosives we made as kids. We blew up everything. Ha-ha. 

Check out this article. It shows that they used and understood atomic a long time ago. Today it is a taboo mystery how helium and hydrogen can add incredible heat and power to an arc.

http://www.rockwelder.com/welding/AtomicWelding.pdf

Over the years scientists and science teachers in a frenzy to dispute what I am saying have, come up with all kinds of crazy remarks rather then science to dispute me. I have been told that I am so afraid of the explosion that my blood pressure went up, and I heard the high frequency whine because of that. I have never really had a fear of the explosion, if it is being done with care. I have no fear of loud noises and I still have above average hearing. After standing next to almost 20,000 rounds of ammunition going off. I do not blink or flinch.

http://www.rockwelder.com/wmv/WildBill.wmv

I cannot even count the number of times I have set off explosives.

It is the structure of the matter, and the affect it has on ambient radiation,  that creates the bomb, not the material itself.


                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #7 on: 02/09/2012 20:59:21 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length