BLU-118(Thermobaric Bomb)
Roy Basan
thermobaric bomb(BLU-118) which was flaunted by Pentagon.I was
wondering about the explosive used in it as well as its explosion
behavior.I think it works similar in principle to the dust explosion
in field expedient demolitions .What is your idea or knowledge about
this weapon.Is it superior to the Russian (Shmel) thermobaric weapons
in performance?
Roy
Boomer
--
Boomer
WCWing@Chartermi..net
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
"Roy Basan" <rba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:95b037df.0112...@posting.google.com...
: Recently there was a new weapon developed for Afghanistan called
Boomer
What you mean is the new BLUE-118B war head, which is fitted onto the BLU-109 2,000 pound
air-launched bomb, and is launched by Air Force F-15E fighter jets.Don't know yet what's
in it but it's somewhat different /say than a standard FAE. Most FAE's use a misted liquid
fuel, whereas these are composed of explosive dust particles, but what ever the case the
principal is the same, just a slight different effect and type of fuel. The are all
labeled DCE/VCE's. Dust explosions are not affect buy weather as must has liquid mist
clouds.
You find about almost 0 on the internet or in books on the physics and chemistry of
military FAE/DAE/VCE/DCE/FAM/DAM
There are some websites that deal with some of the basic principals but that's about it
--
Boomer
WCWing@Chartermi..net
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
"Roy Basan" <rba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:95b037df.0112...@posting.google.com...
: Recently there was a new weapon developed for Afghanistan called
Don Thompson
Which also contains the photos (6 pic sequential) of a China Lake FAE/FAM
test. The info on the new munition (BLU-118B) has the filler as finely
divided explosive powder which detonates as it is being pushed into the
tunnel by the chain-reaction like explosion.
****************************************************************
Are We Ready To Smoke bin Laden
Out With Thermobaric Bombs?
YOWUSA.COM, October 3, 2001
Marshall Masters
No matter what bunker or cave Osama bin Laden is hiding in right now, we can
assume that he is dug in deeper than a tick in a hound dog's ear. He's
likely to be surrounded by women, children and thousands of kamikaze
terrorists and we also know that smoking him out, dead or alive, will be a
bloody task. If we are not ready for the pictures of the burnt and
shattered bodies of women and children, we need to be. Especially if the
decision is made to use thermobaric weapons, also known as fuel-air
explosives (FAE).
The London Times, October 3, 2001
Satellite 'picks out bin Laden caves'
OSAMA BIN LADEN may be hiding in caves near a former Russian base in the
Pamir mountains close to the border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan,
according to reports in Pakistan.
The Pamir mountains, known as the "roof of the world", are a highly
treacherous range, 20,000ft to 25,000ft high, which would make it difficult
to find the exiled Saudi terrorist. The nearby former Russian military base
at Wakhan, near Kunduz, was built by the Soviet Union during its occupation
of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
The Pamir range is being watched by American spy satellites because of
reports a few years ago that bin Laden had constructed a command and control
centre in a natural cave system in Kunduz, near Tajikistan.
Most of the recent reports have suggested bin Laden has taken refuge inside
a deep cave in southern Afghanistan.
Short of weapons of mass destruction such as low-yield tactical nuclear
weapons, the most powerful tools available to us are thermobaric weapons for
smoking terrorists out of heavily fortified bunkers or mountain caves.
An Old Weapon to Fight New Terror
It seems like the corporate news media has focused on everything but the
weapons we will use to prosecute our new War on Terror. What they do not
tell us is that FAE weapons can weigh just a few pounds and are be produced
in quantity by America, Russia, China and India. England is working on a
new FAE design intended for use. Iraq is rumored to have a developed an
FAE, which of course would be countered by an Israeli FAE.
Does America have such weapons? Yes - we invented them!
CND, January 11, 2001
Thermobaric Warfare
Fuel-air explosives (FAE) bombs were initially developed in the 1960s and
used by the United States in Vietnam to destroy Vietcong tunnels and clear
forest for helicopter landing sites. In the Gulf War the US dropped FAE
bombs from B52s and A-6Es on mine fields and troops in trenches.
The Soviets developed their own varieties which they first used in
Afghanistan. Russian forces currently field a wide array of third
generation FAEs and used them in the wars against Chechnya in 1994-96 and
2000.
China and India also have a variety of these weapons in their arsenals.
Bulgaria has developed a portable rocket launcher with an FAE warhead with a
range of 200 meters.
FAEs can be launched from aircraft, helicopters or ground vehicles.
A typical FAE device consists of a container of volatile gases, liquids or
finely powdered explosives and two separate explosive charges. The first
charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and scatters the
contents forming an aerosol cloud. The second charge then detonates the
cloud causing a searing fireball followed by a massive blast wave.
A 1993 US Defence Intelligence Agency report says that even if the cloud
fails to detonate properly, "victims will be severely burned and will
probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels,
ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should
prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical
agents."
FAE detonations create three zones of injury. The first is the central zone
where most will die immediately from blast and fire. Casualties in the
second zone will survive the initial blast and burns, but will have
extensive burns and massive internal injuries and in reality can only be
given pain relief before they die. In the third zone people will have had
some protection from flying debris but not from the blast effect. Injuries
to the extremities and eyes will be common, as will burns.
We've seen the horribly destructive force of the jet fuel carried aboard a
Boeing 767 that was released as it impacted the World Trade Center in New
York on September 11. 2001. The Boeing 767 was not designed as a weapon,
but the same kind of destructive power can be squeezed into a much smaller
FAE weapon.
The Guardian, January 18, 2001
Deadly blast from the past
A thermobaric bomb could be five to 10 times as powerful as a standard one
of the same weight, even before the added effects of a fuel-air blast are
taken into account.
A thermobaric weapon may be able to break through a brick wall. It may not
need to: the cloud from a fuel-air weapon will permeate open windows and
doors, and the blast inside a closed space is greatly magnified. The only
real defense is a hermetically sealed bunker.
The injuries caused by blast are as unpleasant as anything on the
battlefield. Most damage is caused when the shockwave passes from tissue to
fluid or air, resulting in collapsed lungs and multiple internal
hemorrhages. Anyone inside the cloud when it is detonated will probably be
killed instantly.
Does Osama bin Laden know about the power of thermobaric weapons?
Absolutely! His organization supports the terrorists operating out of the
Chechen capital city of Grozny, a city torn to shreds by Russian troops
using FAE weapons.
Marine Corps Gazette, August 2000
Fuel-Air Explosives and Grozny 2000
Following a deliberate advance across the northern Chechen plains in October
through December 1999, the Russian Army closed on the Chechen capital city
of Grozny and the foothills of the imposing Caucasus mountains. There, the
advance stopped. The Russians began the new century with a renewed assault
on Grozny. The Russians continued their deliberate urban advance and, after
forty days of fighting, the smoking ruins of Grozny were theirs. Unlike the
first battle for Grozny (in late 1994-early 1995) or the recapture of the
city by the Chechens (in 1996), the Russians now used quantities of fuel-air
weapons, along with iron bombs, surface-to-surface missiles with
high-explosive warheads, massed artillery and tank fire. These flattened
large sections of the city and crushed the opposing force.
The Russian use of tactical, ground-launched thermobaric weapons has taken
the wraps off of an effective weapons type that is currently being purchased
or developed by a variety of countries. Thermobaric weapons will be present
on future battlefields. They will present particular problems for defending
units or units bunched up on complex terrain such as forest, jungle or
cities. Medical units will face problems treating mass burn and crushing
injuries. Technology offers no quick counters, so unit survival may depend
on tactics and drills, improved counter-battery procedures and use of
camouflage and deception measures.
The Russians openly state they would never sell such weapons to terrorists,
but would that prevent bin Laden from obtaining FAE weapons as well from
someone like the Chinese?
Rediff, February 12, 1999
Taliban-China deal puzzles diplomats
The diplomatic community in South Asia is puzzled by a military co-operation
agreement signed between the Taliban militia in Afghanistan and the People's
Republic of China.
Diplomatic sources said the agreement was signed on December 10 and that the
agreement was not signed between the two governments but between the Taliban
military commanders and representatives of China's People's Liberation Army.
According to the agreement, the PLA has agreed to:
i) Repair and maintain equipment captured by the Taliban militia from
adversaries.
ii) The PLA would assist in raising and training the Taliban armed forces.
Initial, 25,000 troops are to be trained.
iii) The PLA would provide training facilities for the Taliban's air force
pilots.
iv) The PLA would provide from its own funds about 10 million US dollars to
improve infrastructure for the Taliban armed forces.
v) Initial training and maintenance of equipment are to done at Taxila in
Pakistan.
In return, the Taliban has given an undertaking that it will not provide any
training to Chinese Muslims in China's Xinjiang province and that it will
assist the Chinese authorities maintain places of worship and madrasas as
in China.
If not through the Chinese, bin Laden could also possibly obtain FAE
technology or weapons through:
Iraq, which is rumored to have FAE weapons
China, which definitely has FAE, weapons
The Russian mafia, who many reliable defense experts suspect of already
selling a handful of Russian-made suitcase nukes to Iraq
The Chechen fighters who may have captured FAE weapons used against capital
city of Grozny the Russian Red Army
We're Entering Dangerous Waters
Until recently, America always looked to the Pacific and Atlantic oceans as
safety buffers. On September 11, 2001, that notion of safety went the way
of the dinosaurs, buggy whips, real Coca-Cola and Christmas savings
accounts.
The longer we equivocate and try to fight as clean a war as possible, the
more likely we will be to see these weapons being used on our own country.
The recent blockbuster film Traffic, showed us how easy it is for drug
smugglers to bring huge shipments of narcotics into the country. We are up
against a terrible enemy and we must be equally terrible.
If America and its allies use thermobaric weapons to smoke out bin Laden, we
will be sure to enjoy a short-term success. However, if we do not follow
that up with an extremely strong and continued action it will only be a
matter of weeks or months before the same kind of weapons are visited upon
innocent Americans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
--
Don Thompson
Another Thompson Scion
"Boomer" <wcw...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:u2bupkf...@corp.supernews.com...
Boomer
--
Boomer
WCWing@Chartermi..net
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
"Don Thompson" <flas...@ix.netcom.comghost> wrote in message
news:a05317$odn$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
: From: http://www.yowusa.com/Archive/October2001/WOT1/wot1.htm
: >
: >
:
:
Don Thompson
Which has 2 pictures of the test of the new weapon.
"The big advantage of it is it would enable you to destroy what is
in the tunnel without collapsing the tunnel mouth," said military analyst
John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org. "In other words, you could kill people in
tunnels and also be able to figure out who you've killed."
That could prove to be a big advantage in the fight against the
Taliban and al-Qaida, since military officials are eager to determine which
leaders of the Islamic militia and terrorist network have been killed by
U.S. airstrikes. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said this week that
Osama bin Laden could be buried in the rubble of a bombed tunnel, for
example.
The military plans to send hundreds of U.S. Marines to the former
al-Qaida stronghold in the Tora Bora area to help search caves and possibly
dig into tunnels that were collapsed by bombs.
PREVIOUS EFFORTS IN VIETNAM
The United States had a similar kind of weapon, called a fuel-air
explosive, during the Vietnam War. That weapon detonated a mist of liquid
fuel, rather than the cloud of solid explosives used in the new version.
The old fuel-air explosives could create explosions of different
sizes, depending on the size of the droplets produced, wind speed and other
factors, Pike said.
"One of the reasons they didn't like the old ones was you couldn't
predict how big of a bang you were going to get," Pike said. "I gather that
the idea behind these new ones is that the size of the bang is more
predictable."
Della Vedova, the Air Force spokesman, would not say how many
thermobaric bombs the United States has or how much each would cost. The
weapon, called the BLU-118b, can be used in several configurations, Della
Vedova said.
The bombs are dropped from warplanes and guided to their targets by
lasers or satellite positioning systems. They're designed to explode inside
or just outside a cave or tunnel, sending the shock wave inside.
Pike said the bomb is so new the military probably does not have very
many of them.
"I think they're rolling their own, so to speak," Pike said.
--
Don Thompson
Another Thompson Scion
"Boomer" <wcw...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:u2bupkf...@corp.supernews.com...
Don Thompson
individual photos better than the movie.
During my "thermobaric" search I have come across a bunch of sites which
claim that the BLU-82 is a FAE. One even claims that the AN/Al/Polystyrene
soap slurry is "dispersed before detonation". And claims that FAE/FAM
munitions leave the area where they are used contaminated so bad that
civilian populations will be harmed afterward. Just proves that some
"reporters" are willing to lie their asses off to cast aspersions on the USA
and its military.
***********************************************
From: http://www.flakmag.com/opinion/thermo.html
"Thermobaric" denotes any weapon that creates massive amounts of destructive
overpressure. Although there are several types, the fuel-air explosive is
the U.S. military's thermobaric of choice, of which the BLU-82 is our top of
the line. Also known as the "daisy cutter," "Big Blue" or the "commando
vault," the BLU-82 is a 15,000 pound bomb that bears a striking resemblance
to a 1960s-vintage spacecraft. It is rolled out the back of MC-130s and
drifts to earth on a parachute. The parachute is important because the plane
needs to put a lot of distance between it and the blast site, which will
soon be shaken by a 4-mile-radius shockwave. As the bomb descends it blows a
primary charge that releases an aerosol mixture; when it reaches the ground,
a secondary explosive goes off, creating a massive fireball and
overpressure. Everything - buldings, trees, small hills - is flattened.
Anyone not in a hermetically sealed bunker is killed, either by the blast,
the flames, the vacuum or flying debris.
The Air Force dropped 11 daisy cutters in the Gulf Conflict, and British SAS
troops who saw one of the explosions from miles away thought it was a
tactical nuclear weapon. Indeed, there is no practical difference between
nuclear and thermobaric weapons. Both weapons create similar overpressures,
about 10,000 pounds per square foot at ground zero. They destroy
indiscriminately over a wide area, ruin farmland and pose an enormous threat
to civilian populations. And while thermobarics do not create residual
radiation, they do leave behind sizeable amounts of toxic chemicals not
burned off in the blast, which poison civilians and farmland.
*********************************************
--
Don Thompson
Another Thompson Scion
"Boomer" <wcw...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:u2c44qb...@corp.supernews.com...
Eric Pinnell
wrote:
>I don't think so, the BLU-118 500 lb. napalm canister,
Boomer,
They were talking about the BLU-118B. Apparently, they stuck a
thermobaric warhead on it.
Boomer
sure is funny how they change the name *poof, it is a thermobaric weapon. I don think it
is a *true FAE. We had similar helicopter trap weapons during the Nam days, only much
smaller, as in the size of a beer keg, spike fuse and all .Well, they were also called
FAE's, the fuel was dispersed and out, with it went 2 WP igniters, that once they reached
the proper distance ignite the dam thing. That's not the same thing (in my mind of a
_real_FAE) and is more on the order of a diffusive (deflagration) FAE and not detonation
FAE. What ever we want to call the dam things they are nasty, but detonation FAE's are
worse. I refuse, more or less, to believe that such things as the BLU-82 is a true FAE,
since something of that size would make it almost impossible to control, meaning to get
the mixture to maximum effective cloud density, which that a true FAE does and it is then
detonated and not deflagrated .I have yet have never gotten a good explanation on the
whole "shittin caboodles". All we can say is that all of them are termed VCE/DCE and they
give different effects.
As far as " "dispersed before detonation". " I'll let you get by with that phrase, YES
Go back and look at the old movie or your recent one, this is not how a true FAE works,
there is not all that much dispersion here, more or less a big rupture, ignition and boom.
This isn't what I call an FAE cloud. I also get a charge out of their "second charge",
large or even 50 gal size true FAE use more than 1 imitation device. Very large true FAE's
use multi imitation devices
From some of our old discussions in the past
"The blast effects from vapor cloud explosions are determined not only by the amount of
fuel, but more importantly by the combustion mode of the cloud. Significant overpressures
can be generated by both detonations and deflagrations. ***Most vapor cloud explosions are
deflagrations, not detonations.*** Flame speed of a deflagration is subsonic, with flame
speed increasing in restricted areas and decreasing in open areas. Significantly, a
detonation is supersonic, and will proceed through almost all of the available flammable
vapor at the detonation reaction rate. This creates far more severe peak over-pressures
and much higher amounts of blast energy. The speed of the flame front movement is directly
proportional to the amount of blast over-pressure. A wide spectrum of flame speeds may
result from flame acceleration under various conditions. High flame front speeds and
resulting high blast over pressures are seen in accidental vapor cloud explosions where
there is a significant amount of confinement and congestion that limits flame front
expansion and increases flame turbulence. These conditions are evidently more difficult to
achieve in the unconfined environment in which military fuel-air explosives are intended
to operate."
So I suppose in the end we can call them all FAE's, but I don't. But a BLU-832 has never
been listed as FAE and really doesn't operated like one.
"Frequent press reports to the contrary, the Daisy Cutter is not a fuel-air explosive
(FAE). It is a conventional explosive incorporating both agent and oxidizer. In contrast,
an FAE consists only of agent and a dispersing mechanism, and takes its oxidizer from the
oxygen in the air. FAE's generally run between 500 and 2000 pounds; it would be difficult
to make an FAE the size of Daisy Cutter because the correct uniform mixture of agent with
ambient air would be difficult to maintain if the agent were so widely dispersed. Thus,
the conventional explosive technique of Daisy Cutter is more reliable than that of an FAE,
particularly if there is significant wind or thermal gradient"
As far as I am concerned, it is just a high tech, better working more destructive,
big-ass napalm bomb
--
Boomer
WCWing@Chartermi..net
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
"Don Thompson" <flas...@ix.netcom.comghost> wrote in message
news:a055uk$bse$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
: That site has the movie separated into discrete pictures. I like the
: > :
:
:
:
Boomer
like some of you are not seeing it
"Oop's I forgot the rest
What you mean is the new BLUE-118B war head, which is fitted onto the BLU-109 2,000 pound
air-launched bomb, and is launched by Air Force F-15E fighter jets.Don't know yet what's
in it but it's somewhat different /say than a standard FAE. Most FAE's use a misted liquid
fuel, whereas these are composed of explosive dust particles, but what ever the case the
principal is the same, just a slight different effect and type of fuel. The are all
labeled DCE/VCE's. Dust explosions are not affect buy weather as must has liquid mist
clouds.
You find about almost 0 on the internet or in books on the physics and chemistry of
military FAE/DAE/VCE/DCE/FAM/DAM
There are some websites that deal with some of the basic principals but that's about it"
--
Boomer
WCWing@Chartermi..net
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
"Eric Pinnell" <eric.pinn...@ANTISPAM.attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:s4bc2uo7klpoagqcc...@4ax.com...
: On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 09:42:06 -0600, "Boomer" <wcw...@chartermi.net>
:
:
Roy Basan
> Oop's I forgot the rest
>
> What you mean is the new BLUE-118B war head, which is fitted onto the BLU-109 2,000 pound
> air-launched bomb, and is launched by Air Force F-15E fighter jets.Don't know yet what's
> in it but it's somewhat different /say than a standard FAE. Most FAE's use a misted liquid
> fuel, whereas these are composed of explosive dust particles, but what ever the case the
> principal is the same, just a slight different effect and type of fuel. The are all
> labeled DCE/VCE's. Dust explosions are not affect buy weather as must has liquid mist
> clouds.
>
> You find about almost 0 on the internet or in books on the physics and chemistry of
> military FAE/DAE/VCE/DCE/FAM/DAM
> There are some websites that deal with some of the basic principals but that's about it
> --
> Boomer
>
FAE and Thermobaric Weapons.However it appears that the recent BLU-118
can do more accurate,predictable destruction than an FAE.I was trying
to see a difference between the Shmel and FAE before and I had some
partial preference with the russian weapon because its man
portable(can be launched by RPG) and had simple ignition/detonation
system than the complex fuzing mechanism of air dropped US
FAE.Although its obvious that FAE can do more damge per unit weight of
fuel than the russian thermobaric weapon.Now if a Spec OPs personnel
can achieve more damage and accuracy if he can personnally launched
it,than an aircraft even with sophisticated guidance system in the
warheads(but still prone to errors.If that weapon can be easily
miniturized to fit portability.Its more cost effective also in Manpads
system.Just think of the expense and effort required in aircraft
delivery system,unless their is no friendly foot soldier in the
vicinity of target,that can do it more effectively.
Now does anybody have any idea the details of the explosive
composition used in this new bomb?
Roy
George William Herbert
>Oop's I forgot the rest
>What you mean is the new BLUE-118B war head, which is fitted onto
>the BLU-109 2,000 pound air-launched bomb, and is launched by
>Air Force F-15E fighter jets.
This is very interesting... it would indicate it's a new filler
for the BLU-109 hard target penetrator bomb not a complete bomb
in and of itself. Presumably the intent is that you can drop
it through the cave roof, and it will detonate inside...
It would seem to require a tricky fuze, to fire the FAE while
it's traversing a cave/tunnel void rather than while it's
penetrating rock, but a arm on load/fire on unload G-sensor
isn't all that hard to put together.
As an aside, I mentioned in another newsgroup a suspicion I have
that the Air Force may have decided to use "thermobaric" to
distinguish this from liquid/gas fueled FAE warheads because
the Russians use "thermobaric" as generic for FAE, but have only
deployed the powdered metal type FAE warheads. The usage may be
evolving away from "FAE" == "Thermobaric" towards "FAE==Gas/Liquid"
"Thermobaric==powder" being the definitions in use.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Dirk Bruere
"George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
news:a07sdb$8ch$1...@gw.retro.com...
>
> As an aside, I mentioned in another newsgroup a suspicion I have
> that the Air Force may have decided to use "thermobaric" to
> distinguish this from liquid/gas fueled FAE warheads because
> the Russians use "thermobaric" as generic for FAE, but have only
> deployed the powdered metal type FAE warheads. The usage may be
> evolving away from "FAE" == "Thermobaric" towards "FAE==Gas/Liquid"
> "Thermobaric==powder" being the definitions in use.
But what is the powder?
We can all make quite a few guesses.
Mine would include Mg, and maybe some standard explosive in powder form.
Dirk
George William Herbert
>"George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote:
>> As an aside, I mentioned in another newsgroup a suspicion I have
>> that the Air Force may have decided to use "thermobaric" to
>> distinguish this from liquid/gas fueled FAE warheads because
>> the Russians use "thermobaric" as generic for FAE, but have only
>> deployed the powdered metal type FAE warheads. The usage may be
>> evolving away from "FAE" == "Thermobaric" towards "FAE==Gas/Liquid"
>> "Thermobaric==powder" being the definitions in use.
>
>But what is the powder?
>We can all make quite a few guesses.
>Mine would include Mg, and maybe some standard explosive in powder form.
Well, the "usual suspects" are Mg, Zr, Al, maybe B, Ti.
You can do it with anything from flour or sugar dust to
PETN dust, but everyone's deployed weapon thermobarics
seem to use just metal powders.
A standard explosive in powder form is likely to detonate or
deflagrate from the bursting charge.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Dirk Bruere
"George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
news:a089po$a8r$1...@gw.retro.com...
How does one get a cloud of (say) Mg powder to detonate?
Also, IIRC, wasn't something similar done at Desert Blast, where quite a bit
of Mg powder hoisted and ignited?
Dirk
Boomer
deflagrate from the bursting charge"
No it's not, anymore than a deflagrating FAE deflagrates from the buster charge, which is
allot more likely
How the burster charge is deployed is the key
--
Boomer
WCWing@Chartermi..net
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
"George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
news:a089po$a8r$1...@gw.retro.com...
:
Boomer
It doesn't need to detonate only deflagrate. A bursting charge pressure wave pushes the
powdered "material" through opens, such as caves and a timed device ignites the material.
Explosion takes place just like a coal dust, gas or grain explosion, from the so called
"lit match effect". On other thing, high density clouds of powdered explosives in
channeled areas ( such as a cave, tunnel) can also detonate, it may be LOD(LVD) or
HOD(HVD) depending on operation. I'm sure Dirk you have heard of shock tubing and how it
worst. I explained it a year or two ago.
--
Boomer
WCWing@Chartermi..net
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a08gi7$irv6j$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
:
: "George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
:
:
George William Herbert
>"A standard explosive in powder form is likely to detonate or
>deflagrate from the bursting charge"
>
>No it's not, anymore than a deflagrating FAE deflagrates from the buster charge, which is
>allot more likely
>How the burster charge is deployed is the key
They're not the same problem. The FAE won't deflagrate until it
gets enough oxygen mixed in, even if you shock or heat the material
right around the bursting charge, it has a chance to cool before it
encounters the atmospheric oxygen as the cloud disperses.
A HE in powdered form will detonate if the local pressure/temperature
at any point around the bursting charge exceeds the initiation
parameters for the explosive material instantaneously as the
bursting charge goes off...
You can of course buffer the bursting charge with an inert
material to lower the shock intensity / heating where it
contacts the material being dispersed, as is discussed in
some FAE patents, but you have to ensure that it still has
enough energy to fracture the outer casing. With a FAE
with deflagrating fuel, there's a lot more room to work
with between those requirements of enough to burst and
little enough to avoid early initiating the dispersing fuel.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Boomer
--
Boomer
WCWing@Chartermi..net
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
"George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
news:a0db51$k0g$1...@gw.retro.com...
: Boomer <wcw...@chartermi.net> wrote:
: >"A standard explosive in powder form is likely to detonate or
: >deflagrate from the bursting charge"
: >
: >No it's not, anymore than a deflagrating FAE deflagrates from the buster charge, which
is
: >allot more likely
: >How the burster charge is deployed is the key
:
: They're not the same problem. The FAE won't deflagrate until it
They most certainly can iginite. One of the most common FAE fuels in the USA munitons is
Ethelene Oxide, which is extremely dangerous near any heat or flame and that includes
liquid form. Many FAE's have pre-ignited
: gets enough oxygen mixed in, even if you shock or heat the material
: right around the bursting charge, it has a chance to cool before it
: encounters the atmospheric oxygen as the cloud disperses.
:
: A HE in powdered form will detonate if the local pressure/temperature
You will not get this. There is nowhere NEAR that kind of heat or pressure.
Burster charges of this type or most typies are keyed NOT to do this
Do you know what the heat/pressure is for powdered TNTis to detonate or any other
explosive ?
: at any point around the bursting charge exceeds the initiation
:
George William Herbert
>"George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote:
>: Boomer <wcw...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>: >"A standard explosive in powder form is likely to detonate or
>: >deflagrate from the bursting charge"
>: >
>: >No it's not, anymore than a deflagrating FAE deflagrates from the buster charge, which
>is
>: >allot more likely
>: >How the burster charge is deployed is the key
>:
>: They're not the same problem. The FAE won't deflagrate until it
>
>They most certainly can iginite. One of the most common FAE
>fuels in the USA munitons is Ethelene Oxide, which is extremely
>dangerous near any heat or flame and that includes liquid form.
>Many FAE's have pre-ignited
Ahh... yeah. I was thinking of propane and the powder fuel
FAEs when I wrote that, but yes, ETO decomposes exothermically
if sufficiently heated and shocked, and I did know that the
last generation or two of US FAEs used ETO. But it's not nearly
as sensitive as say PETN powder.
>: gets enough oxygen mixed in, even if you shock or heat the material
>: right around the bursting charge, it has a chance to cool before it
>: encounters the atmospheric oxygen as the cloud disperses.
>:
>: A HE in powdered form will detonate if the local pressure/temperature
>
>
>You will not get this. There is nowhere NEAR that kind of heat or pressure.
>Burster charges of this type or most typies are keyed NOT to do this
>Do you know what the heat/pressure is for powdered TNTis to detonate
>or any other explosive ?
Not off the top of my head, but I've seen the numbers listed
and several of the references I have work the calculations.
Loose powder is less detonatable again, slight voids increase
the sensitivity but it drops off again when density decreases
a lot.
As I said, I don't know this off the top of my head and my
references aren't in front of me at this instant, but when I
was looking at Ethylene Oxide for other uses (rocket propulsion)
I recall ETO required enough input energy that it was roughly
as sensitive as nitrous oxide; both are pretty darn insensitive
in the sense of transitioning to detonation. Powdered PETN
doesn't take nearly that much effort to detonate at any
density I remember offhand.
There's also the tiny problem that the whole reason for using
a FAE rather than a bulk charge usually is to multiply the
effective charge mass by including atmospheric oxygen and using
reactions which are inherently more energetic than solid
explosives... for example, propane in air is about 10-11 times
more energetic at stoichiometric ratios than TNT, 40-something
MJ/kg of propane or so. If you use powdered explosives, unless
they're relatively oxygen poor, they won't gain energy from the
oxygen in the air. You may get beneficial pressure front profile
effects, but you won't get charge mass multiplication like with
a true FAE.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Boomer
--
Boomer
WCWing@Chartermi..net
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
"George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
news:a0fn9g$orl$1...@gw.retro.com...
Hardly please consult a chemical desk reference and compare the two, ETO
is much much worse
: as sensitive as nitrous oxide; both are pretty darn insensitive
: in the sense of transitioning to detonation.
Who said detonation ? Most FAE's don't go through DDT, they are just deflagrating
Powdered PETN
: doesn't take nearly that much effort to detonate at any
: density I remember offhand.
:
: There's also the tiny problem that the whole reason for using
: a FAE rather than a bulk charge usually is to multiply the
: effective charge mass by including atmospheric oxygen and using
: reactions which are inherently more energetic than solid
: explosives... for example, propane in air is about 10-11 times
: more energetic at stoichiometric ratios than TNT, 40-something
: MJ/kg of propane or so. If you use powdered explosives, unless
: they're relatively oxygen poor, they won't gain energy from the
There are many explsoives to choose from and powered HMX/Al mixtures detonate very well
: oxygen in the air. You may get beneficial pressure front profile
: