Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Unconventional Shaped Charges

Unconventional Shaped Charges

Pages: 1 .. 5 6 7 8 9 .. 17

grndpndr - 27-4-2009 at 18:03

I suspect the terahedron or even pyramid soldered flat plate
liner will be an exerc cise in futility and given the work involved for a design thats been abandoned possibly for decades if not longer a dissapointment even if the impossible is done and a relatively precise form is made results will be dissapointing at least.

Id considered AXTs glass cone with a copper overlay until I happened upon a paper that indicated the jet essentially wouldnt be a cohesive one.The tip of the glass jet would attain a different velocity than the tip of the copper jet resulting in an incoherent jet of different velocitys.I suppose this extends to composite matrix liners unless the characteristics are carefully matched even in a matrix dissimilar liner materials are bound to fail.EFPs that retain a solid penetrator dont share this problem apparently.

This is Im sure a very infantile question and if im flamed unmercifully its likely deserved but after a wk or more of searching ive yet to find a mathematical method to form a sheet metal cone or rostrum.It would seem to be simple geometry but the sheet metal sites treat it as old tech and only have CAD/CAM to offer and ive been unable to find what must be a simple geometry equation to layout the flat form for fabricating a cone. Using a copper sheet cone layout and repeated annealing I expect a repeatable cone could be formed using a wood form dead soft annealed copper and plastic hammer a respectable /repeatable cone could be formed.W/o overlapping or double layers a simple butt joint with a slight amount of soldering.Ive searched to near my limit and am not asking to be spoonfed i dont believe by the stds ive seen used on the forum.An honest question that I believe Ive used due diligence in trying to answer myself and its not been a habit in fact i believe its my first request for info. regards.

[Edited on 28-4-2009 by grndpndr]

nitro-genes - 9-10-2009 at 08:02

After all this time I finally had the time to combine most of my shaped charge efforts into 1 single movie.

For those interested:

http://www.easy-share.com/1908070830/Shaped charges by Nitro-genes.wmv

Cheers,

Nitro-genes

Edit: Copy paste entire url

[Edited on 9-10-2009 by nitro-genes]

phantasy - 9-10-2009 at 14:14

good job nitro-genes !

[Edited on 9-10-2009 by phantasy]

497 - 9-10-2009 at 18:44

Very nice indeed! You beat us to it

NameWithheld and I were planning on collaborating on a similar line of shaped charge experiments this winter, maybe putting them into a little video like that.

Hopefully we'll still get around to it. Probably scale things up a bit though. And maybe use some funner explosive fillers like cast this. Being comparable to pure HMX, it ought to work nicely.

nitro-genes - 11-10-2009 at 08:43

Classic music and explosives are a great combination IMO...

Little under 400 kbar of pressure surely will produce some nice holes! What liners will u be using?

497 - 11-10-2009 at 12:48

We haven't got the liners completely worked out yet. I do have access to small lathe, so we might try doing them like you did. Did you get an idea of what the upper limits of copper thickness are using your technique?

hissingnoise - 11-10-2009 at 13:04

Could the 'perfect' liner be fabricated by electro-plating a machined resin cathode made conductive by graphiting?

nitro-genes - 11-10-2009 at 13:44

1 mm thick coppersheet could be worked relatively easily using several annealings and a 50 cm long shaping tool for leverage. Had the feeling though it was about the limit of what the lathe could handle, which is only a very small one and not a real spinning lathe. With a larger lathe, steel mandrel and enough leverage I think you could easily go 2mm+...

hissingnoise - 11-10-2009 at 14:56

Any increase in the size/weight of the penetrator will require an increase in weight of the charge. . .

Dual Tandem Charge Array & Monroe effect tamping

franklyn - 18-10-2009 at 04:24

Previuosly mentioned by me here _
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=10575&...
and by KemiRockarFett
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=10575&...
Tamping significantly improves penetration !
Glueing the charge to the inside bottom of a plastic jug
so it can be filled with water will work well.
It also provides protection from cast out fragments.

A technique for providing tamping without significant weight is to have two
layers of explosive separated by an air gap , in effect , a charge within a
charge. As the outer layer explodes it sets off the detonator at the apex of
the cone of the inner layer. The impact from standoff of the outer layer
reflects the detonation of the inner layer entirely in the direction of the liner.
See first Illustration attached below _

Also see abstract here _
Active Tamping Experiments
http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA082061
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The total force acting from an explosive is in exact proportion to the surface area
in contact. The surface area of a hollow cavity can be made larger by corrugating
or fluting the liner walls without having to increase the diameter of a charge. This
can readily be observed in a coffee percolator filter. The effect is to increase the
power delivered from a given charge for greater depth of penetration.
See second Illustration attached below
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Attaining greater penetration requires having two colinear charges fired in sequence.
The scheme outlined in the third attached sketch illustrates this idea. A conventional
conical shaped charge sets off and shoots through the central opening of a second
charge in front of it. The circumferential detonation wave of the first shaped charge
travels around an inert block ( cement ) to set off the next charge in front from the
outer rim which converges inward to the opening Position 1. The jet produced by the
first charge will have passed on through as the second charge is detonating , and the
two do not combine. Position 2 shows the liner blown out and curling into a cup shape.
The liner imediately around the center opening moves straight away in line with the
central axis indicated by two grey lines. The curvature out to the rim converges the
liner to a focal point.Position 3 The colapse continues to form a truncated hollow
based cone. Position 4 The projectile begins to take final form becoming elongated at
Position 5.

Shallow dish shaped charges ( Misznay-Schardin ) are initiated at the center and
detonate outward to the rim. See this image below.
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/files.php?pid=101497&...
It occured to someone how it might be if detonation started at the rim and converged
inward instead and so originated the EFP.

This is similar to the " Metal Storm " concept of packing rounds as a Roman Candle.
Sequential Jet Shaped Charge U.S. Patent 4004515
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

BASIC STUDIES OF THE LETHALITY OF SHAPED CHARGES - 1962
PART 1. PENETRATION DATA
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD329302
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD329302&Locatio...

Cute , shaped charges as detonators , has interesting X ray shots
Characterization of Jets From Exploding Bridge Wire Detonators
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA433795
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433795&Locati...

.

franklyn - 19-10-2009 at 01:16

Related to active tamping , drawing 1 above _
Report on U.S. Patent 5,847,312
Shaped Charge with Dual Confinement
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA405843
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA405843&Locati...

Related to drawing 3 above _
Tandem Charge
http://www.ih.navy.mil/working_with_us/technology_transfer/p...

Read Explosively Formed Projectile (EFP) scroll down here _
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bul...

U.S. Patent 5,565,644
Shaped Charge With Wave Shaping Lens

Below is a sketch including both design features in the same device ,
note that the liner can also be corrugated.

.

grndpndr - 22-10-2009 at 06:09

The last appears to be a fascinating combination of A dual CSC? accelerating an exotic efp.The penetrator appears to be formed to more the shape of an old stye solid shot arty AP round.I dont qute understand the soft efp materials if kinetic energy were the main means penetration f the different shapd EFPs.ut always a soft penetrator material ? Such as copper ,soft Iron ,mild steel, even for the long rod penetrator version of the EFP as well as longer range aerodynamic finned mdels all made by dffering the geometry of the liner and explosive.The long rod efp one of just a few methods f penetrating modern composite tank armor.lso fascinating are multiple efps from single devices capable of covering 360 degree degrees of Anti-armor coverage.Multiple efps US 4649828/6606951
capable of off route use unlike static CSC'.

If a depeted uranium/Tungsten carbide type material coul be used for
EFPs a pssibility i think judging from experimenal work and almost an unbeatable warhead.

Thanks for the links to the other devices they appear fascinateing!
The war between the tank designer and the antitank device designer are alive n well!

[Edited on 22-10-2009 by grndpndr]

Microtek - 24-10-2009 at 12:53

Regarding that new nitrate ester, the one that is castable and has about the same detonating properties as HMX, I have worked with that as part of my Masters dissertation. I can offer a few pointers on the synthesis of the precursor, and also reveal that the nitration gives similar yields with mixed acids instead of the Ac2O/HNO3 system that the authors use.
I found the lack of a name to be annoying and so have given it the acronym NDBD (from the chemoffice generated name 2,3-bis(nitroxymethyl)-2,3-dinitrobutane-1,4-dinitrate).

497 - 24-10-2009 at 17:10

Awesome! That was the one sticking point for me, not knowing whether mixed acid would work for the nitration. Thanks for clearing that up! I might try a DCM moderated mixed acid nitration, and see if that gets better yields.

As far as the precursor goes, I'd love to hear what you have to say about it. I have a bunch of trishydroxymethyl nitromethane already (ironically, it is easier to get than nitromethane itself), I was planning on ketalizing it with acetone using H2SO4 catalyst. Then basically following the literature procedure, except for the final nitration step. I'd be interested in hearing any details you want to share.

Yes, the lack of name annoyed me too.. NDBD sounds good to me..

Plasmapyrobattics - 25-10-2009 at 15:01

Quote: Originally posted by Microtek

Regarding that new nitrate ester, the one that is castable and has about the same detonating properties as HMX, I have worked with that as part of my Masters dissertation. I can offer a few pointers on the synthesis of the precursor, and also reveal that the nitration gives similar yields with mixed acids instead of the Ac2O/HNO3 system that the authors use.
I found the lack of a name to be annoying and so have given it the acronym NDBD (from the chemoffice generated name 2,3-bis(nitroxymethyl)-2,3-dinitrobutane-1,4-dinitrate).

Excellent.

Is there perhaps an existing thread (or a link to a page) on this topic/material or can you perhaps open a new thread about it?

Thanks

KemiRockarFett - 26-10-2009 at 02:01

As Franklyns says, tamping results in more efficieny, this is related to the Newton second law: F=ma
Inertia increases with acceleration --> fast explosive = more inertia.

Another example: A 1 kg heavy weapon fires 1 gram projetile at 1000 m/s.
Impulse:
Mweap. V1 = Mbullet V2 ---> weapon recoil speed 1 m/s

Associated kinetic energy for bullet and weapon:
Weapon: 0.5 Nm
Bullet: 500 Nm

A lighter weapon --> more recoil and less energy into the bullet.
Think of this in analogy of just a bare explosive surrounding a metal cone compared to a similar situation but with the explosive surronded by a lot of mass.

hissingnoise - 26-10-2009 at 04:32

I don't know if it's me or the fact that it's Monday morning---but I find none of the above comprehensible. . .

grndpndr - 29-10-2009 at 22:54

A lighter weapon has more recoil simply because the weapons lighter. It has no measurable effect on velocity.a lighter gun with the same lenghth bbl fires the projecile at exacly the same velocity given the minor manufacturing differences between weapons/ammunition.All else being equal if it were possible, weapon wieght has no effect on velocity in actual practice.

I do see what your trying to say but its a poor analogy chemically tamping High Explosives and firearms ballistics given the difference in
velocity of the 2.

A better example may be the recoilless rifle that uses a portion of the propellant gasses to act as countermass to the recoil of firing.

[Edited on 30-10-2009 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 30-10-2009 by grndpndr]

nitro-genes - 30-10-2009 at 04:23

About the dual shaped charge... (US5,223,666)

The design is more finicky than appears at first sight. The linerwall will only move at about half the speed compared to the detonation wave of the explosive itself. Also, the mass of the gasses produced by the explosive is much less compared to the linerwall and thus will accelerate much faster. This means that the gasses produced by the explosive willl imping on the jet formed by the first penetrator, effectively reducing its length and thus its effectiveness. It is probably one of the reasons why subcalibration is always designed to be perpendicular to the linerwall and is known as the "gasseous guillotine". Figure 9 in the patent you posted deals with this concept by adding a flyer plate to act as an "explosive clock".

Reference: --> http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002infantry/mcwilliams.pdf

About the explosive tamping...

Interesting read, though I seem to remember reading in FoSC that tamping is only increasing effectiveness of the shaped charge at large standoff distances, and only marginal. The results of the computer simulations in the PDF you linked to seem to confirm this. Their goal was more to decrease the amount of explosive needed, while maintaining jettip velocities. The linerwall is accellerating too fast probably to really benefit from the compression wave reflected by the casing, hence detonation pressure is the most important factor.

[Edited on 30-10-2009 by nitro-genes]

franklyn - 30-10-2009 at 22:23

Determining the kinematic flow of an explosive train is quite a task, only
practicable by computer simulation using numerical finite element analysis (FEA).
Some examples are linked here in a previous post _
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=10575&...
In a virtual setting one can alter the parameters at will to observe and achieve a
desired end. In a tandem charge arrangement each charge would be optimized
individually , then both would be interfaced and combined into one sequence with
the objective of avoiding interference that will degrade performance.

A detonation wave traveling along the periphery of a cylinder in the axial direction
can be delayed by using an explosive having lower velocity of detonation mixed
with aggregate to slow detonation even more. Say perhaps from 8.4 km/s down to 5 ,
then ( 5 / 8.4 ) = 0.6.
Arrival of the wave can be delayed further by elongating the explosive's continuity
in a sinuous or zig zag path. Down to 0.7 for a rounded meander to 0.5 for a square
Castellated form. See attached.
Using combined techniques , 0.6 times 0.5 reduces the wave transit time to 0.3 .
This is in a range where it can see useful application in design of an explosive train.

* Note in this depiction http://www.feainformation.com/avilib/67.avi
the slug at the rear will have protruded into the subsequent converging concentric
detonation of the EFP ahead. I have assumed no interaction or that they may blend.
Without considering the hydrodynamic challenges , it appears that in such case ,
the combined effect would be to enhance the pre-jet.

.

Thermite shaping...

LabRatNW - 31-10-2009 at 09:36

I was trying to figure out a way to make solid and flexible thermite charges. I thought about adding corn syrup, but that may just make the thermite highly explosive...

I've also had some wild ideas (do forgive me) about mixing thermite (Al/Fe3O4) into rocket candy for exactly that purpose. Any experienced/knowledgeable types tried this?

hissingnoise - 31-10-2009 at 10:12

Look LabRatNW, it's now plainly obvious that you know next-to-nothing about explosives; instead of making laughable posts, why not get yourself some little information on the subject, to start.
No one here is going to attempt to teach you the many complexities of energetic materials from scratch. . .
And thermite isn't explosive in the accepted sense---the highly exothermic metathetical reaction produces iron and the oxide of Al.
There is no evolution of gasses or blast effect.

[Edited on 31-10-2009 by hissingnoise]

carbonfeind - 5-11-2009 at 06:17

Yesterday I fired a micro shaped charge. It was about 2 grams of hexamine diperchlorate with a conical aluminum liner made from a soda can. I have a video I got of it as well. link Enjoy! Edit: primary was a tad less than .5 grams of silver acetylide picrate.

[Edited on 5-11-2009 by carbonfeind]

metathetical. LOL.

LabRatNW - 9-11-2009 at 16:33

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise

Look LabRatNW, it's now plainly obvious that you know next-to-nothing about explosives; instead of making laughable posts, why not get yourself some little information on the subject, to start.
No one here is going to attempt to teach you the many complexities of energetic materials from scratch. . .
And thermite isn't explosive in the accepted sense---the highly exothermic metathetical reaction produces iron and the oxide of Al.
There is no evolution of gasses or blast effect.

Really? I had no idea that thermite wasn't explosive! Thanks for the useful advice and pointers. The entire board is now better for you having explained that to me.

Adding an easily oxidizable, rapid-burning, gas-producing fuel (sugar, anyone?) to the thermite mixture however, may cause an explosion (or near-explosive reaction). Especially at the temperatures that thermite reacts... hence the 'may make thermite explosive' comment. I never said thermite was explosive to begin with. You just assumed I thought that because you didn't read what I said carefully.

My idea wouldn't be a "charge" in the traditional theme of explosives. It would be a shaped unit of thermite for a purpose. Thermite tape to weld two things together that have some significant length, or a cylinder to carry quantifiable units around easily rather than having to muck about with powder.

Any idiot can find the following information:
3(Fe3O4) + 8Al -> 4(Al2O3) + 9Fe
dH = approx 3.32 MJ/Equiv. (that's Megajoules)
The ratio of iron oxide would most definitely have to be tweaked to compensate for the sugar gobbling up some of the available oxygen. I'm actually worried about the explosion that may be created because I don't want to have globs of hot thermite showering my neighborhood.

For the record, I personally know Dr. H. Laine Berghout who did several years of research at China Lake with energetic materials. I'm on a first-name basis with him. So if I need some explanation on the basics of energetic materials, I have a good source, thanks.

btw: Correct terminology is "metathesis-type reaction"

[Edited on 11-10-2009 by LabRatNW]

hissingnoise - 10-11-2009 at 02:36

I never thought I'd say this to anyone on the board but I'm sorry I responded to any of your posts in the first place. . .
I know you're not going to make an explosive, so stop reading about them. . .
Do something else---anything!

[Edited on 10-11-2009 by hissingnoise]

Bikemaster - 10-11-2009 at 11:33

Is this one of us???? because it seem pready similar to what project of making.

Two Students Noted For Explosives Research
SOCORRO, N.M. November 10, 2009 – New Mexico Tech students Shaun Geerts and Micah Wild won third place for their research poster at the national American Indian Society of Science and Engineering conference in Portland in late October.

The mechanical engineering students were honored for their poster titled “A Study of the Effects of Shaped-Charge Liner Design.”
Geerts, the president of the Explosives Club on campus, said he and Wild completed the project with the intention of presenting at the International Society of Explosives Engineers in Orlando in February.

While they haven’t heard if their paper has been accepted for the ISEE conference, the Tech chapter did receive an award to help students attend.

A “shaped charge” is an explosive charge with a lined cavity that generates a jet of metal when detonated. The standard design includes a liner that collapses in a fashion that creates a high-velocity jet of ejecta. Geerts said he and Wild tested a theory that a second liner would create a more powerful jet.

“We came up with an idea to implement an inner liner,” Geerts said. “Instead of a single liner, you have an additional liner inside and the goal was to add more material to a certain part of the jet to increase its effectiveness. If you have more mass, it can penetrate further.”

The students theorized that one thicker line wouldn’t allow the same initial velocity, but a second liner may allow the jet to form, then add material as the shaped charge exits the cone.

They tested their theory nine times at the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech. Two of their designs penetrated a target object just as far as the conventional shaped charge, but none of their designs outperformed the standard cone, Geerts said.

The national organization gave the club $1,000 to help students pay travel costs to attend the conference. The Explosives Club has about 50 members and Geerts hopes that 10 to 12 students will attend the conference in Florida.

– NMT –

By Thomas Guengerich/New Mexico Tech

User - 10-11-2009 at 15:59

I get a good feeling reading this, let me explain myself.
I think it is a general acceptance that explosives are only for military/government.
There seems to be a major problem with amateurs/student that experiment with explosive materials.
It is good to hear that there actually is room for this

@on topic
The idea behind a double liner isn't that dumb, even tough it did not outperform the commercial charge.
I can imagine that there are limits to a single liner and thus there is a frontier in the current method.
A nice way of thinking around the problem.
Too bad my insights in this kind of physics are limited at this point.

hissingnoise - 11-11-2009 at 15:28

Quote: Originally posted by Bikemaster

Two of their designs penetrated a target object just as far as the conventional shaped charge, but none of their designs outperformed the standard cone, Geerts said.

A non-event, then?

[Edited on 11-11-2009 by hissingnoise]

grndpndr - 20-11-2009 at 10:11

Nothing ventured nothin gained my pessimistic friend!

I agree it is heartening to see non governmental folks sponsored and even allowed to test thier theorys.Even in failure something learned something gained."Negative waves
man". :cool:

'Kelly's Hero's?

Theres a link there somewhere?Like the prize goes to those willing to take chances/try new things.Maybe Edisons a better example.Far more failures than successes.Stubborn SOB and still a Famous name.Likely more stubborn than genius. Early Happy holidays.

[Edited on 20-11-2009 by grndpndr]

nitro-genes - 2-1-2010 at 09:46

Couldn't resist since I had one coppercone left...

32 mm diameter spunformed copperliner, 60 deg apex, 0.8mm thick. Headheight used was only 0.6 CD to reduce the amount of PBX needed. No waveshaper this time. Charge was fired against 23 cm solid aluminium target using 2.5 CD standoff.

Charge was filled with 34 grams of PETN/PIB/plasticizer, rolled until at near theoretical density of ~1.6g/cm3 for 8% inerts. PETN was recrystallized slowly from hot acetone and blendered in water to give estimated 20-50 micron sized spherical crystals.

19.3 cm penetration in total, nice!

Attachment: 32mm shaped charge vs aluminium small.avi (886kB)
This file has been downloaded 1332 times 32 mm shaped charge vs aluminium small.jpg - 288kB

32 mm shaped charge vs aluminium small.jpg - 288kB

[Edited on 2-1-2010 by nitro-genes]

gnitseretni - 2-1-2010 at 10:26

Nice! I bet that put a smile on your face

hissingnoise - 2-1-2010 at 12:08

The aluminium looks well satisfied too. . .

Bought on eBay

Ritter - 14-1-2010 at 10:32

Someone on eBay is selling a CD-ROM with over 640 patent pdfs relating to shaped charges. The listing is #360225030621. Here's the blurb from the listing:

Quote:

Shaped charge explosive devices allow the energy released in the explosion to be focused either to a point, a line or an arc (such as in the familiar CLAYMORE mine) or plane. In addition, the metal liners that are part of these devices are converted into a super hot 'explosive formed penetrator' jets that can punch through armor plate, sheet steel, reinforced concrete walls, unexploded bombs & much more. Shaped charge explosive devices are the first choice of military weapons designers in the following areas:

- Mines (anti-armor & anti-personnel)
- Grenades
- Missile & artillery shell warheads
- Aerospace
- Anti-armor infantry weapons such as the BAZOOKA
- Autonomous sub-munition tank killer bomblets
- Devices to breach walls & hardened defensive emplacements

And much more!

This patent collection gives the student of military technology, explosives & mechanical design a ready reference on the design & manufacturing techniques used to create these awesome devices!

The patents in this collection are in Adobe pdf file format and are viewable, printable & searchable on any PC-type computer with a CD drive & Adobe Acrobat Reader (free download).

I purchased same & it's a pretty complete patent search with some very good info on manufacture & use of shaped charges, EFPs, etc.

[Edited on 14-1-2010 by Ritter]

-=HeX=- - 14-1-2010 at 13:29

Ritter: Will a .iso of said CD be appearing on Rapidshare for us? Sharing IS caring...

Ritter - 14-1-2010 at 17:31

Quote: Originally posted by -=HeX=-

Ritter: Will a .iso of said CD be appearing on Rapidshare for us? Sharing IS caring...

Yes, but its label says it's copyrighted. eBay (and myself) take a dim view of violating copyright laws, such as posting such material for uncompensated view.

[Edited on 15-1-2010 by Ritter]

franklyn - 15-1-2010 at 22:37

@ Ritter
The name of the product can be copyrighted.
Patents are public documents and are not
subject to anyone's copyright nor would it
be granted. For example a travel guide, the
places described therein are not subject to
the author or publishers right of commerce,
only reproduction of the printed presentation.
Post the list of numbers only if you have qualms.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=36022...

.

Ritter - 16-1-2010 at 07:55

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

@ Ritter
The name of the product can be copyrighted.
Patents are public documents and are not
subject to anyone's copyright nor would it
be granted. For example a travel guide, the
places described therein are not subject to
the author or publishers right of commerce,
only reproduction of the printed presentation.
Post the list of numbers only if you have qualms.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=36022...

.

While you are correct that patents are public documents, the final product of a patent SEARCH is not a public document. The contents of this disc are the product of both time & talent & are correctly entitled to copyright, as would be a list of the patent numbers obtained through this search.

It's somewhat distressing that the spirit of amateur experimentalism appears to include the apparent desire to get something for nothing as well as the apparent DEMAND that I provide same because I own it & others don't.

[Edited on 16-1-2010 by Ritter]

hissingnoise - 16-1-2010 at 08:25

Ritter, I think 'demand' is too strong a word here.
Posting the numbers shouldn't hurt anyone much.
And members here are unlikely to use them for profit?

Ritter - 16-1-2010 at 08:32

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise

Posting the numbers shouldn't hurt anyone much.
And members here are unlikely to use them for profit?

In think you are still missing the point. If a purchaser of this data disseeminates it to interested parties at no charge, where is the incentive for the original author to continue prioducing such works? These requests are ill advised & overall counterproductive.

hissingnoise - 16-1-2010 at 08:55

I don't think anyone is looking for all 640 numbers but a few numbers would be welcome and you wouldn't be committing a great offense.

Ritter - 16-1-2010 at 11:54

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise

I don't think anyone is looking for all 640 numbers but a few numbers would be welcome and you wouldn't be committing a great offense.

Here are 3 US patent numbers dealing with the manufacture of shaped charges:

3034393
3924510
4250792

hissingnoise - 16-1-2010 at 13:15

Thanks Ritter, the earlier two are pre-'75 and don't come up on USPTO search but I got a plethora of interesting patents which are related to those early ones.

Ritter - 17-1-2010 at 03:54

Here are URLs for the 2 earlier patents. You'll need one of the TIFF viewer plugins to get full image.

http://tinyurl.com/ybyx7qx
http://tinyurl.com/y8uflap

[Edited on 17-1-2010 by Ritter]

Lord Emrpne - 21-1-2010 at 09:48

Don't know where to post this, but I think this topic is the most suitable.

Today I tested a nitric acid plastique mixture of KIPE (Tim Lewis) : Nitric acid / polystyrene.
I distilled the NA (not with destillator but with frying pan and bottles, it fumed heavily) and mixed it with polystyrene beans (28 gr NA, 5 gr PS). I stirred the mixture for half an hour in a water bath 40°C, but it was still liquid, not plastique. I added 1 gr Nitromethane.
I tried to det it with 4 gr cast ETN, but of course, it didn't go off. I allready expected it, but tried it to be sure because I couldn't find anything on it on the internet. I lost quite lot of time and my conclusion is : all the books of Tim Lewis are filled with crap. I wish I had never downloaded them.

hissingnoise - 21-1-2010 at 09:58

It could be worse - some people forked out good money for Ledgard's stupid manual!
And what's more, I'll never fucking learn. . .

franklyn - 24-1-2010 at 11:56

Hey Hey ,
I'm talking Federov , Beilstein Hauptwerk , Journal für Praktische Chemie
and you think you got taken bad _
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=7553&a...

.

devongrrl - 23-2-2010 at 02:32

Nitro-genes:

Damn, I'm all jealous now

Excellent work. Full credit.

BTW, what was the classical piece used as the soundtrack.

Lord Emrone - 23-2-2010 at 10:55

I tested the ANNMSA mixture of Axt. Det with 6 gr ETN. It's powerful, but I think it isn't better than ANNM 30%.
Here is the vid : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIsZBo6ZIs8

devongrrl - 24-2-2010 at 02:17

I wonder if any one would like a full pdf copy of "Liners for Shaped Charges" by Professor Manfred Held.

It was published in Journal Of Battlefield Technology, Vol 4, No 3, November 2001.

Abstract:
The penetration potential of shaped charges is proportional to the jet length and the square root of the jet density. The bulk-sound velocities of the liner materials define the maximum possible jet tip velocities. The jet tip velocities and breakup, or particulation, times determine the jet length. For shaped-charge optimisations these parameters have to be considered.

After a brief discussion of these issues, this paper outlines the potential of a range of materials for use as possible shaped-charge liners.

It is further noted that, as well as the selection of optimal materials, a number of other factors have be taken into account, such as quality of the raw material, homogeneity, and grain-size distribution.

Finally, the paper describes the different production possibilities for copper liners, identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each. In particular, the flow-turning process is discussed with its potential for spin compensation.

The article is 1.7 Mb, 7 pages in length.
Here is the link

Mods: Apologies if this is the wrong place to offer this but I don't have access to References.

[Edited on 25-2-2010 by devongrrl]

nitro-genes - 24-2-2010 at 14:38

Thanks,

And yes, it's a shame (though in many other ways probably a good thing

) that only some institutions have a subscription to these kinds of journals...

The music in the clip was the 3rd movement of Bruch's violin concerto nr.1 in G minor, can't recall the violinist...

Lambda - 25-2-2010 at 01:52

Quote: Originally posted by Ritter

Here are 3 US patent numbers dealing with the manufacture of shaped charges:

3034393
3924510
4250792

All 3 Patents renamed in PDF-format in one RARed-file attached:

Attachment: Patents.rar (1.3MB)
This file has been downloaded 883 times

Lambda

devongrrl - 26-2-2010 at 02:12

Nitro-genes:

In your video you used 60 degree angle on your cones but I read in Cooper: Explosives Engineering that the supposed optimum cone angle for a CSC is 42 degrees.

Just curious why you used 60 degs ?

nitro-genes - 27-2-2010 at 04:24

Well, one reason I used 50-60 degree cones is that the larger angle makes spinning them more easy and with less rounds of reannealing the copper, which negatively affects the properties of the metal.

A second reason is that, although I was aware of the 42 degree optimum, there seems to be little difference in penetrating power between 42 and 60 degrees, as is illustrated by the graph I posted halfway at page 22 of this thread.

A third reason is that 60 degrees liners yield jets with slightly more mass and less extreme velocity gradients, which makes them less sensitive to early particulation by flaws in charge precision. Hemisperical liners are even less affected by charge presicion, probably largely due to the same reasons.

Thanks again for posting the article btw, I knew spun formed liners introduced spin to the jet, but I never would have guessed that it would be spinning at over 800,000 rpm!!

I wonder how effective reannealing the finished liner one more time is to compeletly eliminate this effect...

grndpndr - 28-3-2010 at 01:41

Thats an interesting phenomena.We all know CSC's fired from a rifled gun cuts down on the penetration of the CSC.Witnes the effort expended to prevent a rifled gun from imparting this spin
to the CSC warhead.Normally the needed spin to stabilize the warhead is imparted by pop out fins after negating the riflings twist.My understanding is the high rotational forces cause the jet to dissipate quite rapidly rendering the CSC warhead largely ineffective. Im not aware of the rate of twist of a 75-106mmRR,
a 105mm howitzer, or HV tank gun but its far less that 800,000 RPM! A 30-06 which should mimick the spin of an artillery piece or double that of a Recoiless Rifle projectile is less than 180,000 RPM! FWIW?! IF a stationary spun liner imparts 800,000 RPM to the CSC pen jet that would from all ive read concerning rifled HEAT warheads render the jet relatively ineffective.Is there any way to confirm the theory of a stationary spun liner imparting that kind(800,000 RPM) of CSC jet spin? Resources? Patents,published papers? I havent been able to link up with any of the sources mentioned in the last few pages.If It were discovered by the military/industry that spun liners did indeed cause a CSC jet to rotate @800,000 rpm the jet would obviously lose its cohesiveness in short order with accompanying limited penetration/stand-off and any military interest?

[Edited on 28-3-2010 by grndpndr]

grndpndr - 5-4-2010 at 17:51

I have serious doubts that forming a CSC liner by spinning could cause any appreciale spin of the CSC jet by itself.
Resources,patents,professional phd dissertations describing the phenomena?!

grndpndr - 7-4-2010 at 05:09

Also fascinated by the 'penetration' of the "AL billet" page 26.
'Unique' target effects to say the least!?

Not to mention the fascinating billet dissection, very unusual-varied target 'metal' effects.

[Edited on 7-4-2010 by grndpndr]

NUKE - 23-4-2010 at 05:48

Since all the "rogue"/radical pages are down/unavailable for one reason or another. It's my best bet to post here. At least someone remotely interested in the subject might find this information useful.

So... Here it is!

Project: Construct and detonate conical copper lined shaped charge and use it in a way that uses it's full potential.

Charge:

Total weigth: 3.7kg

Main components of charge:

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Liner:

Material: Copper
Outer 2r: 89.5mm
Thickness: 2.5mm
Conus: 60°
Heigth: 78mm
Lathed from solid copper rod (90mm 2r; length: 85mm;4.9kg)
Mass of liner: ~430g

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Casing:

Material: Steel
Length: 201mm
Thickness: 6.3mm
Outer 2r: 102.6mm
Inner 2r: 89.9mm
Inner 2r (few mm on bottom of the pipe): 89.5mm
Pipe was solid piece of steel it didn't contain any stitches.

First the liner and casing were put into home electric oven and temperature was let to rise to around 190°C.

Silicone based hotglue was poured all around the bottom side of hot casing which had been lathed for liner to fit in perfectly. Liner was placed on piece of wood with conus upwards and casing was pressed on top of it. Both parts were allowed to cool down on room temperature.

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Another layer of hotglue was used on bottom of the charge afterwards.

Like that weren't enough additional layer of epoxy was added on the inside bottom of the charge.

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Standoff "legs":

Material: Steel
2r: 4mm
Total length: 330mm
Length below bottom of charge: 270mm
Method of fixing on casing: First cyanoacrylate glue (for fixing centered positions), Then two metal clamps and 2-component epoxy resin.

Coupling of legs:

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Curing of epoxy (T=30-40°C):

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Explosive filling:

1501.2g NG/PETN

867.5g NG
633.7g PETN

57.79% NG
42.21% PETN

Density: 1.6g/cm*3+

VOD: Around 8000m/s

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/Rogueweeken...

Final PETN batch added.

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/Rogueweeken...

It looked absolutely delicious! The sheer look of it increased seliva volume in my mouth

. Thermomether played no other role than mixing.

Initiating apparatus:

Booster:

PETN 7.8g
NG 6.2g
RDX 0.8g

Booster holder: Piece of crafted "small particle relatively hard" polystyrene.

Mixture was placed in test tube.

Detonator:

Compound: AgN3, PETN in a drinking straw.

Method of ignition: Electrical

Huge ammounts of effort were made for perfect centric placement of initiating devices.

Charge filled with above mentioned mixture:

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Target:

Steel rod

Length: 422mm
2r: 110-120mm
Weigth: ~39kg

Various pictures of charge before detonation:

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

This one is rather artistic.

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

Blends perfectly in it's natural habitat

.

In total charge penetrated 42.2cm of steel target and ~15cm of tree stump underneath.

I wonder what would it do to a armored vehicular property...

Charge luckily exceeded my expectations which was rather low only 43cm of steel.

I declare the project to be a complete success!

hissingnoise - 23-4-2010 at 08:11

Great piece of work Nuke! And well documented too. . .

gnitseretni - 23-4-2010 at 08:36

Showoff!

Just kidding

Great stuff Nuke!

franklyn - 23-4-2010 at 22:13

Looks formidable but well within known performance parameters
from the data you supplied
9 cm cone diameter
27 cm standoff
42 cm penetration ( 4.67 X caliber )

You can get by using less explosive if the charge is conical instead
cylindrical and filling the space between it and the casing with wet
sand to provide inertial tamping which will improve performance
somewhat.

P.S.
Having the initiator in contact with the main charge while you
remain in proximity is not safe practice. For the purposes of
photography an inert look alike would serve as well.

.

NUKE - 24-4-2010 at 07:33

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

P.S.
Having the initiator in contact with the main charge while you
remain in proximity is not safe practice. For the purposes of
photography an inert look alike would serve as well.

.

Yes I'm aware how an ammount of explosive could be reduced.

Regarding the safe practice: I triple checked on the whereabouts of other cable endings. I doubt taking pictures is all that more dangerous than inserting a booster with bare hands.

franklyn - 24-4-2010 at 15:57

Quote: Originally posted by NUKE

I doubt taking pictures is all that more dangerous than inserting a booster with bare hands..

It's not what's under your control that matters, what will kill you is
what is not in your control. You are situated under trees , who is
to say something won't drop out of one straight onto your setup.

Also, animals in the wild are a particular risk. I know of no other
instance in which a bird or a squirrel can get you killed. Swerving
a car to avoid deer perhaps.

.

csm9420 - 27-4-2010 at 21:17

Quote: Originally posted by gnitseretni

Made a LSC but didn't work as well as I'd hoped. It was made from copper sheet that was I believe only .025" thick, so not thick. May be that was the reason? Used 50g PETN. (amount in pic was 100g. Mixed 87g PETN with 13% vaseline)

did You made your PETN plasticized by vaseline or did you used something els?

hissingnoise - 28-4-2010 at 02:45

Have a look at NUKE'S excellent post above.
The filler for his shaped-charge was a PETN/NGl mixture around 80/20.

gnitseretni - 28-4-2010 at 05:56

Quote: Originally posted by csm9420

Quote: Originally posted by gnitseretni

did You made your PETN plasticized by vaseline or did you used something els?

The post you quoted clearly says vaseline doesn't it?

grndpndr - 9-5-2010 at 02:09

Whats the pink stuff inside the steel casing'Target'?

Ths copper cone looks great, JUST like surplus from a carl gustav 84mm demo heat round.Funny the targets dont resemble steel at all.

Steel,even mild steel has a particular way of reacting to an HE,shattering w.sharp edges w/accompanying spalling etc.I dont see that,why?You fill up a steel casing with some unknown pink substance and claim some 40plus centimeters of penetration of a pink steel target plus 15centimeters of a stump.OOH/Ahhh
Im suitably impressed. OK! Try again with steel target plate next time.This posts worse that the first FX effort.

I spent years in the service as an antitank gunner/as well as learning
improvised AT DEVICES, never seen anything resembling the target or target effects you or the previous poster have presented from HEAT ,SQUASH head or kinetic energy projectiles let alone PINK/sometimes white(nonmetallic) 'steel'.
Obvious what this isnt given the half concealed pics many other inconsistencies.

[Edited on 9-5-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 9-5-2010 by grndpndr]

Jimbo Jones - 9-5-2010 at 04:14

I don’t think it’s nice to shit on somebody hard work, especially for such a nonsense’s. What pink stuff???? The color inside the target is just the melted cooper from the cone. Add the effect from the photo camera and presto you have the answers. If you really have “spent years in the service as an antitank gunner/as well as learning improvised AT DEVICES” the damages on the target had to be absolutely clear for you. No hard feelings, but when someone share such a hard work with you it’s good to think before make a post. Maybe this person will lose his desire to post anything else….and for what…..
If you really want some quality bullshits look at the end of this thread.

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=7762&a...

hissingnoise - 9-5-2010 at 05:05

I agree with you JJ, re NUKE's fine work, but you seem to be casting some aspersions on the veracity of poor -=HeX=-?

grndpndr - 9-5-2010 at 05:33

seem to be?. I see what i see and Im not gonna sugar coat it.Attack real life military experience if you like lets hear your qualifications!?
All thats just a pink wash from the copper cone! crap.Thats FX brother. Just like the post by the previous gent on his supposed shaped charge 'success' That post you can also see whats clearly paint and likely fiberglass judging from what are they you guys steel filaments from a genuine SC.LOL Wake up! some of you may be fair and better chemists but there seems a real lack of real life experince
with actual devices.
Im seeing cracks that appear suspiciously like rotten concrete many other anomalyes.And when did copper shaped charge leave a pink wash over the entire interior of a target.Whats more convenient is all the mi9ssing pieces.Never have i seen that even when the billets imntentionally split into several inch sections and a military charge detonated let alone what would you call it shattering of the target, bannana peeling.
Methinks you all are far to eager.Instead orf bothering to rant Id spend time looking at the photos with a critical eye,like the scientists you claim to be.No youd rather believe like UFOers/truthers than cast a critical eye.shame on you.

[Edited on 9-5-2010 by grndpndr]

hissingnoise - 9-5-2010 at 05:56

Quote: Originally posted by grndpndr

Funny the targets dont resemble steel at all.

Since you mention it, I share your scepticism grndpndr. . .
But that doesn't take away from the work NUKE did.
And my comment wasn't directed at you - it was a mere aside at Jimbo Jones'es seeming scepticism (possibly justified) at HeX's somewhat extravagant claims. . .

Jimbo Jones - 9-5-2010 at 07:05

http://www.google.bg/imgres?imgurl=http://ocw.mit.edu/ans787...

fficial%26channel%3Ds%26tbs%3Disch:1

Add the photo flash effect and you’ll get the picture. The other colors are just from the rapid heating and the movement of the molten copper jet in the steel. Any other objects like mud or leaves are also possible, so keep this on mind too. By the way, I don’t think someone like Nuke will throw so much effort and care just to impress a bunch of strangers.

Yes hissingnoise, HeX's somewhat extravagant field tests and tall stories are little bit salty for my taste.

grndpndr - 9-5-2010 at 07:36

Not at all to detract from the effort but peruse the lower set of photos and what I mean will be very clear I believe.I really doubt the coloration on the target 'billet' is pink from either copper or leaflitter reflection.AND A BILLET WONT FRAG LIKE THAT W/O A DIAMOND CHARGE.
A dedicated sc opf similar size the gustav I was talking about that the cone very much resembles 84mm penetrates some 40cm target steel.Hmm! This from an improvised device?

Microtek - 9-5-2010 at 09:30

I would say that those photos look very much like a block of cast iron that has fractured due to the lateral forces exerted by the jet. Also, the pink/salmon coloration looks a lot like vapour deposited copper that has undergone some surface oxidation. Some of the structures seen in the photos look like fragments of the carrot.

It is obviously impossible for me to say that these photos are definitely not fake, but I would say that, for me at least, it would be more difficult to prepare a fake this good than to prepare a genuine shaped charge of this size.

Regarding education received in the armed forces I must say that, judging from the number of erroneous assertions I have heard from that kind of sources (I have served in that institution myself), I would regard that with a fair amount of scepticism.

grndpndr - 9-5-2010 at 10:24

I am not basing my belifes on assertion but experience/eyewitness.Can you say the same or is YOUR information secondhand?That looks like
a carrot from a sc and pink copperwash?And white steel inside the longitudinal cracks?Must be a new alloy?

All due respect id take second and third looks at these recent pics and the previous posts alleged billet 'fragmentation' from a sc before you commit.No question in my mind both are fraudulent.

I respect your service but did your MOS bring you into reqular contact with these kinds of phenomena.I trained/served with this kind of thing its not genuine by any stretch.choose any picture and I will point out a # of flaws.Assuming the evidence isnt conveniently half buried in leaf /forest litter.Of course you know BSing cherrys etc
was / is all in good fun as I suspect is this SC post.

[Edited on 9-5-2010 by grndpndr]

franklyn - 9-5-2010 at 14:36

From the grey tone and coarse grain it is self evidently a cast iron or high carbon
steel billet , possibly even pig iron from the hearth. These are all very much harder
than any ordinary common steel such as gun barrel or armor plate. It has no
malleability , possessing properties similar to ceramic , so it fails catastrophically
instead of deforming. Having seen a little action grndpndr you cannot draw any
comparisons from the narrow scope of almost identical examples you witnessed
in the field.

Photographic forensics is not my forte but having examined the video frame by
frame there is no doubt some substantial artifact has been exploded. Before the
sparks have even dissipated multiple hits from the high velocity fragments of
the casing are seen from the puffs of smoke as they impact the surroundings.
The brilliant momentary flash seen can only be of hi order explosives , unless you
also believe this to be a cinematographic dubbing. The setup as seen in detail
in the various still photos is plainly there in the woods.

The pictures provided are not of anything other than what is described.
The only flaws are in drawing conclusions without factual basis. Most " flying
saucers " are similarly misidentified with assertions of " I know what I saw ".

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/ShapedCharg...

.

01.JPG - 31kB

grndpndr - 9-5-2010 at 15:27

Yep,sure is a pic of something exploding Ill gladly give you that.
However just on a factual basis FRANKLYN ,carbon steel/iron is not near as hard as armor steel.Where on earth did you get that odd idea?

Just based on that misinterpretation I see no reason to continue whats beginning to be a truther conference.

OP Im very happy to see youve equaled military pentration with an improvised device! Congradulations on... exceeding the norm by several fold for a imp device versus a scientifically engineered one

Say Jimbo! its generally accepted copper cones from SC do not melt
correct me if Im wrong fellas(and Im sure you will)the copeer cone is generally accepted to be a plastic mass penetrating by virtue of tremendous pressure/velocity/mass.I dont think the copper cone melts its way through?
A hearty heads up Nuke to your photographic skills or intentional lack theroff and other unnamed skills. Ah hell lets name one! gift of BS!

all due respect truthers.

PS franklyn,the OP specifically stated the billet was steel not a granular /brittle cast iron.Lets be specific as possible given the general lack of other useable info.

[Edited on 10-5-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 10-5-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 10-5-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 10-5-2010 by grndpndr]

franklyn - 9-5-2010 at 22:19

Now I'm starting to see how you are misinformed , hardness is determined by a
material 's resistance to scratching. Simple tool steel or something comparable
such as a furring nail ( the flat kind that can be hammered into cement ) will
scratch gun metal or steel armor plate , try it. An alloy's property of toughness
may perhaps be what you are referring to. This implies flexibility as a material
property , it is desirable because it requires more energy to work through. Another
property worth having is a bulk modulus that increases so that the metal will
expand to a greater volume ( similar to expansion from heating ) further dissipating
energy into the metal surrounding the cavity. In any case if it can bend or yield
it is not really very hard at all compared to other materials.
The term "cast iron" without stating composition is quite broad in implication and
there is overlap in scale of hardness with cast iron and high carbon steel which
may also be alloyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness
* note in the range of interest Brinell is about 10 times the Rockwell number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness_comparison
See page 174 here _
http://books.google.com/books?id=Nz2wXvmkAF0C&lpg=PT195&...
http://www.keytometals.com/Articles/Art92.htm
Thin armor plate will break rather than bend if too hard
as seen in the appendix pictures pgs 13 - 14
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA493654&Locati...

.

Microtek - 9-5-2010 at 23:29

Franklyn: This was exactly the point I was trying to get across; that the target material looks a lot like cast iron and that it is unlikely that grndpndr would have witnessed any SC on cast iron scenarios (in a military context). And further, if the material is in fact cast iron, it would be expected to react as in the photos, especially because of the small diameter (of the billet).

Regarding the copper coloration: While it is true that copper cones deform plastically rather than melting, the jet tip undergoes abration during penetration of the target, and this deposits a very thin layer of copper on the exposed surfaces. If cracks are developed in the target during penetration, I would expect a deposition of copper such as that shown in the photos.

Grndpndr: Obviously, experimental evidence counts for more than any amount of speculation. But if your first hand experience is from the armed forces, then it is experience from a different scenario (actual armor steel rather than cast iron), and as such is not terribly relevant.
About the penetration depth: The charge penetrates a target that is 42 cm thick, while the cone diameter is about 9 cm. That is about 4.6 CDs of penetration, which is good but hardly exceeds the state of the art.

[Edited on 10-5-2010 by Microtek]

grndpndr - 10-5-2010 at 00:30

@microteck,no problems here but a difference of opinion.The op states his target material is steel! Not AL, cast Iron or whatever.
In the military its true the majority of target materialo were armored vehicles but your aware older APCs were fabbed from AL
and the classes involving imp materials used whatever steel was available as a test plate and not always conical sc but imp charges of all types. Ive forgotten many of your questions but Ive reviewed again the photos of target effects and I simply dont see it.Ive see a pic of the device etc but no pic of the target?YHave you ever seen billet steel cut into sections to view depth of pen ever split into p-ieces on detonation of the HEAT charge? No!In fact normally the pieces stay exactly where placed!Why? ther not welded there? Cast Irom maybe
due to brittleness but judging byb impact on armored targets as thin as 2in AL the force of the det is directed through the metal amnd the splash from the blast around the penetration is very minor the majority of explosive force is doing its work in penetrating the target!!
Ther may be a 3/4 in area of paint removed from the target vehicles AL around the 1/1.5 hiole created by the shaped charge.While thats not some kind of empirical scientific evidence it raise doubts as to the pressure pushing against the metal surrounding the penetration!Byb the logic of smashing the billet the 2in al armor should have had a 6in hole smashed through it rather than just the sc jet! Not even a microcrack in the surrounding AL inside or out.Finally why in what im assuming to be the target billet is the longitudinal crack a white color w/o ANY metallic tinge?
and the remainder of what appears to be at least 6/8 in diam appear squashed and out of shape as if this shaped charge were simply a satchel charge tamped on top of the target.NONE 0F THE PHOTOS AFTER THE FACT PASS MUSTER IMO.To be a bit more believable the individual should have photos o0f his targetplate before and after as well as all he could collect of the detonation collected and displayed rather that a multitude of photos.Common sense details less likely to appear fabrications. If I may have you direct your attention to the previous post of a "shaped charge" detonation and target billet.Now if this one convinces you there no amount of verbage Ican use that will convince the 2nd example is fraudulent.\please,view the previous det posts.

Also unless theres something new that has some relevance beyond what your arguments been thus far respectfully the discussion should be over? By the way i have the greates respect for your experiments in other areas.As I said this is likely an area where we will agree to disagree.

[Edited on 10-5-2010 by grndpndr]

Jimbo Jones - 10-5-2010 at 01:23

Yep, if we have to be technically correct, the copper don’t melt. But….

“It is universally agreed that conical liner collapse and target penetration both occur by hydrodynamic flow. However, it has been established by X-ray diffraction that the jet is solid metal and not molten. Additionally, best estimates of jet temperature by incandescence colour suggest a mean value of about 450°C, and copper melts at 1083°C at atmospheric pressure. So the following conundrum is the first confusion: The jet appears to behave like a fluid, and yet it is known to be a solid. One recent theory that would help explain this is that the jet has a molten core but with a solid outer sheath” (Global Security).

The SC’s are not my field, so it was easier to me just to say melted copper, but based on the statements above, the copper after all, at least, partially melts. Except my apologizes about that fellas.

On other hand I’m still behind my words. The posts from Microtek and Franklyn have pointed so many additional info, that even a completely amateur will be able to see the obvious.

grndpndr - 10-5-2010 at 05:19

Mr Jone your posts not worth a reply.However microteck and franklyn I understand wher your coming from though I do not agree.
What I wanted to focus on was the cone thats claimed to have been made on a lathe.And also that the penetration ratio was al,most 5x cone diam?Now thats better by 4fold than whats been done here? with anything other than SC's using bullet jackets am I right here.So that means this device was built with very considerable skill/unheard of amteur precision if indeed
what your trying to say is true. As ive said before that cone looks suspiciously like a carl Gustav RR HEAT charge cone.While genner4ally stuff like that even w/o explosives are considered "sensitive" and not left lying about its an old design/weapon and not inconcievable a good many training sets have dissapeared over the years.This wont happen for obvious reasons but I wont be convinced until I see an identical cone being turned on a lathe. But then the pictures... Just dont jive with any experience ive encountered and all this being accepted from someone you all know well from previous posts or someone who just showed up basically akaU/tube w/o a history of veracity.Absolutely no offense fellas but as |i said before I just have to di8sgree that these sets of photos are what they purport to represent so in effect we have to agree to disagree.Have any of you perused the first purported SC?! LOL spray paint and fiberglass.But at least in that series the poster does picture a steel billet problem is its FXed after the fact.

One more thing.You guys seem to have dismissed my point that every shaped charge ive seen detonate against thick/thin al armor did not bother the surrounding metal by distortion etc but for some reason in this video steel (as the poster claims) is torn asunder basically and the seperate portions of said billet are never even partially reassembled for inspection.Perhaps in non malleble cast iron this could occur in a small cast iron slug why wasnt the thin AL armor also torn/rent by the blast rather that the energy focused as designed with a small focused hole the result with only damage to surroundintg metal a patch of peeled paint?The other side of the aps armor was simply a repeat of the entrance.small slightly larger focused exit with no damage otherwise.I liken to use the old aluminum armor APcs as examples because the armors so thin and its al so obviously if periferal damage was going to be done to the armor it would be to this stuff, a 7.62 AP round will pen at close range!Where obviously a tank hull even an old design with 4/6in of armor steel obviosly wouldnt suffer anywhere near the periferal damage as thin AL if that was a factor in SCs.Again gents no disrespect just a difference of opinion, life experiences.

Now maybe I could see brittle tool steel shatter in a similar sit but mild steel?.LOL Im sure weve all seen tool steel shatter when looked at wrong.Mild steel?
Your all correct about very hard steel scratching and even leaving long almost divit like marks in armor from AP rounds from a MG but a hardened steel kinetic energy penetrator will shatter at 4000MPS
against the softer but tougher armor.Why this is relavent..

Jet cohesion is excellent in these engineered devices!

[Edited on 10-5-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 10-5-2010 by grndpndr]

NUKE - 12-5-2010 at 06:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku4uUP_z-Gw

As I'm no expert on materials I have no way of knowing the exact nature of target material. I got it on junkyard for free and it was pretty old and rusty so I kinda speculated about it's composition. Of course shattering and jet "getting trough" also left me with some suspicion but I insisted on claim it was steel.

Anyway grndpndr seems to judge people only by their postcount which is kinda sad... By the way have you checked my registration date and yours? So surprise,surprise it's you who is new here

[Edited on 12-5-2010 by NUKE]

hissingnoise - 12-5-2010 at 06:52

Quote:

As I'm no expert on materials I have no way of knowing the exact nature of target material.

Me neither, but it doesn't matter to me whether it was mild steel, tool steel or armour-plate - the work you put into it is what counts. . .

gregxy - 12-5-2010 at 10:02

The most likely explanation is that the target is just a cylinder of cast iron which is much more brittle than steel and
could have even had pre-existing fractures.

grndpndr - 12-5-2010 at 11:09

Yes I used the post count w/o looking to see a join date this is true.
But i have a perfectly legitamite reason for checking post counts.As of late there have been an unusual number of apparent juveniles posting asking ridiculous questions frankly.That is why I checked the post count and commented on it.I wasnt careful and had suspicions you might be one of the trolls or juveniles which is why I commented on the post count.Obviously I was mistaken but on the other hand honest enough to be a truth teller.My apologys for using something so unimportant / apparently judgemental.I do resent the accusation I use a post count as a sort of club.That is not me! simply a reaction to very obvious trolling thats occurred recently. :mad:

I notice you are using a similar tactic w/o justification and in fact are now wavering on the target material!? And since you are so adept at photography lets see an example of your very fine cone machining technique , photo evidence of a cone equal to the one you stole? or made?You indicated the cone was 2to3mm thick 90mm diameter?Love to see that done,real pro huh?Tool and die maker?m

No, you cant be a machinist if you couldnt ID the target billet yet you manage to machine an absolutely perfect 90mm conical shape cone from solid soft copper billet a mere 2 3 mm thick finished w/o ANY obvious imperfections?! Doesnt that seem even the slightest bit suspicious to any of you Intelligent gents?That an individual who cant Id steel from iron machines an absolutely perfectly fabricate the SC copper cone and device to such precise dimensions he nearly equals penetration expected of a military munition.IIRC a good military SC will penetrate on the order of 5 to 6 cone diameters with a copper cone. Our friend who cannot ID common metals fabricate a near equivalent in penetration Imp SC.I have to call BS in good conscience.
All due respect friends.

[Edited on 12-5-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 13-5-2010 by grndpndr]

nitro-genes - 13-5-2010 at 03:47

Very busy lately...

Great stuff Nuke, nicely documented as well! Takes some balls to produce nearly a kilogram of NG, I hope you don't have any neighbours!

It is probably the reason though why the charge performed so well, since 80:20 PETN/NG isn't that good for large charges without pressing...

Regarding the spalling effect: Like Mikrotek said, the forces excerted on the target material by the yet are for the most part sideways. I noticed on several occasions that even when the jet had almost completely penetrated the target material, there was hardly any sign of a "bump" on the other side of the target.

Without knowing all the details, but isn't spalling caused by a compression wave that is faster than the speed of sound in that material? Would the "toughness" or pliability of the target material therefor still be as influential when this is the case? During my last charge, even with something as ductile as aluminium as target material the billet was completely in half.

Isn't it amazing though, how a <1 gram copper jet can cause total devastation of a 1 kilogram aluminium billet?

(Although the slug may actually also contribute to some extend)

Furthermore, penetration depth and diameter are only partly determined by the "toughness" of the target material, but far more by it's density. IIRC, the difference between RHA steel and a random steel x isn't that big...

NUKE - 13-5-2010 at 06:14

Well pardon me if I said I made it... You are jumping too quickly to conclusions. What if for instance I know someone (who also happens to be in same hobby as I am) with well equipped home workshop and with degree in engineering. I only had to provide material to him and he kept Cu turnings from lathing. Also notice the bottom side of charge casing is also lathed... I'm feeling confident I can replicate same charge design if I want and have willpower to do it. But I think it would be a waste to do the same thing twice why not larger?

grndpndr - 13-5-2010 at 06:36

I beg to differ on target material and effects specifically say a mild steel and HASC.I dont have time for refereces off to Dr.Google wiki
Steel hardness or armor steel has a concise explanation of various
armotr s6teel characteristics such as rebound hardness etc.

' armor steel ,cast,homogenous..combat vehicle'

nitro-genes - 13-5-2010 at 07:12

Quote: Originally posted by NUKE

What if for instance I know someone (who also happens to be in same hobby as I am) with well equipped home workshop and with degree in engineering...

Exactly! Ever since a friend of mine mentioned that tungsten/copper sintered metals were at his disposal, (And a CNC lathe) I am dying to try some liners or even better, sabots, made of this material!

Hehe, a tungsten sabot fired from an improvised lightgas gun is the plan now...

gnitseretni - 13-5-2010 at 08:15

grndpndr, why not give the guy a break? The target material may not have been what he thought it was, but I don't think he's trying to fool us. Why would he? There's no prize money here! The most he stands to gain is a "nice work" or "well done" compliment. And I don't think he'd go through that much trouble trying to fool us just for a compliment!

nitro-genes - 13-5-2010 at 09:15

From wiki:

"Present use of RHA:

Since World War II, other forms of armour, incorporating air spaces and materials such as ceramics or depleted uranium in addition to steel, have been developed. Due to this reduction in effectiveness against new threats, RHA itself no longer has the dominant, universal role in armour that it once enjoyed."

I'm quite sure they mean HE kinetic penetrators, like sabots and APSC, largely in use since WWII.

Density of DU or tungsten (Chobbam) is far more effective here...

[Edited on 13-5-2010 by nitro-genes]

grndpndr - 13-5-2010 at 15:14

Quote: Originally posted by NUKE

Well pardon me if I said I made it... You are jumping too quickly to conclusions. What if for instance I know someone (who also happens to be in same hobby as I am) with well equipped home workshop and with degree in engineering. I only had to provide material to him and he kept Cu turnings from lathing. Also notice the bottom side of charge casing is also lathed... I'm feeling confident I can replicate same charge design if I want and have willpower to do it. But I think it would be a waste to do the same thing twice why not larger?

My comment about the well made cone being so difficult to make elicited this response and no one took notice!!! :mad:

This person now admits he fabbed nothing! only now he admits this fact, but when he was being complemented on such fine work I read not a peep from him that he had no hand in it."BUT he is confident he can replicate it"The shit gets deeper and you criticize me!? I havent misled you in any way yet you find fault with me trying to elicit the truth.Your getting very little truth from the alleged master of Improvised SC ever to post on this forum.I have yet to see anyone claim to equal 40cm plus penetration or over 4x CD penetration from an improvised device.Masterful work by the "engineer friend" and kudos to the OP who is confident he could accomplish the same feat!

failing to give credit to the source is plagarismisnt it? or in this case just lying.Your absolutely right I should lay off the OP! taking credit for someone elses work and lying about it is acceptable behaviour
Now?They must have changed the forum rules or something drastic
that the fault for fraud is in my court.My apologys. :mad:

nitro-genes - 13-5-2010 at 16:52

It's good that you finally revealed the true nature of this evil deception we were lured into by NUKE!

Some cool music to chill out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI4O8byPw7g

To go back on topic though...

If you follow some basic rules regarding charge and liner construction, there is no doubt that even higher penetration CD's can be achieved. Molybdenum sheet is not that hard to obtain, and supposedly can be spun formed as well IIRC. A small lathe like I used has precision up to 50 um, which is more than enough to pump out 4 times CD penetration with a brisant enough explosive to drive the liner. I came across an article once in which some c4 was simply packed into 2.5 cm diameter charges for field study and gave something like 4.3 CD penetration, not to mention PETN based mixtures which even go faster at these diameters...

[Edited on 14-5-2010 by nitro-genes]

grndpndr - 13-5-2010 at 20:41

Quote: Originally posted by nitro-genes

It's good that you finally revealed the true nature of this evil deception we were lured into by NUKE!

LOL

Its good your not offended by it! On the other hand I am.Particularly after all the crap ive been subject to for 'picking' on poor Nuke and his brilliant efforts.Despite late admissions of basically i really didnt make it but I could have If I really wanted shit and thanks for the compliments on someone elses work.His words still golden.But Im overwrought?I prefer the notion that you all are embarrassed for being sucked in byNuke,AKA BORAK our Latvian friend

As to the 2nd part of your informative post, blah blah, heard it all before just never seen it done.Show Me!Hell u tube has hundreds of HE posts with some pretty fair photography and identifiable
objects,the beginning of this thread has simple identifiable undeniable photos by some irrefutable pros, direct me to just one example on utube elswhere with better than 3to4 cd penWont happen

About run its course ya?

[Edited on 14-5-2010 by grndpndr]

hissingnoise - 14-5-2010 at 02:44

Quote:

Particularly after all the crap ive been subject to for 'picking' on poor Nuke and his brilliant efforts

Nuke, to impress grndpndr you'll need to mine, process and machine yourself the metals used in your SC; the filler you'll have to make from kitchen chemicals - produce and oxidise the alcohols and make HNO3 from ammonia cleaner.
Making your own camera would be the icing . . .etc!

grndpndr - 14-5-2010 at 03:15

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise

Quote:

As I'm no expert on materials I have no way of knowing the exact nature of target material.

Me neither, but it doesn't matter to me whether it was mild steel, tool steel or armour-plate - the work you put into it is what counts. .

I agree with you completely Hissingnoise!"credit where credits due" NO argument there!!

And the credits due because of....Fill in the blank Peanuts.
Project Financier?

[Edited on 14-5-2010 by grndpndr]

Plasmapyrobattics - 14-5-2010 at 03:21

Nuke

Please join me by ignoring the local nagging contradiction of anal armored military intelligence. His multi-edited, boring, infantile, irritating, ill written (dumb, clutch plate, military-style) posts are usually skipped anyway. The four stars under his name mean shit, nada. It rather represents the amount of excrement spewed from a loose, dismounted circus canon. Don’t worry. You did good work. Good enough for the rest of us. It is not expected of you to have turned the copper liner yourself. Your specs were good enough. Your passion and commitment is what counts the most. Well done.

Regards

grndpndr - 14-5-2010 at 04:17

foul mouth fantasy devoid of fact substituted for debate.Well done.Now you can get back to
whatever feminine pursuit your were engaged in prior to your PMS
induced , psychotic post.

sadly the difference of opinion has turned to poison pen tactics substituting for debate.
Thats unfortunate and wasnt my intent so regardless of content of any further posts Im done.Those of you who dislike dissent in your lemming like world are welcome to it along with its limited view.

NUKE - 14-5-2010 at 05:47

@grndpndr

Do you really think I just paid for whole deed?

Well you are wrong...

I got the idea, draw it, calculated the ammount of maincharge material needed, found and obtained materials needed for charge casing, synthesised energetic materials needed for it (along with everything that goes with it) and also detonated it! But it's also true that I financed everything. But that's the part that requires the smallest effort so why bringing it out anyway...

So I drew plans for what needed to be machined and gave it to my friend along with material that needed machining... That was his part of the deal and he had accomplished it very well (even tho he had to make additional tool in order to lathe inner side of the liner). Anyway I properly thanked him in person, and after the detonation he was satisfied with results as much as I was.

Anyway we are just posting shit in this thread and thus reducing it's quality. I doubt it's readers are in search of our little discussion here...

But I also think your doubts about 4CD<penetration for homemade devices are unfounded and without any solid ground. Anyway that seems like your personal problem so keep your beliefs for yourself or else we will all soon have "religious war" happening here.

I'm not trying to hide anything just look at the sequence of picture names I have included all pictures I have got from 001 to 045. Of course everything can be a conspiracy and fraud if you believe so...

Anyway this is drawing of how the initiator was placed into the charge:
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff11/NUKEpyro/90mmSCiniti...

With best regards

NUKE

Edit: *-he

[Edited on 14-5-2010 by NUKE]

Microtek - 14-5-2010 at 10:44

grndpndr: I don't think anyone was picking on you prior to that burst of foul language a few posts up (though you did a fair bit of picking yourself, labeling NUKEs photos as fraudulent). Instead, we attempted to educate you a little bit in the ways of materials science and shaped charge theory.

The sticking point was not who made the liner (remember Axt made some nice shaped charges with bullet jackets), but rather whether the target was an iron alloy or something else entirely (you mentioned fibreglass).

Anyway, when the jet penetrates it produces a channel through the target that is considerably larger than the diameter of the jet itself. This is because the target material is not pushed through to the other side of the target, but rather radially away from the path of the jet. This produces tremendous lateral forces which would be quite capable of fracturing the billet as shown, if it was not made of a material that could deform somewhat (eg. if it was made of cast iron and not something like RHA).

Pages: 1 .. 5 6 7 8 9 .. 17