Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Fuel-Air Explosives

 Pages:  1  2

hiperion42 - 24-7-2012 at 23:49

Maby there was a few percent of the fuel that initially did detonate
but one can clearly see the flamefront not propagating through the whole
cloud at supersonic speed.
Fast deflagrations are capable of producing substantial overpressures though
and i would not have liked being close to that cloud when it was initiated.

497 - 25-7-2012 at 00:00

It is not a matter of detonating or not detonating, it is a matter of the % of the fuel that detonates. Fuel continuing to burn long after the first 10 ms is not proof that no detonation was reached. It is extremely hard to get 100% of the fuel mixed at the correct ratio for detonation, particularly when using a fuel that remains largely in liquid form after dispersal (because of relatively high bp vs ethylene oxide, and the apparently low air temperature during the test.) Even modern military FAE systems are not fully reliable at lower air temperatures. More trial and error testing of the fuel mix, delay length and bursting charge size could undoubtedly improve the fraction of fuel reaching detonation. Adding lower boiling fuels is likely the easiest way to ensure better performance. Even a small (10-25%?) fraction of something like propane, butane, or better dimethyl ether would undoubtedly help by increasing the vapor concentration and by forming a finer fuel mist via the sudden boiling of each particle.


hiperion42 - 25-7-2012 at 05:39

At initiation one could indeed see a fraction of the fuel possibly detonating.
But it did not connect to the majority of the fuel which clearly deflagrated.
But your are right with some tweaking...
The fuel vapour phase plays a substantial role in getting the cloud to detonate
especially for relatively insensitive fuels as well as using a oversized initiator.
I would not categorize heptane sensitized with a nitrate as unsensitive but the
concept would still apply.
Apparently straight low vapour pressure nitrated fuels would not require extensive evaporation to be detonable.
I read the buster was 9g for a fuel mass of 1400g.
That would mean a F/B of more than 150.
Maby lowering to a ratio of 80-90 would be better.
Again great testing!

[Edited on 25-7-2012 by hiperion42]

589961454.png - 194kB

simply RED - 25-7-2012 at 06:00

This "cut line" you see (I saw it after magnification of the picture) in the half of the picture is caused by the non-infinite speed of the camera (those who shot explosions know what i am talking about) and has nothing to do with detonation or not of the fuel.

You actually see 2 frames here, the down one is the "recent (after ignition)", the upper part of the picture with unburned fuel, the "former (before ignition)". This is just the event when the digital camera changed frames.


[Edited on 25-7-2012 by simply RED]

497 - 25-7-2012 at 15:17

Good point about the camera. Unfortunately it seems the frame rate was too slow to be able to determine anything with great certainty. Looking at the effects of the blast wave on the surroundings may be a better indicator. I think that would indicate at least a partial detonation, as it is doubtful that the ETN <50g initiator could have done that on its own.

I believe it says it is sensitized with a nitrite not a nitrate. Nitrites have been shown to be inferior sensitizers, although still better than nothing, and far easier to synthesize.

hiperion42 - 25-7-2012 at 23:36

Excuse me yes the test used nitrite.
I confused it with the military who used the
nitrate to be able to make larger heptane
aerosol particles detonable.
Finding a place to test is another matter but
maby this would be less of a concern with the
available wide plains in America.
Man i drool when i see photo's of them.
:D

[Edited on 26-7-2012 by hiperion42]

hiperion42 - 26-7-2012 at 09:27

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
This "cut line" you see (I saw it after magnification of the picture) in the half of the picture is caused by the non-infinite speed of the camera (those who shot explosions know what i am talking about) and has nothing to do with detonation or not of the fuel.

You actually see 2 frames here, the down one is the "recent (after ignition)", the upper part of the picture with unburned fuel, the "former (before ignition)". This is just the event when the digital camera changed frames.


Well RED you got me thinking alright...

You say the cut area is there because the camera
switched frames. The casio records the 600 frames/s
as progressive native input so it recorded that picture for
that frame at that precise moment leaving in the middle
how the flame propagation visually looked at that time.

So subtly i think there is a difference.

You say the horizontal line is there because the camera
switched frames. I think the flame propagation at that
precise time for that frame looked like it did with the horizontal
shaped appearance and the camera captured this.
Or am i messing things up? :)

matheusfredrich13 - 26-7-2012 at 20:26

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
This "cut line" you see (I saw it after magnification of the picture) in the half of the picture is caused by the non-infinite speed of the camera (those who shot explosions know what i am talking about) and has nothing to do with detonation or not of the fuel.

You actually see 2 frames here, the down one is the "recent (after ignition)", the upper part of the picture with unburned fuel, the "former (before ignition)". This is just the event when the digital camera changed frames.


[Edited on 25-7-2012 by simply RED]


Yes. RED is correct. I have a Casio Exlim EX-FS100 which is the smaller version of the camera that captured that frame. I have experienced 'Cut Lines' before, especially when filming explosions. This cut line is not as defined as others, but you can see the 2 frames overlapping.

simply RED - 26-7-2012 at 21:03

I am not an expert on cameras but this 'Cut Line' or "2 frames overlapping" was a common effect with digital cameras when filming explosions. This is extremely obvious at night when filming fuel rich explosions and you see half the screen white-yellow and half the screen black.

Motherload - 12-8-2012 at 20:10

As far as I know Propyl Nitrate or Iso-Propyl Nitrate is one of the materials used as a thermobarric fuel as one of the above has the ability to detonate while being a vapor.
Primary charge detonates and vaporizes the PN or the IPN (cant remember which one or both) and then a secondary timed (critical) detonator .... detonates the vapor ...... generating a massive pressure wave lasting mili seconds instead of micro seconds.

franklyn - 13-10-2012 at 10:12

Related threads

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=7769

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=21691

.

Morgan - 14-10-2012 at 11:15

They used to use mixtures of nitromethane and propylene oxide for fuel in small pulsejets to break speed records but don't allow propyl anymore because of it's health hazards. A typical Bailey or Dynajet pulsejet fires 220 to 240 cycles per second.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67nZrdf7gc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68MRkGxhvRE&noredirect=1

"Some fuels used, such as ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, act like mustards. A device using such fuels can be dangerous if the fuel fails to completely ignite; the device is at risk of producing the effects of a chemical weapon."
http://www.huliq.com/34060/thermobaric-bomb-features-of-worl...

franklyn - 16-10-2012 at 10:05

@ Morgan

The article you cite defines if somewhat clumsily the distinction between
thermobaric and fuel air devices.

A Fuel Air Explosive F A E consists of fuel and a dispersing mechanism ,
and uses oxygen in the air. The first explosive charge ( or some other
dispersal mechanism ) bursts open the container and disperses the fuel in a cloud
that mixes with air. Once the fuel is appropriately mixed , the second
charge detonates , propagating an explosion ( blast wave ) through the cloud.


"Thermobaric weapons do not disperse the fuel before igniting it , but are single stage
bombs having one explosive charge that both ignites and disperses the fuel.
"
The explosive is highly oxygen deficient producing reactive products which
then additionally burn with air. These are solely intended for use in confined
spaces such as bunkers.

" Some fuels used, such as ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, act like mustards "
Probably more like CX Phosgene oxime. Propylene is the anhydride of it's glycol ,
when hydrolyzed it generates considerable heat much as caustic soda
when hydrated.

In 1978 Tarragona Spain
A tanker truck overturned ejecting Propylene aerosol onto a crowded
picnic ground , then ignited , incinerating everything within sight.
( I can tell you they still talk about this one there )
http://www.wordola.com/wusage/alfaques/all.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_Disaster
This is a Spanish language Documentary of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K37kNwt1nyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh4N37azEMM

.

Ferrocene as liquid FAE catalyst?

Bert - 7-5-2018 at 07:47

Quote: Originally posted by -=HeX=-  
I tested a bunch of single step FAE's as per the patent - Kudos to Carbonfiend who found the optimal ratio to be 6% Ferrocene, 47% Diesel, 47% Ether. No second charge, and they went to full detonation


Quote: Originally posted by -=HeX=-  
IN our experiments, also done by Carbonfiend, we found, in long grass, the thing blasts away 15cm radius with a mere 15ml, set off with 0.75g AgN3. However, I got a radius of 19cm using 0.70g RDX, 200mg DPNA primary.

Philou Zrealone reckons it may be ineffivient, but hey, it works especially in 1 litre amount set off by 100g RDX. That made a HUGE BANG but it was in the open. I felt a pressure wave, and I was about 600m away.

I personally think at least SOME makes the DDT. Soon I will build a plywood 'house' (i.e. box) and see can I blast that to shreds


Apologies for dredging up an old thread- Somehow I missed this at the time this thread was active.

Have any here either links to or files saved regarding the original work on developing this mixture?

MineMan - 7-5-2018 at 13:51

This is of great interest to me also. Good find Bert. Hopefully someone can help us

Bert - 7-5-2018 at 14:55

God helps those who help themselves... I'll have another helping of pie now, please.

:P



Attachment: Single_Event_catalyzed_FAE.pdf (427kB)
This file has been downloaded 400 times

I suspect this is the source of the idea, they mention diesel and ferrocene, the ether used by Carbonfiend and Hex isn't mentioned- But far less benign things certainly are.

After reading up on ferrocene, I begin to understand why the patent describes blowing a separate ferrocene filled compartment outward into a previously separated liquid fuel-

Jolly hints from the high-powered rocketry community about the need to pre-dissolve ferrocene into the liquid components of the fuel, and not just for even dispersion, finished propellant with increased sensitivity to accidental ignition and a statement about the slight volatility of ferrocene leading to other fuel grains and motors merely stored nearby ALSO having their burn rates increased by cross contamination from the volatilized ferrocene slowly escaping from a motor made with this.



20180507_174614.png - 306kB

Pyro_cat - 7-5-2018 at 22:32

ShowImage.png - 111kB

Are all you guys from NASA ? Anyway I think its possible coffee creamer dispersed by a consumer fireworks mortar shell minus the lift charge would work. I think the stars from the shell would be accelerated faster then the dust cloud by the burst and ignite it uniformly.

"Here, one hard hat full (11 lbs. or 5 kg.) of coal dust is placed in a trough approximately 2/3 of the height of the enclosure, which measures 10 ft. wide x 12 ft. deep x 15 ft. high. A small charge was then introduced to disturb and suspend the dust followed by an ignition source (bottle rocket)." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZLRbVw3RnM

Bert - 8-5-2018 at 06:56

I'm not from NASA, although thanks to Terry McCreary, I have credentials as a rocket scientist. (I also have credentials as a pope, courtesy of the church of the subgenni. Credentials are easy to come by).

There is a difference between a deflagration and a detonation. Shot plenty of Cremora buckets, it has always been a deflagration. Same with bucket shots of oven dried flour or sawdust lifted with black powder, garbage bags of gasoline lifted from a sheet of cardboard on the ground with a coil of det cord underneath and gasoline or colorant+methanol lifted with black powder soft bombs from a steel mortar.

I HAVE seen an Aluminum dust cloud make D to D, THAT was quite different and scary. Don't try the Cremora bucket effect with flash grade Aluminum powder.

In 2014, there was a dust explosion in a Chinese factory finishing Aluminum wheel rims for GM where the management didn't install proper air handling or do enough house cleaning, plus, jammed too many workers and machines into the production area. When Aluminum dust ignited, the destruction was spectacular. 146 killed, 75 of them nearly instantly by blast/overpressure

Inside a mine gallery or mill, it doesn't matter as much. The energy released as heat and a long duration pressure pulse from a large volume dust cloud deflagration indoors can kill people and is likely to destroy some of the structure, no matter if the reaction moved through the cloud faster than speed of sound.

Out in the open, things are different- If the thermal effects from a fuel cloud deflagrating don't kill you, the overpressure is not likely to. In a similar volume of the same fuel initiated by an HE charge or otherwise achieving an open air detonation, the over pressure can do structural dammage and injure unprotected people farther away than the thermal effects. If the linked test gallery shot had been initiated with a small but properly timed HE, those concrete walls might gave been severely dammaged. As it was, they just got scorched.

In a mill dust explosion, it is usually the SECOND explosion that does the major dammage. First, a shock or small explosion occurs in some part of the structure which shakes accumulated dust off the interior walls and ceiling, rafters, etc. A dust cloud may be created throughout the dust contaminated parts of the building/neighboring structures all at once, if it ignites, buildings often go away.



[Edited on 5-8-2018 by Bert]

Rocinante - 8-5-2018 at 10:02

Simple 0.2 kg HE bursting charge with a 2 kg of isopropyl alcohol/Al gives a ~ 3 kg TNT eq.

http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.bazt...


[Edited on 8-5-2018 by Rocinante]

Bert - 8-5-2018 at 10:22

Link is broken-

Pyro_cat - 8-5-2018 at 12:54

A pyrophoric substance (from Greek πυροφόρος, pyrophoros, "fire-bearing") ignites spontaneously in air at or below 55 °C (130 °F)...

Searched 'ignites on contact with air' and learned a new word today. And I have KNO3 and sugar so I too am a rocket scientist.

But I would think a cloud of a pyrophoric substance like aluminum dust mentioned by Bert would like doing their spontaneous igniting on the leading edge of blast wave getting nice and tight with the O2 in the air.

cornstarch detonation? how is this possible?

C6(NO2)5CH2CH(CH3)N(NO2)2 - 29-1-2019 at 15:28

So recently, I was researching some stuff about dust explosions as well as detonation in fuel-air mixtures. I wanted to know if a pre-mixed cloud of dust in air could support a true shock wave I came across the following link:
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/38590

In many dust explosion accidents, most of the dust starts out deposited as a layer on a solid surface, and surrounded by clean air. Then, a small volume of air mixed with dust or fuel deflagrates, and in a partially confined space this causes movement in the surrounding air, mixing it with the dust. This creates a cloud of dusty air which also deflagrates, and which displaces more air, causing more violent mixing. In a pipe (or mineshaft) with sufficient dust on the walls, this process will create a wave of moving air and increased pressure which will travel through cold, clean, oxygenated air ahead of the fireball at roughly the speed of sound.

In this video, you can clearly see a surge of fast moving air and coal dust which is transmitted ahead of the actual fireball:

https://youtu.be/kacen528Kl0

https://youtu.be/VApk-oaeb-4?t=184

Anyhow, according to my understanding of explosions, this pressure wave travelling through unignited material ahead of the actual reaction zone is only possible with deflagrations. As far as I know, detonation involves the pressure pulse igniting material as soon as it reaches it, which would be impossible if the dust had not yet been mixed.

And yet, in that paper, it is said that a dust explosion went from a deflagration with a pressure pulse "precursor" in front of it to a full-fledged, supersonic (about 1 km/sec VOD) detonation! Before ignition, the dust was said to have been laid down as a layer on the bottom of the tube, not suspended in the air.

My only theories are

a) the detonation occurred in a cloud of dust and cold air which had been pre-mixed by previous deflagration closer to the ignition source. This would be similar to Bert's experience with the aluminum powder being dispersed in the air by a deflagration, mixing with the air, and then detonating with a loud bang.

b) the detonation front emitted so much thermal radiation that it caused the organic dust to pyrolyse into gas ahead of it.

c) the speed of sound along the wall of a steel tube is well over 1 km/sec. Perhaps the detonation caused violent movement or vibration of the entire tube, leading to mixing of dust and air prior to arrival of the shock front.

d) I am totally wrong about the way a detonation works. As in, perhaps a combustion reaction ocurring several feet behind the shock front could be enough to sustain a 1 km/sec shock velocity and a pressure of over 10 atmospheres?

e) The measurements taken by Li et. al. are grossly inaccurate, and no supersonic detonation took place.
Sorry for the long post, but I'd like to hear what others think.

[Edited on 29-1-2019 by C6(NO2)5CH2CH(CH3)N(NO2)2]

Dornier 335A - 30-1-2019 at 12:02

Your understanding of detonation is correct. The pressure wave that disperses dust from the walls is not limited to the speed of sound however, but can move at any speed as long as its pressure is high enough.

I skimmed through the paper and their measurements and results looks solid. I think the key here is that it is a transitional state. Their pipe ends just after the reaction zone has caught up with the shock front. Therefore, we can't really use normal steady-state detonation theory here. In fact I think the detonation becomes too unstable to propagate much further as a true detonation, because of the mixing problem you discussed.

Katie - 26-4-2020 at 22:25

For a mainly visual effect, you can try making “nap bombs”. As you’ll see in the link, it sounds kewl bombzy but it’s not really a “bomb”, it’s what they used to use to simulate explosions in Hollywood! Basically just a fireball of burning old fashion moth balls, but technically a fuel-air explosive because the oxygen is supplied by ambient atmosphere.

EDIT: Forgot the link http://www.angelfire.com/on/pyrotechnicalities/naphthalene.h...

[Edited on 27-4-2020 by Katie]

Nitrosio - 27-4-2020 at 20:52

http://pyrobin.com/files/Thermobar2.pdf

simply RED - 28-4-2020 at 09:54

Or the most up to date:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338711523_Improving...

Goes with this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319931104_SOLID_STA...

See how a thermobaric explosive for mass production is qualified.

[Edited on 28-4-2020 by simply RED]

JohnDoe13 - 28-4-2020 at 11:00

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
Or the most up to date:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338711523_Improving...

Goes with this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319931104_SOLID_STA...

See how a thermobaric explosive for mass production is qualified.

[Edited on 28-4-2020 by simply RED]


There's a rumour, that most feudal research centers and big weapon producers around the world don't like these two guys...

;)

MineMan - 29-4-2020 at 08:01

Quote: Originally posted by JohnDoe13  
Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
Or the most up to date:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338711523_Improving...

Goes with this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319931104_SOLID_STA...

See how a thermobaric explosive for mass production is qualified.

[Edited on 28-4-2020 by simply RED]


There's a rumour, that most feudal research centers and big weapon producers around the world don't like these two guys...

;)


Why... are they not trustworthy or do they think so much outside the box it annoys the old guards?

simply RED - 29-4-2020 at 08:34

There is no box... For 60-80 years after the HTPB was invented, this is the first real innovation. Old guards, capable of innovation, are already retired . The new ones are utterly incapable of any innovative thinking, they lack not just the scientific knowledge needed, but worse, they lack fantasy and inspiration.

And when somebody comes with innovation he/she immediately becomes the bad guy.

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=1970&a...
2013-2020. 7 years!

See what this does to a BMP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=15&v=2W1zxdM...
1-3 ; 4-10

Watch anyway...

RPG-7: 2.5kg H TBX 15cm wall: RPG-7 Flight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbR6KNMej8M&t=1s
RPG-7: 2.5kg H TBX 50cm wall: RPG-7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOqm8RPQ1xc&t=11s

57mm Warhead with 700g RDX

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD4Ewv8pAmo

57 mm Warhead with 700g H-TBX:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F3hziTd3jA

Comparison 700g H-TBX vs. 700g RDX on wooden ammo boxes
700g H-TBX on wooden ammo boxes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMTvkJQKDm8&t=53s
700g RDX on wooden ammo boxes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoc3aZaaeq8&t=37s
1000g H TBX on wooden ammo boxes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXiksSN05Y0
4kg Incendiary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De5fINwXk5g&t=4s
500g Incendiary 4 mm Steel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjnc4v-n3o
A-TBX 2.5kg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwLoVxgvtlM

1000g H-TBX fast https://youtu.be/KN0jcXCHnh8

1000g H-TBX field https://youtu.be/9N54ea0a4Lk

4kg H-TBX 130mm Shell Under 50cm Sand https://youtu.be/4sXr2yeb09s

[Edited on 30-4-2020 by simply RED]

MineMan - 29-4-2020 at 23:17

So you have had success then finding military contracts?


simply RED - 30-4-2020 at 02:39

From this presentation, slide 3, only the upper left corner (H-TBX).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341043213_SOLID_STA...

The competition is fierce, completely incapable of innovation but quite capable when it comes to criminally hacking into someone else's computer, lobbying, etc...

MineMan - 30-4-2020 at 04:07

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
From this presentation, slide 3, only the upper left corner (H-TBX).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341043213_SOLID_STA...

The competition is fierce, completely incapable of innovation but quite capable when it comes to criminally hacking into someone else's computer, lobbying, etc...


Your presentation is impressive... maybe it’s lost in translation but I find your negativity discouraging.

Your product seems to be superior, at an excellent cost... so I do not understand. I know, the field of military energetic is very slow, they don’t like change...CL-20 has been researched for 30 years now with hardly any application.

What is your outlook on the industry as a whole? Have your tried to sell your product to other militaries?

Does the aluminum in your composition react, as fast as in combined effect explosives (7 expansions)?

simply RED - 30-4-2020 at 04:30

From experimental data we have brisance and metal acceleration equal to TNT. The Al is optimized to burn during the positive phase of pressure, which is 10s of expansions, see article. Please all similar questions on U2U so we do not spam the topic.

Vomaturge - 3-5-2020 at 17:54

Not particularly useful, but this worked out beautifully...
https://youtu.be/IJdp89nUvR4?t=172

simply RED - 7-5-2020 at 23:37

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnda0zI1010&t=1s

Same clip for the TB-7 warhead with a version of H-TBX (PTBS as they label in VMZ) - with obviously fake aftermath frame. Or after several more shots...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=92&v=CTagGzk...
1.32 - Figure 7 a and b form this article:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338711523_Improving...


[Edited on 9-5-2020 by simply RED]

Jacob - 14-5-2020 at 13:16

H-TBX is a bad idea. The content of the fireball doen't magically mix with the air. You have to put the fuel on the outside to ride the shock, hence A-TBX.

simply RED - 14-5-2020 at 23:42

"""The content of the fireball doesn't magically mix with the air. """

Extremely wrong! The solid heavy Al fuel particles always tend to go to the oxygen rich periphery.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00193-018-0825-1
Heterogeneous/particle-laden blast waves
D. L. Frost

A-TBX is indeed better in air blast, but with zero brizance, unfortunately.

[Edited on 15-5-2020 by simply RED]

MineMan - 15-5-2020 at 01:53

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnda0zI1010&t=1s

Same clip for the TB-7 warhead with a version of H-TBX (PTBS as they label in VMZ) - with obviously fake aftermath frame. Or after several more shots...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=92&v=CTagGzk...
1.32 - Figure 7 a and b form this article:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338711523_Improving...


[Edited on 9-5-2020 by simply RED]


I like how in the second video there is a women in traditional dress helping with the ribbon cutting. A very beautiful dress? Are those common in your country, my friend who was polish had one for dance... looked very similar.

simply RED - 17-5-2020 at 11:34

Yes, this is a folklore Bulgarian dress...

simply RED - 5-10-2020 at 21:54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80L2dNHWqNI&feature=emb_...

Hemus 2020 demonstration shootings.
0.12 second. Hand grenade with 330 grams H-TBX in a bus. There was also RPG-7 with 2.5 kg H-TBX warhead, but it is not shown here.

simply RED - 8-7-2021 at 00:21

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353071760_Novel_Enh...

The next publication on the topic - as a "conference proceedings". Submitted to PEP as well, before 5 days. Interesting chemistry is discussed. Like how SiO2 catalyzes the combustion of Al.

MineMan - 8-7-2021 at 02:32

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353071760_Novel_Enh...

The next publication on the topic - as a "conference proceedings". Submitted to PEP as well, before 5 days. Interesting chemistry is discussed. Like how SiO2 catalyzes the combustion of Al.


Amazing stuff.

Wow! Thank you friend! It’s amazing to see your contributions.

simply RED - 29-8-2021 at 04:47

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DonVECeVlI

Employees from VMZ and Bularmas shooting TB-7V (RPG-7 TB grenade) at the central artillery test site in Zmeyovo, Bulgaria. Loaded with the above explosive. Filmed with awful quality as always.

Attachment: TB-7V(1).pdf (271kB)
This file has been downloaded 160 times


Nitrosio - 30-8-2021 at 11:02

Al/Mg/Isopropyl Nitrate 2:1:1

simply RED - 15-12-2021 at 00:29

Butterfly effect in the military industry and intelligence community.

Butterfly flapped its wings:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/prep.202100...

The equivalent of 2 multiplied thousand times and somebody on the other part of Tsarigradsko shose Blvd. got 112 millions USD.
https://payhawk.com/

Butterfly got thousand times less. But the next wing flap may cause a tornado...

[Edited on 15-12-2021 by simply RED]

JohnDoe13 - 15-12-2021 at 02:06

They don't have any other choice, but to follow the white rabbit, RED... Or became the white rabbit...

"I'm late! I'm late! For a very important date!"

AJKOER - 26-12-2021 at 07:44

Would this be a theoretically good partial approximation to a pure fuel/air explosive?

Just dissolve N2O into say only diesel fuel with Al/Fe shavings plus another more volatile fuel that does not mix with diesel containing a suspension of very fine aluminum powder, where the N2O part is to be detonated with a high-end detonating charge.

Simple, powerful, very hot, but only partially a successful FAE?

Note, pure N2O based explosions are notoriously known for extreme high temperatures, in fact, when a transport truck containing N2O are involved in an accident, most of the pertinent direct metal evidence has been vaporized per reports of accident scene investigators.

The logic here is that the extreme temperature of the 1st explosion fire ball sprouting burning metal particles would mitigate the 'timing' problem associated with the ignition of the FAE mix part.

Should be spectacular to observed even in small quantities.

[Edited on 26-12-2021 by AJKOER]

Vomaturge - 27-12-2021 at 13:46

At 40 Celsius, 10 atmospheres, it takes 140 grams of Dodecane to dissolve about 9 grams nitrous oxide.

“Notoriously known for extreme high temperatures” my ass. That mixture is hardly going to do anything different from normal diesel oil full of metal shavings.

I’ve seen you post a ton of theoretical reactions, and then I look at the sources you give and yes, the reactions really happen, but only in trace amounts. Please keep this in mind, especially when it comes to suggesting means of creating bulk reagents or energetic materials. You can use some obscure free radical chemistry to put 5ppm, or even 6% of the most flammable/explosive shit ever into a bucket of inert precursors, but that’s meaningless since your concentration won’t sustain ignition.



[Edited on 27-12-2021 by Vomaturge]

[Edited on 28-12-2021 by Vomaturge]

Nitrosio - 27-12-2021 at 16:41

20-30% Gelatine (Methylnitrate + NC) + 70-80% Al
10-20% PETN + 80-90% Al

[Edited on 28-12-2021 by Nitrosio]

MineMan - 27-12-2021 at 18:03

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER  
Would this be a theoretically good partial approximation to a pure fuel/air explosive?

Just dissolve N2O into say only diesel fuel with Al/Fe shavings plus another more volatile fuel that does not mix with diesel containing a suspension of very fine aluminum powder, where the N2O part is to be detonated with a high-end detonating charge.

Simple, powerful, very hot, but only partially a successful FAE?

Note, pure N2O based explosions are notoriously known for extreme high temperatures, in fact, when a transport truck containing N2O are involved in an accident, most of the pertinent direct metal evidence has been vaporized per reports of accident scene investigators.

The logic here is that the extreme temperature of the 1st explosion fire ball sprouting burning metal particles would mitigate the 'timing' problem associated with the ignition of the FAE mix part.

Should be spectacular to observed even in small quantities.

[Edited on 26-12-2021 by AJKOER]


How? How does that burn hot? It’s two double bonded nitrogen and one oxygen?

Vomaturge - 27-12-2021 at 18:42

AJKOER has been posting about it off and on since forever. He probably read somewhere that it makes things burn hotter than normal air and has since assumed that it beats ClF3, N2O4, liquid O2, HNO3, H2O2, elemental halogens, inorganic chlorates/perchlorates/nitrates, CuO, PTFE, Fe2O3, CaSO4, S8, H2O, CO2, and every other oxidizer we could dream of.

Not that it matters, since the other part of his idea failed to take into account solubility and concentration. None of the materials listed above would do anything amazing if added to diesel fuel and iron shavings in a <5% concentration.

Microtek - 28-12-2021 at 03:01

@Mineman:

N2O makes fuels burn hotter than in air mainly because it is 33% oxygen compared to 20% in air (it also has a positive heat of formation). It is used in some racing cars.



[Edited on 28-12-2021 by Microtek]

simply RED - 8-3-2022 at 00:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzD_Ie6nyb4&t=470s

Bulspike TB grenade launcher with 700 grams of the said TB polymer bonded mixture:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/prep.202100...

[Edited on 8-3-2022 by simply RED]

MineMan - 8-3-2022 at 04:27

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzD_Ie6nyb4&t=470s

Bulspike TB grenade launcher with 700 grams of the said TB polymer bonded mixture:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/prep.202100...

[Edited on 8-3-2022 by simply RED]


I saw your paper published recently. Congrats! How does this compare to the thermobarics used in the TOR-1, I am guessing it is far superior? What would be the result if you replaced the aluminum with boron?

simply RED - 8-3-2022 at 06:29

By the shape of the warhead I can guess that TOS-1 uses thermobaric slurry (IPN or LD-70 based, see the publication) and not a solid state TB mix. So yes, this is far superior.
It can be made to work with boron too (maybe a little better), but the price will be higher. H-TBX was developed out of necessity, to be a multi ton product. So the fun science remains to be done in the future.

I see the commercial for the grenade launcher for the first time, just collecting all videos about the product here. It was in 2014 that VMZ got a testing license, we have not heard from them ever since.


[Edited on 8-3-2022 by simply RED]

MineMan - 8-3-2022 at 07:21

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
By the shape of the warhead I can guess that TOS-1 uses thermobaric slurry (IPN or LD-70 based, see the publication) and not a solid state TB mix. So yes, this is far superior.
It can be made to work with boron too (maybe a little better), but the price will be higher. H-TBX was developed out of necessity, to be a multi ton product. So the fun science remains to be done in the future.

I see the commercial for the grenade launcher for the first time, just collecting all videos about the product here. It was in 2014 that VMZ got a testing license, we have not heard from them ever since.


[Edited on 8-3-2022 by simply RED]


Ok! Thank you for response! I hope your making money off this! Your formulation deserves to be recognized! It’s an honor for us, for you displaying your work here. Would boron be the absolute best metal? I know it has combustion efficiency issues but nothing comes close in terms of kj/cc… other than the toxic Be. My understanding is boron carbide provides nearly as much energy but at a faction of the cost of B?

simply RED - 8-3-2022 at 07:54

I have no idea, really no idea. This work was done in extreme hurry, no time for extensive science at all.

JohnDoe13 - 8-3-2022 at 09:01

Quote: Originally posted by MineMan  
I hope your making money off this! Your formulation deserves to be recognized!


We do not. But the people who illegally produce it in Bulgaria make more than enough, because they load & export illegally munitions to US, Israel, Turkey, etc.

Clip from Armenia & Azerbaijan conflict. Turkish and Israelis drones loaded illegally in Bulgaria with our obsolete H – TBX composition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2Im4XEeMS8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiiXn9KoxY0&feature=emb_...

We have tried to inform US, Israel and Turkey that they buy illegal & obsolete production, but we have been thrown out from every embassy of these very same countries. We have direct talk with representatives of the Pentagon about this. We have send official letters about the situation to every government institution in Bulgaria almost half year ago, but so far no one is willing to meet with us or even recognize us as owners of the technology, despite the publication, the two patents in Bulgaria and one resent in South Korea.

Welcome to the brave new world of science and business!

simply RED - 8-3-2022 at 23:59

Should say that not everything is black and white. It is quite often brown...

JohnDoe13 - 9-3-2022 at 00:27

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
Should say that not everything is black and white. It is quite often brown...


Thanks man. You cleared up the whole shitty situation in just one sentence...


MineMan - 9-3-2022 at 04:09

I am really sorry guys! It’s a genius invention! That video was very impressive as well!

simply RED - 14-5-2022 at 06:02

A new video.

TB-7V (handheld rpg)
https://youtu.be/w8jUI6lSBUA?t=99
http://vmz.bg/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/TB-7V_low.pdf

MineMan - 14-5-2022 at 16:49

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
A new video.

TB-7V (handheld rpg)
https://youtu.be/w8jUI6lSBUA?t=99
http://vmz.bg/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/TB-7V_low.pdf


That is amazing! Wow! It’s an honor to have you on this forum!

simply RED - 14-5-2022 at 21:51

As internet remembers, this is quite a good place to collect all the videos in one place. They may be interesting for the auditory to see as well.
By the way, latest simulations performed by us show that TBX can be made 2 times more "powerful" (pressure, impulse) than this on the video and 5-10 times more "effective" (or destructive) (pressure, impulse, heat, fragmentation, armor penetration and action on optico-electronics).

[Edited on 15-5-2022 by simply RED]

MineMan - 16-5-2022 at 00:28

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
As internet remembers, this is quite a good place to collect all the videos in one place. They may be interesting for the auditory to see as well.
By the way, latest simulations performed by us show that TBX can be made 2 times more "powerful" (pressure, impulse) than this on the video and 5-10 times more "effective" (or destructive) (pressure, impulse, heat, fragmentation, armor penetration and action on optico-electronics).

[Edited on 15-5-2022 by simply RED]


How can it be made to be 2 times as powerful?

I have to be a skeptic and highly doubt 5-10times more amour effects, as that’s simply not how the Gurney equations work. Along with heat…how could you possibly take a mixture from 20kj/gram to 100kj per gram?

simply RED - 16-5-2022 at 04:59

Armor penetration from direct hit not 10 times, but comparable to the best shaped charges. From a close hit - 10 times! Fragmentation comparable to HMX munitions. Pressure, impulse, heat, and action on optico-electronics - 10 times !

Yes, this is done (TRL 8), if we manage to industrialize will write an article on how it's made.

Measuring parameters on an empty field, is like measuring the voltage of a battery without load. With the load added, things are much different.

[Edited on 16-5-2022 by simply RED]

MineMan - 16-5-2022 at 05:10

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
Armor penetration from direct hit not 10 times, but comparable to the best shaped charges. From a close hit - 10 times! Fragmentation comparable to HMX munitions. Pressure, impulse, heat, and action on optico-electronics - 10 times !

Yes, this is done (TRL 8), if we manage to industrialize will write an article on how it's made.


Can you highlight what the formulation change is? If not publicly perhaps via personal message as we have communicated before?

It seems your implying your using a metal powder with larger heat out put and using an explosive that has HMX VOD with inserts (metal powders)?

simply RED - 16-5-2022 at 05:27

First, in 2013, we developed the universal code (software) to calculate enhanced blast explosives. Gov. sponsored labs could not develop it with billions of spending and hiring tens of professors. They all end up stealing the money anyway...
It is very difficult of course to enhance the energy of TBX explosive more than 30 MJ/kg. For further improving power, the blast wave has to be made to dissipate slower than x^-3.
A book must be written on this, not enough place to discuss it here.


[Edited on 16-5-2022 by simply RED]

MineMan - 16-5-2022 at 13:58

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
First, in 2013, we developed the universal code (software) to calculate enhanced blast explosives. Gov. sponsored labs could not develop it with billions of spending and hiring tens of professors. They all end up stealing the money anyway...
It is very difficult of course to enhance the energy of TBX explosive more than 30 MJ/kg. For further improving power, the blast wave has to be made to dissipate slower than x^-3.
A book must be written on this, not enough place to discuss it here.

But how can you get fragmentation compared to HMX? The inserts at 30MJ/kg will reduce both the VOD and gaseous output and thus the gurney velocity.
[Edited on 16-5-2022 by simply RED]

MineMan - 16-5-2022 at 15:42

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
First, in 2013, we developed the universal code (software) to calculate enhanced blast explosives. Gov. sponsored labs could not develop it with billions of spending and hiring tens of professors. They all end up stealing the money anyway...
It is very difficult of course to enhance the energy of TBX explosive more than 30 MJ/kg. For further improving power, the blast wave has to be made to dissipate slower than x^-3.
A book must be written on this, not enough place to discuss it here.


Hold up! 30MJ/kg… I thought we were talking about per liter, I made mistakes up above then. How do you even achieve 30MJ/L… that is the same value as PURE aluminum powder. Without boron or beryllium… I see this as impossible.

[Edited on 16-5-2022 by simply RED]

Microtek - 16-5-2022 at 22:14

Aluminum has a molar mass of 26,982 g/mol, a density of 2.7 g/cc and Al2O3 has a heat of formation of -1675 kJ/mol. That means that oxidizing one kg of Al to Al2O3 releases just over 31 MJ. However, if we are talking volume basis, one liter of solid Al (2.7 kg) will release 83.8 MJ. There are some entropy effects also, and at combustion temperatures they are significant, so the real numbers will be less.

simply RED - 16-5-2022 at 23:25

TNT / RDX / all high explosives are almost useless to create blast wave as it dissipates at ~x^-3. Any measure to make this dissipation more linear increases air blast capabilities many times over (like 5-10 times). 30 MJ/kg is too much, just said it as an example, we tested with 20 MJ/kg and it works fine. Yes, kilogram. Density is 2.1-2.5 g/cc depending on modification.

TNT/RDX munitions are like - a big hole in the ground and 3 meters away, the target stays untouched. Just watch the tens of videos that are available now. Also watch the videos of the Bayraktar TB2 in Karabakh (TB munitions). And even better - on the Harpy drones again in Karabakh (also thermobaric). See what I am talking about.

For big calibers, there is a need for very optimized enhanced blast explosive in order to have any air blast, otherwise you just make holes in the ground. Not just very optimized but based on physical principles that allow to reduce this x^-3. Detonation above ground also does not help with the standard munitions. Hope this explains.

Also, the effectiveness of a warhead depends on the factors I discussed above. Increase of one factor increases the effectiveness in a non-linear manner. For example, we see the same damage on the targets from the 20 kg MAM-L Bayraktar munition (10 kg TB explosive) and from a 100 kg aviation bomb (50 kg TNT). And the explosive in the MAM-L is only about 2-2.5 times better than TNT (measuring on an open field without targets). Yes, this also needs an article to be written on, with precise numbers and coefficients.

The explosive in the MAM-L munition releases 16 MJ/kg energy, but only 12 MJ/kg of them "fast enough" to generate air blast - and generates like 2-2.5 times TNT equivalent. See how much physics is involved.

[Edited on 17-5-2022 by simply RED]

MineMan - 17-5-2022 at 01:11

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
TNT / RDX / all high explosives are almost useless to create blast wave as it dissipates at ~x^-3. Any measure to make this dissipation more linear increases air blast capabilities many times over (like 5-10 times). 30 MJ/kg is too much, just said it as an example, we tested with 20 MJ/kg and it works fine. Yes, kilogram. Density is 2.1-2.5 g/cc depending on modification.

TNT/RDX munitions are like - a big hole in the ground and 3 meters away, the target stays untouched. Just watch the tens of videos that are available now. Also watch the videos of the Bayraktar TB2 in Karabakh (TB munitions). And even better - on the Harpy drones again in Karabakh (also thermobaric). See what I am talking about.

For big calibers, there is a need for very optimized enhanced blast explosive in order to have any air blast, otherwise you just make holes in the ground. Not just very optimized but based on physical principles that allow to reduce this x^-3. Detonation above ground also does not help with the standard munitions. Hope this explains.

Also, the effectiveness of a warhead depends on the factors I discussed above. Increase of one factor increases the effectiveness in a non-linear manner. For example, we see the same damage on the targets from the 20 kg MAM-L Bayraktar munition (10 kg TB explosive) and from a 100 kg aviation bomb (50 kg TNT). And the explosive in the MAM-L is only about 2-2.5 times better than TNT (measuring on an open field without targets). Yes, this also needs an article to be written on, with precise numbers and coefficients.

The explosive in the MAM-L munition releases 16 MJ/kg energy, but only 12 MJ/kg of them "fast enough" to generate air blast - and generates like 2-2.5 times TNT equivalent. See how much physics is involved.

[Edited on 17-5-2022 by simply RED]


I have been keeping up with the current conflict like a hawk. I didn’t know Turkey was using thermobarics in that munition. Most countries are far behind on warhead technology. No wonder why the TB-2 are so destructive. Can I ask what formula would produce 20MJ/kg, only thing I can think of is a mixture of boron powder, silicon cure, potassium perchlorate and HMX.

What is microtek referring to when he says due to high temperatures will be less? I really wish someone like you could take me under your wing and teach me. I have been reading everything I can find, yet you and microtek bring nuances I never knew of. How can the energy release of aluminum change based on the temperature of the blast wave? I hope to some day be able to make the contributions RED and Microtek have made…


simply RED - 17-5-2022 at 03:41

MineMan you have to go to university and study physical chemistry and thermodynamics. There you will find all answers to those questions, again it is impossible to be explained here. Go study "Chemistry" in USA / western Europe or Eastern Europe, does not matter, you will have enough of this.
A hint:
https://wikieducator.org/The1stLawofThermodynamicsLesson5

You watched the videos and could not figure out it is TB? Yes, at that time, loaded exactly with this (H-TBX) - in Bulgaria. Yes, unbelievably destructive, completely not correlating with field testing with piezo sensors.

[Edited on 17-5-2022 by simply RED]

MineMan - 17-5-2022 at 11:10

Quote: Originally posted by simply RED  
MineMan you have to go to university and study physical chemistry and thermodynamics. There you will find all answers to those questions, again it is impossible to be explained here. Go study "Chemistry" in USA / western Europe or Eastern Europe, does not matter, you will have enough of this.
A hint:
https://wikieducator.org/The1stLawofThermodynamicsLesson5

You watched the videos and could not figure out it is TB? Yes, at that time, loaded exactly with this (H-TBX) - in Bulgaria. Yes, unbelievably destructive, completely not correlating with field testing with piezo sensors.

[Edited on 17-5-2022 by simply RED]


Thank you! Unfortunately going back to university is not an option. Maybe writing code for a year or two would be better? I will watch what you linked. I have my own formulations… I hope to share sometime. But it is not as economical as yours. But again, there are only a few elements with high heats per volume :). There are new oxidizers such as periodate which are very dense and probably work better than perchlorate if we are willing to pay.

simply RED - 17-5-2022 at 12:50

Access to a professional testing site with high speed camera and piezo sensors is also a must. And all work will be in vain if there is no need for the improvements you are planning...
 Pages:  1  2