Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: Deploying an Impractical HE By In Situ Preparation, Pros and Cons
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
*****




Posts: 2999
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 23-12-2021 at 12:27
Deploying an Impractical HE By In Situ Preparation, Pros and Cons


Have this theoretical 'explosive' idea for finding a short time frame employment of an otherwise impractical high explosive due to perhaps the compounds extreme sensitivity upon creation.

The essential goal here, for example, may be a defensive deployment as a deterrent.

Solution: Create and deploy while the HE is in the process of formation, assuming such a feasibility.

Advantages:

>Low risk, as the explosive does not even yet exist.

>Also, not knowing precisely when detonation could occur, may be a potential advantage (as in a mine, a defensive weapon).

>Since this is a high explosive, knowledge of its existence in an area, could accomplish its deterrent mission.

>Detection of a partially buried such a unit may be difficult absent the presence of metal parts.

>Defusing such a unit, after locating, would likely require a high explosive detonation. However, if other such units are present, this would not really be an option (given the potential of a chain reaction).

>If several units are together mechanical ejected on a provocation up into the air, assuming sensitive to heat, the 1st to land/detonate could scatter the detonation effect. This would augment the defensive aspects including a fear factor.

>Depending on the specific HE, the reagents to prepare it may be available and relatively inexpensive.

Disadvantages:

>Short term use only as when placed into a detonation site, if highly sensitive, it will, in short order, explode. As such the defensive advantage is loss.

>Also, not knowing when precisely could be a disadvantage if returning access to the site is required. This would require detonation attempts (dangerous).

>Creating the HE on a set and leave approach does not guarantee success or a good yield.

>The HE is just too sensitive.

Does anyone have other points I missed?

Note: Please do not suggest or discuss specific HEs or their preparation (I leave this to those knowledge in the art).

[Edited on 24-12-2021 by AJKOER]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
violet sin
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1388
Registered: 2-9-2012
Location: Back yard staring at stars
Member Is Offline

Mood: Good

[*] posted on 23-12-2021 at 17:06


I'm sure this isn't new tec. It crossed my mind years back, and I'm by no means a HE or even pyro guy. The idea of a can with small compartments what dump in a cup, react and then drain leaving HE via slowly soluble or deteriorating seal. Crank the top, starts mixing walk away.

Only way you'd wanna make some of them. Pretty simple for a two components mix with only a few drops of catalyst necessary.

Have fun hashing out your go at it. I left the thought experiment years back and never looked back. Not sure there's much merit to the discussion, but I'm not into energetics.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Tsjerk
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2752
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mood

[*] posted on 23-12-2021 at 22:42


So, if I would want to walk into your sensitive mine field, I could just throw in a large firecracker, wait for the big bang and be OK right?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
macckone
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2129
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline

Mood: Electrical

[*] posted on 24-12-2021 at 13:54


binary explosive mixtures are a thing.

You could easily do this with sodium azide and isocyanogen tetrabromide.
I say easy, once you have made the isocyanogen tetrabromide, that synthesis is long and tedious.

large quanities of ammonium tri-iodide fall in this category as well.
Imagine a purple field that explodes if you touch it.
Of course the first bird that lands is going to cause one hell of a mess.

You want to make them where you are going to blow them up.

The government has developed other binary explosives and chemical weapons as well.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4904
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 25-12-2021 at 10:25


The idea has been in use fora little over 120 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyliquit
View user's profile View All Posts By User
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
*****




Posts: 2999
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 25-12-2021 at 18:40


Interesting comment by Unionised.

However, per the Wikipedia reference, to quote:

>One of the disadvantages of oxyliquits is that, once mixed, they are sensitive to sparks, shock, and heat, in addition to reported cases of spontaneous ignition.

So, my thoughts were that the binary mix would not be immediately dangerous, in other words, I like the reduced risk factor above other characteristics including costs,....

So, oxyliquits are a more dangerous cousin to my original concept, but interesting reading for sure.

The fact that spilled liquid oxygen on asphalt would become explosive is amazing and also suggests a way to demilitarize an air strip.

[Edited on 26-12-2021 by AJKOER]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4904
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 26-12-2021 at 05:19


"The fact that spilled liquid oxygen on asphalt would become explosive is amazing and also suggests a way to demilitarize an air strip."
well, it suggests two ways...
If you have lox you can pour it onto the airstrip + then fire tracer rounds at it or something. Huge bang; no more airstrip.

But imagine you have something like ammonium nitrate or sodium chlorate.
Enemy plane sees your airstrip- apparently intact, tries to land on it and discovers that it's explosively unstable. Nice way to destroy materiel and morale.

On a vastly more practical note, you can burn asphalt.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Fyndium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1183
Registered: 12-7-2020
Location: Not in USA
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 27-12-2021 at 03:00


The practice of spilling liquid oxygen to an airstrip in large enough quantities is pretty utopistic. The military standard practice to get rid of excess airstrips is to fire low altitude cruise missiles from 300mi away, or drop supersonic bombs from 50000ft from a stealth bomber. Chinese are mastering the fractional orbital bombardment, where you have a minimum range of 40 000 km. Even the poor countries have artillery, and the poorest have mortars. Compare that to the need to get within throwing range and having tons of highly compressed and/or cryogenic oxidizer ready to combust anything that can burn.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MineMan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 858
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 27-12-2021 at 18:08


What about a C-130 filled with 130 tons of gophers with parachutes. Have them dig under the runway…. And they could be radioactive gophers as well.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Triflic Acid
National Hazard
****




Posts: 477
Registered: 27-9-2020
Member Is Offline

Mood: Slowly Oxidizing into Oblivion

[*] posted on 30-12-2021 at 20:26


I believe they do this same thing when dropping VX nerve agents. The BLU-80 Missle mixes the precursors after being fired, creating what is known, ironically, as a "safe chemical weapon"



There wasn't a fire, we just had an uncontrolled rapid oxidation event at the power plant.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4904
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 31-12-2021 at 03:12


Quote: Originally posted by Fyndium  
The practice of spilling liquid oxygen to an airstrip in large enough quantities is pretty utopistic. The military standard practice to get rid of excess airstrips is to fire low altitude cruise missiles from 300mi away, or drop supersonic bombs from 50000ft from a stealth bomber. Chinese are mastering the fractional orbital bombardment, where you have a minimum range of 40 000 km. Even the poor countries have artillery, and the poorest have mortars. Compare that to the need to get within throwing range and having tons of highly compressed and/or cryogenic oxidizer ready to combust anything that can burn.

I think the discussion is in the context of withdrawing forces denying their opponent the use of a runway after they leave. At that point they have perfectly good access to the runway to do as they please.

Gasoline and a lit match seems easier. A bulldozer will do a fine job too (and has the advantage of also working on concrete strips).

A few land mines would be much more fun.
Doesn't stop the enemy landing- just makes them wish (briefly) that they hadn't.


View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top