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

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: Am I missing something?
fvcked
Harmless
*




Posts: 45
Registered: 11-4-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: Groggy

[*] posted on 20-5-2004 at 16:13
Am I missing something?


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/inde...

Im pretty sure that if you add sulfuric acid to an explosive it doesnt make it more powerful,. I am correct in thinking this right? And sorry if this is in the wrong forum, and also sorry if its not a topic thats allowed.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Geomancer
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 228
Registered: 21-12-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 20-5-2004 at 17:29


Apparently CNN's audience is unaware that chemistry involves more than simply creating mixtures of chemicals. Score one for US education. I suspect the acid was simply for producing conventional explosives, although it is possible that they intended to disperse it explosively, most likely with the intent to maim rather than kill.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
The_Davster
A pnictogen
*******




Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: .

[*] posted on 20-5-2004 at 18:15


Ah media, provokes the sheeple with incorrect information. :(
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unicorn
Harmless
*




Posts: 15
Registered: 27-7-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: Lamp-post

[*] posted on 21-5-2004 at 03:41


Here's one possible chain of events:

News comes in "sulphuric acid can be used to increase explosive yields"

Investigative journalist "sulphuric acid can be bought off the shelves as drain cleaner!!!"

Government ban OTC sulphuric acid.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
*****




Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-5-2004 at 06:07


Sulfuric acid as a blistering agent...

That would make belgium one of the largest chemical weapon producers in the world! What a load of bullcrap.




One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DDTea
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 940
Registered: 25-2-2003
Location: Freedomland
Member Is Offline

Mood: Degenerate

[*] posted on 21-5-2004 at 06:32


My logic has always been that nothing is a "Chemical Weapon" unless it is weaponized. That is to say, DFP is not necessarily a chemical weapon. I mean, how can you try to pass off a little tincture of the stuff as a Weapon of Mass Destruction? On the other hand, 2 Liters of DFP loaded into a mortar shell is a Chemical Weapon. Similarly, you wouldn't call some Uranium a "Nuclear Weapon." Not even U-235. But you would call U-235 in a sphere of explosives with highly-coordinated electronics a Nuclear Weapon.

The same applies with Sulfuric Acid. Stored by the gallon in plastic containers for cleaning toilet bowls, it is not a weapon. Used in Chemical Reactions, it's not a weapon. But put an explosive charge next to it, and you have a Chemical Weapon--albeit, a crude one. The Department of Homeland Defense does categorize H2SO4 as a "Toxic Industrial Material," a harmful chemical whose primary purpose is legitimate (e.g.: TEPP, Phosgene, Chlorine, Dimethyl Sulfate).

[Edited on 5-21-04 by Samosa]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
*****




Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-5-2004 at 10:38


IMHO, unless diluted, sulfuric acid is much too viscous to achieve satisfactory dispersion.



One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
The_Davster
A pnictogen
*******




Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: .

[*] posted on 21-5-2004 at 14:31


Quote:
Originally posted by Samosa
But you would call U-235 in a sphere of explosives with highly-coordinated electronics a Nuclear Weapon.


IIRC: In a fission device using U-235, the "gun type" design is used, not the implosion type. The gun type is used because it is cheaper and easier. The implosion type is only used with Pu-239 because the gun type design will not work with plutonium.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
FritzHaber
Harmless
*




Posts: 16
Registered: 14-5-2004
Location: europe
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 22-5-2004 at 03:22


Quote:
Originally posted by rogue chemist
Quote:
Originally posted by Samosa
But you would call U-235 in a sphere of explosives with highly-coordinated electronics a Nuclear Weapon.


IIRC: In a fission device using U-235, the "gun type" design is used, not the implosion type. The gun type is used because it is cheaper and easier. The implosion type is only used with Pu-239 because the gun type design will not work with plutonium.

its not reasonable to apply 'gun assembly' method for 239Pu, as the chain reaction with Pu appears too quickly.
but it doesn't mean you can't configure a NW with 235U in an implosion device.
actually, the soviet/russian MRV warheads for their RS-16 - RS-22 ICBM were equipped by triple-phase, 235U-boosted implosion fissile initiation, yielding 0,75 - 1,0 MT.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
The_Davster
A pnictogen
*******




Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: .

[*] posted on 22-5-2004 at 09:51


Wow, my bad. I had used info that I had got on the building of Little Boy and Fat Man, I really should have thought of more recent technological advantages.:P
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DDTea
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 940
Registered: 25-2-2003
Location: Freedomland
Member Is Offline

Mood: Degenerate

[*] posted on 22-5-2004 at 12:17


Wow. Way to miss the point...but a very interesting way, no doubt :P
View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top