| Pages:
1
..
26
27
28
29
30
..
68 |
grndpndr
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 827
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
@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
Hazard to Others
Posts: 102
Registered: 15-10-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Harmless
Posts: 17
Registered: 21-2-2006
Location: Slovenia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Detonating with the highest order
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| 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
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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.
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Harmless
Posts: 17
Registered: 21-2-2006
Location: Slovenia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Detonating with the highest order
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Hazard to Others
Posts: 280
Registered: 5-1-2007
Location: Medellin
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| 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!!!
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.
|
|
|
nitro-genes
International Hazard
Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| 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!
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] |
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
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| 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
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| 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
Harmless
Posts: 10
Registered: 29-12-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Plasma...
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 508
Registered: 9-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Harmless
Posts: 17
Registered: 21-2-2006
Location: Slovenia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Detonating with the highest order
|
|
@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
National Hazard
Posts: 827
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
..
26
27
28
29
30
..
68 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
