APO
National Hazard
Posts: 627
Registered: 28-12-2012
Location: China Lake
Member Is Offline
Mood: Refluxing
|
|
Heavy Explosives?
I've done a lot of searching about this and only found this, but it was more about fusion explosives, than what I'm thinking. I'm wondering if explosives enriched with heavy isotopes will effect the
working mass of the detonation to show any measurable increase in power. After all it could increase the density slightly, and the higher affinity of
oxygen towards deuterium could result in a slightly more exothermic reaction when exposed to protium. Just bored, wanted to see what you guys think of
this idea.
"Damn it George! I told you not to drop me!"
|
|
|
Motherload
Hazard to Others
Posts: 245
Registered: 12-8-2012
Location: Sewer
Member Is Offline
Mood: Shitty
|
|
You will end up with a really expensive isotopic variant of an existing energetic that performs maybe marginally better.
Density isn't the only key ..... Chemistry stays the same.
"Chance favours the prepared mind"
"Fuck It !! We'll do it live !!"
|
|
|
APO
National Hazard
Posts: 627
Registered: 28-12-2012
Location: China Lake
Member Is Offline
Mood: Refluxing
|
|
Thanks. Just a thought.
"Damn it George! I told you not to drop me!"
|
|
|
KonkreteRocketry
Hazard to Others
Posts: 165
Registered: 12-11-2012
Location: Dubai
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Tantalum is one of the heaviest metal i think that can burn so well with oxygen, although 3 times less than magnesium.
|
|
|
Ral123
National Hazard
Posts: 735
Registered: 31-12-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That's why the iron cases of the bombs are invented, even trough they get pulverised.
|
|
|
Trotsky
Hazard to Others
Posts: 166
Registered: 6-2-2013
Location: US
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Replacing atoms with radioactive isotopes could make for an incredibly expensive time wasting and ultimately useless dirty bomb. Not something anyone
would do, of course, there are better ways to that evil end.
I would be interested in radioactive analogues of explosives. Replacing carbon-12 with carbon-11 or 14 (the latter probably easier to work with) and
hydrogen with tritium would be interesting. I wonder how radioactive decay would influence sensitivity. Could a molecule detonate due to decay?
Alternatively, and this is something I know nothing about, could detonation trigger decay? Have radioactive explosives been studied? Not the highly
enriched uranium type, that is.
|
|
|
Fantasma4500
International Hazard
Posts: 1677
Registered: 12-12-2012
Location: Dysrope (aka europe)
Member Is Offline
Mood: dangerously practical
|
|
wolfram should be easier to get a hold of as TIG welding electrodes, its density is the same as gold; 19.3g/cm3
sorry if i completely missed the range of answers wanted :s
|
|
|
APO
National Hazard
Posts: 627
Registered: 28-12-2012
Location: China Lake
Member Is Offline
Mood: Refluxing
|
|
Lets keep it to stable isotopes , I want no ideas of dirty bombs floating around.
"Damn it George! I told you not to drop me!"
|
|
|
Motherload
Hazard to Others
Posts: 245
Registered: 12-8-2012
Location: Sewer
Member Is Offline
Mood: Shitty
|
|
Lead azide has a density of 4.7 g/cm3
Doesn't help it too much.
Gamma radiation cause PETN to deteriorate faster.
May not be the best to have isotopic energetics.
"Chance favours the prepared mind"
"Fuck It !! We'll do it live !!"
|
|
|
Trotsky
Hazard to Others
Posts: 166
Registered: 6-2-2013
Location: US
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Don't be ridiculous, no one wanting to make a dirty bomb would make it with unstable isotopic variants of known explosives. That's retarded.
Would maybe be interesting from a materials science perspective but not as a weapon
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
