CB Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition

[Richard Henry]

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:7c584d27.0403240307.6fabfe4@posting.google.com...

Mixing liquid acetylene and liquid ozone could produce a very loud
report - a mixture of charcoal and liquid oxygen used to be used as a
commercial explosive.

I remember the lox-barbecue page (which unfortunately seems to have been
taken down) warned against soaking the charcoal briquets in the liquid
oxygen.

"The people in charge have requested this web site be removed"

 

[John Michael Williams]

jwill@AstraGate.net (John Michael Williams) wrote in message news:<4032bf27.0403231258.1de26259@posting.google.com>...

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0403230411.35e35014@posting.google.com>...
jwill@AstraGate.net (John Michael Williams) wrote in message news:<4032bf27.0403221901.3cdacc11@posting.google.com>...
...

I share this skepticism. Burning TNT probably would produce 10x more
free energy than detonating it.

Trinitrotoluene is C7H5N3O6 and would burn to 7 CO2 molecules, 2.5 H2O
molecules and 1.5 N2 molecules - for which you'd need 10.5 extra
oxygen atoms, over and above the six oxygen atoms available in the
original TNT molecule.

Being simple-minded about it, 16.5/6 is 2.75, not ten, and that
exaggerates the advantage, because burning carbon to carbon monoxide
release quite a lot more energy than burning carbon monoxide to carbon
dioxide, which is where you use up seven of your extra 10.5 oxygen
atoms.

Right, letting the N_3O_6 drop out as nitrogen dioxide,
7*CO_2 + 2.5*H_2O is just 16.5. However, detonation
might not even produce the nitrogen dioxide, and it
might lose energy by producing NO instead of dioxide.
So I'm not sure where the 6 comes from.

Also, the energy from C+O_2 would be much lower than that
from the H_2+O, per O, I think, but I'm not sure how
well defined the combustion process is, that is being
assumed. I think, if detonation in air also entailed
complete combustion, then detonation would
produce the same energy as would direct combustion.

You mentioned something earlier about atomic hydrogen: I
am not sure about this, because combination to H_2 would
just be creation of one covalent bond. Can you explain
further?


The exact amounts of energy involved are all available in the open
literature - that is where I found them, some thirty years ago, and
I'm sure that they are still available now.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams

I found a value of the "dissociation" energy of hydrogen (H_2):
It's 104 kCal/mole.

By mass, then, I agree that recombination of atomic hydrogen
would yield far more energy than any of the reactions
so far discussed.

Of course, creation of the atomic H would then therefore
consume more energy/mass than almost anything else.

Where a little extra mass doesn't matter, there isn't any obvious
advantage to atomic hydrogen.

John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams

 

[John Michael Williams]

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0403240253.4b8e85fa@posting.google.com>...

jwill@AstraGate.net (John Michael Williams) wrote in message news:<4032bf27.0403231258.1de26259@posting.google.com>...
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0403230411.35e35014@posting.google.com>...
jwill@AstraGate.net (John Michael Williams) wrote in message news:<4032bf27.0403221901.3cdacc11@posting.google.com>...
...

I share this skepticism. Burning TNT probably would produce 10x more
free energy than detonating it.

Trinitrotoluene is C7H5N3O6 and would burn to 7 CO2 molecules, 2.5 H2O
molecules and 1.5 N2 molecules - for which you'd need 10.5 extra
oxygen atoms, over and above the six oxygen atoms available in the
original TNT molecule.

Being simple-minded about it, 16.5/6 is 2.75, not ten, and that
exaggerates the advantage, because burning carbon to carbon monoxide
release quite a lot more energy than burning carbon monoxide to carbon
dioxide, which is where you use up seven of your extra 10.5 oxygen
atoms.

Right, letting the N_3O_6 drop out as nitrogen dioxide,
7*CO_2 + 2.5*H_2O is just 16.5. However, detonation
might not even produce the nitrogen dioxide, and it
might lose energy by producing NO instead of dioxide.
So I'm not sure where the 6 comes from.

Detonating or burning TNT won't produce any significant amount of
nitrogen dioxide - the oxygen originally bonded to the nitrogen will
end up bonded to the hydrogen (as water) and the carbon (as carbon
monoxide). That is what the nitrate groups are there for.

Also, the energy from C+O_2 would be much lower than that
from the H_2+O, per O, I think, but I'm not sure how
well defined the combustion process is, that is being
assumed.

It is pretty well defined. The hydrogen-oxygen bond is stronger than
the carbon oxygen bond, so all the hydrogen is going to end up as
water, and the rest of the oxygen will be taken up as carbon dioxide.
The energy released by these reactions can be worked out pretty
exactly - the National Bureau of Standards publishes table of
"enthalpies" for loads of chemical compounds.

You have to fine-tune the published data to account for the
temperature and physical states of the reactants before and after the
reaction, but this is strictly detail work.

The procedures involved in making the calculations were covered in the
thermodynamics course I did in second year chemistry back in 1961. As
far as I know, all chemistry and physics graduates have to do such a
course.

Chemistry, maybe, but physics--I'm not so sure.
Physics of particles and fields gets
pretty exotic, but this isn't on-topic here at all.

...

John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams

 

[John Michael Williams]

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message news:<jkAd$HE2kXYAFwMe@jmwa.demon.co.uk>...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org
wrote (in <7c584d27.0403240307.6fabfe4@posting.google.com&gt about 'CB
Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Wed, 24 Mar 2004:

Not an experiment I'd recommend. Acetylene is thermally unstable, and
cylinders of compressed acetylene contain kieselguhr

http://www.nobel.se/nobel/alfred-nobel/industrial/krummel/kieselguhr.htm
l

for exactly the same reason that nitroglycerine is only commercially
available adsorbed onto kieselguhr.

Ozone is is also thermally unstable, and I don't think that it is
commercially available at all (with or without kieselguhr).

There have always been macho physicists and chemists who wanted to push
the envelope of risky experiments; Moissan, for example, who made
diamonds (not very good ones) by quenching white-hot hollow iron ingots
with carbon inside. Who was it who first produced titanium metal from
the oxide with the aid of potassium vapour?

Ozone has certainly been liquefied: it is a very deep blue, almost
black. Acetylene can't be liquefied at atmospheric pressure: the solid
sublimes (turns to gas) at -84 C.

Mixing liquid acetylene and liquid ozone could produce a very loud
report -

Particularly as it would have to be done in a pressure vessel!

a mixture of charcoal and liquid oxygen used to be used as a
commercial explosive.

Pure hydrogen peroxide is another nasty liquid - the British, and more
recently, the Russians have had cause to regret using it as a torpedo
fuel.

Was the British torpedo fuel *pure* H2O2? It would seem at first sight
unnecessary.

Only in submarines. Bunch of "oxygen-sniffers" . . ..

John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams

 

[Stephen J. Rush]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:18:55 -0800, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Unil the terrorists get nukes, then there will be no Jerusalem.
It is as predictable as a TTL timer, only one outcome possible.
It is probably far to late for Israel to change that outcome.

Jerusalem is probably the only city in the region that _isn't_ a potential
nuke target. Too many sites sacred to both sides.

 

[Cecil Moore]

Terry Given wrote:

Why do you feel it necessary to abuse everyone with whom you disagree?

For exactly the same reason the posts are anonymous?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

[Terry Given]

"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:kdn060pnn9kei66vv8t0r7dasc43j90au3@4ax.com...

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:50:00 -0600, Cecil Moore
Cecil.A.Moore@ieee.ONEDOT.org> Gave us:

John Michael Williams wrote:
I share this skepticism. Burning TNT probably would produce 10x more
free energy than detonating it.

When you detonate it, what happens to the 90% lost energy?
Fails to actually detonate?

First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I
think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable.

That guy's empty skull cavity has a lot of free space in it.

Why do you feel it necessary to abuse everyone with whom you disagree?
especially as the half-dozen or so posts below clearly indicate that you are
WRONG.

 

[John Michael Williams]

Bruce in Alaska <bruceg@btpost.net> wrote in message news:<bruceg-E231BF.09215524032004@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...

In article <4032bf27.0403231322.65c4e5b1@posting.google.com>,
jwill@AstraGate.net (John Michael Williams) wrote:

but what would happen is that the uncombusted atoms
of the TNT would be just accelerated away by the shock
of detonation.

Eventually, they might be combusted, but not as part of
the detonation. So, their combustion energy contribution
isn't counted as part of the explosion.

The above is just plain NONSENSE.

Now, Now: You are exaggerating.

When TNT Detonates, it is the
detonation wave front that causes the cyclic ring of tolulene to
break and release the bonding energy of the molecule. The detonation
wave front is traveling faster than the the molecules can move on their
own, so they don't move, they just get slammed by the detonation wave.

OK. Maybe here you are not exaggerating.

Detonation creates a SHOCK, not a "wave"; a wave is
a cyclic vibration at or below the speed of sound
(disregarding electromagnetic waves).
A detonation is an aerodynamic (or, if you prefer,
hydrodynamic) process, not a "wave", and it
exceeds the speed of sound. Typical shock speeds for a
solid high explosive are over 9 km/s, whereas the speed
of sound in the fastest solid (e. g., carbonate rock)
is below 7 km/s. In a typical solid high explosive, sound
speed would be under 3 km/s. In nitroglycerine, it would
be under 2 km/s.

Your criticism doesn't make sense to me: If there is a
SHOCK (I assume you are referring to bonding electrons?)
it will transfer momentum to atoms in its path, and each
in just one direction, depending on the location of the
first energy-yielding bond. Each atom will be accelerated
in one direction (ignoring subsequent collisions).

I agree the shock will progress
faster than the atoms, but the atoms will be accelerated.

What are these atoms? They are the atoms, or if you prefer,
small molecules, NOT combusted as well as others not detonated,
and some previously detonated. They will move in all directions
away from their original locations. The heat liberated by the
detonation reaction, if nothing else, will have accelerated
them to high speeds.

If you think about it, that's what I wrote above.

There is a GIANT difference between combustion and detonation. TNT
does NOT combust when it decomposes in a detonation.

Bruce in alaska

I didn't say anything inconsistent with that, did I?

John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that maxfoo <maxfooHeadFromButt@punkass
..com> wrote (in <5uv360d4entn3kvk2mec1odjbsji38nusm@4ax.com&gt about
'Cellphones and Bombs', on Wed, 24 Mar 2004:

a dirty nuke wouldn't physically damage any sacred sites. just
contaminate the area for thousands of years so no one could live there.

Sounds like a possible solution, maybe extended to all the disputed
territories. As long as they were evacuated before the event. If no-one
can live there, no-one can encroach on others' areas.

Not meant seriously.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Ian Buckner]

"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:Fnh8c.1267$Q45.417@fed1read02...

I remember the lox-barbecue page (which unfortunately seems to have
been
taken down) warned against soaking the charcoal briquets in the
liquid
oxygen.

"The people in charge have requested this web site be removed"

That's a shame - I thought it was a good example of there still being

a sense of adventure out there.

regards
Ian

;-)

 

[Bill Sloman]

Bruce in Alaska <bruceg@btpost.net> wrote in message news:<bruceg-E231BF.09215524032004@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...

In article <4032bf27.0403231322.65c4e5b1@posting.google.com>,
jwill@AstraGate.net (John Michael Williams) wrote:

but what would happen is that the uncombusted atoms
of the TNT would be just accelerated away by the shock
of detonation.

Eventually, they might be combusted, but not as part of
the detonation. So, their combustion energy contribution
isn't counted as part of the explosion.

The above is just plain NONSENSE.

Not true.

When TNT Detonates, it is the
detonation wave front that causes the cyclic ring of tolulene to
break and release the bonding energy of the molecule.

It isn't the "detonation wave front" that disrupts the
tri-nitrotoluene molecule, but the local heating. The detonation wave
front is just another consequence of the local heating.

The detonation
wave front is traveling faster than the the molecules can move on their
own, so they don't move, they just get slammed by the detonation wave.

They actually get heated by the heat radiated from the ignition point
(which travels at the speed of light), as well as by the impact of the
molecules heated up at the initial ignition point.

The detonation wave front is a "supersonic shock wave" which is to say
it is moving exactly as fast as molecules can move on their own,
because it consists of the energetic molecules produced by the
rearrangement of tri-nitrotoluene into water, carbon monoxide, carbon
and nitrogen.

There is a GIANT difference between combustion and detonation. TNT
does NOT combust when it decomposes in a detonation.

There certainly is a giant difference between combustion and
detonation. The carbon monoxide and the carbon particles produced by a
detonation may well react with atmospheric oxygen after the
detonation, but this is a much slower process and doesn't add much to
the damage produced by the initial blast.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Gary S.]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:28:58 -0000, "Ian Buckner"
<Ian_Buckner@agilent.com> wrote:

"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:Fnh8c.1267$Q45.417@fed1read02...

I remember the lox-barbecue page (which unfortunately seems to have
been
taken down) warned against soaking the charcoal briquets in the
liquid
oxygen.

"The people in charge have requested this web site be removed"

That's a shame - I thought it was a good example of there still being
a sense of adventure out there.

People concerned with being sued.

This rated highly on the "don't try this at home" scale.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[Dave Cole]

in article 40606301_7@corp.newsgroups.com, Cecil Moore at
Cecil.A.Moore@ieee.ONEDOT.org wrote on 3/23/04 10:15:

DarkMatter wrote:
First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I
think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable.

If one arranged the TNT into a fuse, how fast would it burn?

Depends on whether you ignite it (Zippo, etc.) -moderate speed for a fuse-
or detonate it (initiator, blasting cap, etc.) -very fast... think
primacord.
HTH
Dave Cole

 

[DarkMatter]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:31:08 -0800, "Terry Given"
<the_domes@xtra.co.nz> Gave us:

Why do you feel it necessary to abuse everyone with whom you disagree?
especially as the half-dozen or so posts below clearly indicate that you are
WRONG.

You retarded twit. I never denied being wrong about TNT at all.

I was not, however, wrong about your improper use of this forum.

Fuck you, and fuck off. Stop posting to me, dipshit.

 

[DarkMatter]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 05:35:29 GMT, Dave Cole <davidwcole@earthlink.net>
Gave us:

in article 40606301_7@corp.newsgroups.com, Cecil Moore at
Cecil.A.Moore@ieee.ONEDOT.org wrote on 3/23/04 10:15:

DarkMatter wrote:
First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I
think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable.

If one arranged the TNT into a fuse, how fast would it burn?

Depends on whether you ignite it (Zippo, etc.) -moderate speed for a fuse-
or detonate it (initiator, blasting cap, etc.) -very fast... think
primacord.
HTH
Dave Cole

Learn how to quote properly. I did not ask this question.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

maxfoo wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:29:28 -0600, "Stephen J. Rush" <steverush1@cox.net
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:18:55 -0800, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Unil the terrorists get nukes, then there will be no Jerusalem.
It is as predictable as a TTL timer, only one outcome possible.
It is probably far to late for Israel to change that outcome.

Jerusalem is probably the only city in the region that _isn't_ a potential
nuke target. Too many sites sacred to both sides.

a dirty nuke wouldn't physically damage any sacred sites. just contaminate the
area for thousands of years so no one could live there.
--------------------

But everyone knows that if Jerusalem goes, Mecca, Medina, Teheran,
Islamabad and a half dozen other Moslem cities get nuked. This
from the insiders in Israeli physics I have known when I was
married into a Jewish family for 20 years.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Cecil Moore]

DarkMatter wrote:

Dave Cole <davidwcole@earthlink.net> wrote:

Cecil.A.Moore@ieee.ONEDOT.org wrote:

DarkMatter wrote:
First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I
think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable.

If one arranged the TNT into a fuse, how fast would it burn?

Depends on whether you ignite it (Zippo, etc.) -moderate speed for a fuse-
or detonate it (initiator, blasting cap, etc.) -very fast... think
primacord. HTH Dave Cole

Learn how to quote properly. I did not ask this question.

Since my heading is identified by '>>' any quote with '>>>' is mine.
Your heading is identified by '>>>' so your quotes use '>>>>'.
Everything above *is* quoted properly.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:40:02 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40652261.DAC@armory.com>:

But everyone knows that if Jerusalem goes, Mecca, Medina, Teheran,
Islamabad and a half dozen other Moslem cities get nuked.
When I look at hthis statement closer, you see that now we have

lost Baghdad, and if teh US 'frees' ahum more Islam countries z(say keeps
pushing Iran, the currwent CIA operations in Siria, everytime the balance
for a Israeli targets for a 'strike back' decreases.
Lowwer threshold.
People who have nothing to lose do NOT go by any rules.
IMO Bush Jr want, before he leaves offcide, a worldwide fire started.
This to help his weaopon producing friends.
Same as Vietnam was for no reason at all....
So he may light middle east, China Taiwan, or both, or something else.
Here is a mirror for the US.
Its ugly.
But on the other hand, humanity has always been that way.
The beauty in it is it makes the species strong, PROVIDED there are
survivers.
But it would be more beautiful if people could live in peace.
We do have, as humans, a brain that alows us to view the world from
the others perspective.
Maybe we should put energy into making people use that part.
JP

 

[DarkMatter]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:23:25 -0600, Cecil Moore
<Cecil.A.Moore@ieee.ONEDOT.org> Gave us:

DarkMatter wrote:

Dave Cole <davidwcole@earthlink.net> wrote:

Cecil.A.Moore@ieee.ONEDOT.org wrote:

DarkMatter wrote:
First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I
think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable.

If one arranged the TNT into a fuse, how fast would it burn?

Depends on whether you ignite it (Zippo, etc.) -moderate speed for a fuse-
or detonate it (initiator, blasting cap, etc.) -very fast... think
primacord. HTH Dave Cole

Learn how to quote properly. I did not ask this question.

Since my heading is identified by '>>' any quote with '>>>' is mine.
Your heading is identified by '>>>' so your quotes use '>>>>'.
Everything above *is* quoted properly.

Yes, I saw that right after I posted it. Sorry.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:40:02 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40652261.DAC@armory.com>:

But everyone knows that if Jerusalem goes, Mecca, Medina, Teheran,
Islamabad and a half dozen other Moslem cities get nuked.
When I look at hthis statement closer, you see that now we have
lost Baghdad, and if teh US 'frees' ahum more Islam countries z(say keeps
pushing Iran, the currwent CIA operations in Siria, everytime the balance
for a Israeli targets for a 'strike back' decreases.
Lowwer threshold.
People who have nothing to lose do NOT go by any rules.
------------------------

Their lives are still important to most of them, the number who become
suicidal over political causes is actually rather small. If we simply
blew the fuck out of whatever family home and neighborhood that the
latest suicide bomber came from, these attacks would stop. Most of
the allure to brainwashing kids to carry bombs is lost when their folks
contemplate retaliation directly upon their own head. The Russians
have learned how to deal with Arabs, ask them! Promising and then
carrying out the napalming of errant neighborhoods without any
apology whatsoever would end this in nothing flat. There's absolutely
nothing whatsoever wrong with genocide if it is not intended as such,
as with the Nazi's, but incidental to the purpose, as with Eisenhower.
Always make it strictly conditional, if you do this, we will do more
of that, and we will always escalate ten-fold and upon civilians!!!
A people is utterly responsible for those who lead and represent them
and how they do so, even down to their very children!

IMO Bush Jr want, before he leaves offcide, a worldwide fire started.
This to help his weaopon producing friends.
Same as Vietnam was for no reason at all....
So he may light middle east, China Taiwan, or both, or something else.
Here is a mirror for the US.
Its ugly.
--------------

Agreed, re: Bush at alia, but there are many others who know better,
which was how Vietnam stopped. On the other hand, we need weapons,
we simply need to use them a bit differently.

But on the other hand, humanity has always been that way.
The beauty in it is it makes the species strong, PROVIDED there are
survivers.
----------------

Nawh, I don't buy it, our nature depends far more on culture now
than genetics. It doesn't matter whether a suicide bomber is
a congenital idiot.

But it would be more beautiful if people could live in peace.
We do have, as humans, a brain that alows us to view the world from
the others perspective.
Maybe we should put energy into making people use that part.
JP
--------------------------

It requires, firstly, that we either do away with, or terrify any
who would breach the peace of the world. That requires an ugly but
actually very civilized demeanor, one that will not tolerate disorder
and will not bother apologizing to anyone.

People are not perfected by appealing to them, they are perfected by
their neighbors not tolerating their deviant abusive bullshit anymore.

When they finally always get it worse than they give, they fucking
stop, and not until!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public