|
Author
|
Topic: Let's outshine the sun
|
Polverone
Lab Assistant
Member # 1135
Member Rated:
|
posted August 09, 2002 03:23 AM
I've been peripherally aware for a while that the shockwave from high explosives can heat noble gases to very high temperatures to produce a brief, intense pulse of light. Only tonight did I start to search for further information. For such an interesting phenomenon, there appears to be little information available online.
I extracted the following from a Usenet post that's a few years old. The original source for the text was a PDF at lanl.gov that is no longer online.
quote:
... The smaller the specific heat, the greater the temperature that can be reached for a given energy input. Xenon is the best gas for reaching high temperatures, krypton is next best, and argon is appreciably poorer. On the other hand, krypton and xenon are expensive, whereas argon, present to about 1% in air, is inexpensive. Most experiments to date have been done with argon.
In argon, the temperature at the shock wave driven by a good solid high explosive is above 25,000 kelvins (K), and in xenon above 36,000 K.
... The shocked gas emits light nearly as a perfect radiator: the pressure and density are so high that the usual atomic line structure is broadened such that the lines merge and the spectrum is continuous. An argon shock wave is about 60 times brighter than the Sun, and a xenon shock wave about 100 times brighter.
I have searched the web and Usenet with Google and found little more relevant information. Blinding weapons based on this principle are called "optical isotropic radiators" in a number of places. Other people mention that det cord wrapped around a balloon of argon gas will exhibit this phenomenon, though they did not mention how intense the phenomenon was. I've seen references in a few places to using multiple shock waves to achieve high compression/radiation of the gas.
I was unable to find further information in the databases I have access to, but my school doesn't subscribe to a lot of engineering/physics information. I've also run a few searches on the US patent database and didn't come up with anything relevant.
I see a few possibilities here. The first is that inducing mega light pulses in noble gases is so simple that nobody writes about it; you just detonate your brisant high explosive of choice in the chosen gas and BOOM - instant light. The second is that work in this area is obscure and/or militarily significant so not a lot of details about techniques are available. The third is that there simply hasn't been much experimentation in this area.
It's definitely an area that interests me in the abstract. Were I to obtain a cylinder of argon (an expensive proposition due to cylinder costs) I would certainly be interested in experimenting. A cylindrical charge of PETN down the center of a polyethylene soda bottle filled with argon? Look away from the explosion, of course...
I'd also be interested in proposals for merging shockwaves to maximize the light output of the gas. Does anybody have further references?
--------------------
19th century digital boy
Posts: 169 | From: The Soggy Pacific Northwest | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 09, 2002 04:55 AM
I believe that reason 2 (obscure AND militarily significant) is the reason why you can't find any info.
The isotropic radiator is being developed as a NLW to "temporarily" blind enemy troops. I put the word in quotes because it's not likely to be that if you're close enough to it.
I believe it starts out with the gas already highly compressed, and then it's shocked with explosive to excite it enough to give off light. I'd imagine some type of implosion, similiar to a muke design, is used to achieve the compression since I can't imagine a "stick in tube" design providing enough compression. Unless, of course, it really is so simple that just wrapping detcord around a ballon would do it.
If so, then small vials filled with xenon gas or such could be added into explosive devices to add a nice flash effect.
The closest I could find to relevant info was here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=light+emit+xenon+compression&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1
This mostly brings up soniluminescence (sound to light), but (with some imagination) could be applied to explosives.
[ August 09, 2002, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Cool
Moderator
Member # 347
Member Rated:
|
posted August 09, 2002 07:56 AM
I've seen a patent - I think it might be in the appropriate section here - that uses a HE-induced argon flash to pump a dye/ruby laser, for use as a blinding weapon. IIRC they used 3g of PBX (>= 5kJ/g) and argon at 1atm, but I'd need to check to be sure.
I'm not sure if it'd work with an implosion design. Sure, you'd get a lot of light, but would the detonation products and regions of different density interfere with it too much?
I'm thinking of a shaped-charge like device, but with no liner, or a hemispherical cavity in a charge. The cavity is filled with argon at the required pressure, and when detonated it is compressed from everywhere except the front. The gas is heated to incandescence, and the light has a clear path away from the detonation.
--------------------
"Nothing makes a man fear much, more than to know little." - Francis Bacon.
Posts: 1440 | From: A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
PrimoPyro
Amateur
Member # 1035
Member Rated:
|
posted August 09, 2002 01:01 PM
Couldn't the same thing be accomplished by pumping the same amount of energy in the form of electric discharge into the gas, like a laser exploits for example?
The principle, I think anyways, is derived from the atoms becoming so raidantly energetic that the electrons jump to higher states to absorb the energy. As collisions occur between gas atoms, these electrons cascade back down to their ground states, falling through the orbitals, and releasing photonic energy energy that is a direct function of frequency is related to the energy drop from orbital to orbital. Since the electrons of various atoms are likely to be in several different energy states, you get several (probably thousands) photon frequencies, which is of course percieved as white light. The extreme intensity would come from more gas being subjected to this, or "further subjection" of the gas to the effect.
What I mean is you could either
a)use a bigger explosive and more gas (i.e. a bigger device) to get a bigger/brighter effect, or
b)Have a more efficient design, allowing more absorption of thermal and kinetic energy in the same amount of time before collisions react to transform the energy into photons. Personally, I dont think b actually works this way, I think the effect of this would be higher energy photons, not more of them.
The easiest way to get more light is to use more gas, and just compress it.
So I wonder, if a huge leyden jar-like capacitor of a few hundred farads, maybe a kilofarad or two, could accomplish the same effect? Like those lightning balls again heh. The center electrode would be the hot wire, and the spherical orb around it would be the ground electrode. The space between would be filled with compressed noble gas. Zap! Boom!
PrimoPyro
--------------------
Vivent Longtemps la Ruche! *utfse*
Posts: 67 | From: The Hive | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PYRO500
Moderator
Member # 73
Member Rated:
|
posted August 09, 2002 02:16 PM
A few hundred farads! At high voltage! In a leyden jar! I don't think so, for a leyden jar to store a farad at just say 10KV you'd have a jar the size of a small town! They aren't really designed for peak power storage or anything that stores massive amounts of energy.
Even pulse capacitors (with decent ESR and hookups) would have to be the size of many rooms to do that. And after all that you'd need a few hydrogen thyristors triggered by IR lasers to control that electricity.
I think a better use it to use the extreme energy to pump a masive "super laser" although COIL lasers are looking more and more practical these days.
The problem I see with the nobel gas plasma giving off light is that it uis not going to be coherent or monochromatic (most likely) instead you have something like a xenon discharge into the air witch wastes a whole lot or radiation across the spectrum some wavelengths will penetrate the air beter and some will be stopped by it. with a massive explosive driven flashlamp driving a very large Nd:YAG or even better synthetic ruby laser tube you could create a very powerful discharge that's likely to very rapidly things on contact with the beam at fairly far ranges if you can keep the beam coherent.
--------------------
Society creates the crime, the criminal completes it.
Posts: 2029 | From: somewhere in florida | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Cool
Moderator
Member # 347
Member Rated:
|
posted August 09, 2002 02:54 PM
PrimoPyro: "Couldn't the same thing be accomplished by pumping the same amount of energy in the form of electric discharge into the gas, like a laser exploits for example?" - of course it could, haven't you ever seen a camera flash?!
COIL - chemical oxygen/iodine laser, right? I never understood how they got these to work. It is my understanding that it reacts atomic oxygen with iodine vapour to cause the population inversion required for lasing. BUT, how do they keep the atomic oxygen atomic?! I've seen a demo (in fact, the same demo is shown on a site which I think I got to from a link here somewhere...) where chlorine is passed through 30% H2O2 to produce atomic oxygen, which very soon recombines and causes a deep red chemiluminescence. I don't know how they stop it from doing this for long enough to get it into the lasing cavity?
If using a HE argon flash to pump a laser, I think a dye laser emitting in the [rough guess] green [/rough guess] area would probably have absorbtion characteristics best suited to a radiator at 35K*K. A lot of light will be given off in UV->blue, but Nd:YAG is best pumped by red/near IR, and ruby by green wavelengths I think.
--------------------
"Nothing makes a man fear much, more than to know little." - Francis Bacon.
Posts: 1440 | From: A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polverone
Lab Assistant
Member # 1135
Member Rated:
|
posted August 09, 2002 03:19 PM
You know, the reason I like this idea is because it *is* so uncomplicated. Pumping a laser rod with the flash may be a good idea, but am I going to recover the rod afterward? I might, if the charge were small enough, but then what's the point of using explosive pumping? It's not as if I need a system that's battlefield-ready. Shocking some argon seems to be straightforward and inexpensive enough that it might actually be done by a forumite, instead of just speculated about.
quote:
I'm thinking of a shaped-charge like device, but with no liner, or a hemispherical cavity in a charge. The cavity is filled with argon at the required pressure, and when detonated it is compressed from everywhere except the front. The gas is heated to incandescence, and the light has a clear path away from the detonation.
I rather like that idea. But I just realized something that had been nagging at me. The mysterious disappeared PDF that I quoted said that with argon you could achieve 60x the sun's brightness, and with xenon 100x (I wonder what radon would give you ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) .) But they don't state at what distance from the explosion this brightness is measured! The sun is so distant that the relatively small movements possible on the earth's surface don't really matter, as far as changing brightness; the sun isn't appreciably brighter at 2000 meters than at sea level. But for nearer light sources, the inverse square law really matters.
--------------------
19th century digital boy
Posts: 169 | From: The Soggy Pacific Northwest | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PYRO500
Moderator
Member # 73
Member Rated:
|
posted August 09, 2002 05:22 PM
You know, on my little internet quest to find more information on he net I happened to find a pdf not only mentioning the name of the device you mentioned but a whole taxonomic table of all the classifications of future weapons for the military. this is the first file I have actually come across that mentions the curdler unit and other things included in nbk's first pdf. I think this table is one to save. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/nld4/fenton.pdf
--------------------
Society creates the crime, the criminal completes it.
Posts: 2029 | From: somewhere in florida | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 09, 2002 05:29 PM
I posted a patent number a while ago discussing an explosively pumped laser, well, here it is again.
#5,052,011
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Energy84
Lab Assistant
Member # 187
Member Rated:
|
posted August 09, 2002 05:55 PM
Aren't computer monitors/tv's picture tubes full of argon? I can't remember and am too damn lazy to check, but if that's the case, couldn't you just make a BIG charge of ANFO or something (ANFO would be the cheapest bulk explosive I believe), enough to completely surround the monitor or tv and just detonate that?
--------------------
"Imagination is more important that knowledge."
Albert Einstein
Posts: 190 | From: Manitoba, Canada | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 09, 2002 06:07 PM
The topic isn't lasers, rather explosively pumped flashbulbs (for want of a simplier analogy).
If the gas was contained in an optically resonant cavity (ala laser) that might be the difference between a flash and a gas. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It still seems to me that implosion would be the key to compressing and heating the gas to an incandescent state.
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
kingspaz
Moderator
Member # 91
Member Rated:
|
posted August 09, 2002 06:35 PM
it all depends how much light would be absorbed by the explosion....when i think about it its unlikely not much will be. it would be insignificant i think.
also i think so long as the explosive isn't very smokey then it should work fine. TNT and other very oxygen deficient explosives would produce alot of smoke absorbing a fair bit of light.
[ August 09, 2002, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: kingspaz ]
--------------------
The unexamined life is not worth living to a human
Posts: 1085 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 10, 2002 07:22 AM
Ok, you don't want lasers, then this is an interesting patent, to kill/confuse the optical system of missiles. Basicly a ballon that inflates with noble gases, then a charge detonates inside the ballon.
Creating a nice little flash.
#6,324,955 (Explosive countermeasure device)
Here is an images taken from the patent on the inflated ballon before it detonates(I added some descriptions). For those who can't view full page patents.
http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Flash.jpg
Don't know what pressure the ballon had before it detonated.
Edit: Try filling a condom(transparant) with aragon, but before you fill it, add a detonator(electrical) containg an apropriate amount of primary. Detonate(don't look at it).
Or better use a container such as a plastic bottle that can withstand a little higher pressure(fitted with valve, makes it a bit more complex ).
It might be as simple as it seems(ofcourse you get lower light-output), why not try it?
[ August 10, 2002, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthony
Moderator
Member # 72
Member Rated:
|
posted August 10, 2002 01:49 PM
You can buy 1kg dispossable argon bottles for little MIG welders, few quid a pop and pressurised to over 100bar IIRC.
I wonder if it would work to just stand one upright in a bucket of ANFO, probably with the top uncovered if the gas needs a "way out"?
Posts: 3259 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 10, 2002 03:52 PM
It could work and there is only one way to test it.
I'm working on a pressurised(with argon an a little CO2) plastic bottle. Maybe I'll try it with a detcap.
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 10, 2002 04:26 PM
I wonder if a Xenon Halide compound would be more effective than the plain gas?
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Cool
Moderator
Member # 347
Member Rated:
|
posted August 10, 2002 06:17 PM
Too expensive for a start! And you'll have the bulky halogen taking energy away from the xenon. Hmm.. although this wouldn't be too significant if you used the flouride, which is probably the easiest to form anyway. What's the AM of xenon, 60ish? Fuck knows. Anyway, I think it'd be too expensive.
But hey, if you're using a compound get HE and noble gas in one and go for xenon trioxide!
Anthony: do they have those in B&Q (for example), or only specialist welding shops? Not only could I use the argon for this and other stuff, if they're cheap then I could get one and use the case for stuff too, e.g. cannons, crucibles (I'm tired of porcelain, I always crack it ![[Frown]](frown.gif) , plus these could be made to have a narrow opening, to keep air out, as is required for making CaC2, CaNCN, NaCN etc) and whatever else I think of. Perhaps I'll go and have a look...
Another thing to think about: do you think it might help if you mixed in a bit of C2H2/O2 mixture into the noble gas, to give it an extra boost? Or would this soak up too much energy from the shock wave of the HE?
--------------------
"Nothing makes a man fear much, more than to know little." - Francis Bacon.
Posts: 1440 | From: A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
kingspaz
Moderator
Member # 91
Member Rated:
|
posted August 10, 2002 06:46 PM
i think the addition of C2H2 and O2 would help considerably. when C2H2 burns its very bright and hot so, when mixed with the noble gas being used it would be in direct contact so transfer energy better. not proper direct contact like in solids but if an implosion device was used the lot would be crushed to a very high temperature, denisity (better energy transfer) and pressure.
--------------------
The unexamined life is not worth living to a human
Posts: 1085 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 11, 2002 06:45 AM
I read in a patent that explosives that produce alot of water reduce the light output.
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 11, 2002 09:27 AM
Perhaps an explosive gas like Hydrazoic acid instead? This explodes at higher velocity than methane possibly could.
Assuming you actually can get a decent isotropic radiation effect, what would you use it for?
I'm thinking one good use would be to flash blind/destroy NVDs, such as sniper scopes or googles. The newest generation have ABC (Automatic Balance Control) that allow them to run even in daylight, but I don't think they'd react fast enough to protect the tube from an Iso flash since this is in the microsecond range, and much greater intensity than the sun (apparently).
Perhaps a specific ratio of an inert gas (Xe/Ar/whatever) with another gas/chemical could shift the flash from full spectrum to primarily IR. This way it won't affect unaided night vision (your eyes), but destroy your enemies NVD advantage. That, and it'd greatly conceal the source of the damage since their equipment would burn out in an instant, but they'd only hear a Boom!, but see nothing.
Then, once they're relying on eyes, you flashblind them with a fully visible Iso bomb to blind them while you cover your eyes. Now they're totally blinded while you can now use YOUR NVD with impunity. 
Even more hi-tech would be to couple the Iso to an electro-optic LCD shutter that'd engage for only a second while the Iso is flashing the enemy (full spectrum), disrupting all their vision/optics, while protecting your eyes/NVD. The shutter is coupled to the RC det that controls the Iso's.
Speaking of radiation, a 1% solution of Triethyl aluminum (TEA) in n-Hexane, when dispersed and ignited in air by an explosion, burns with such intense heat that it causes 3rd degree burns from infrared heating, with no direct contact with the deflagerating TEA. Nukes are the only other weapons capable of that. It also burns with a blinding white light, similar to a magnesium flare, that'd burn out, or at least shut down, any NVDs in the immediate area.
[ August 11, 2002, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthony
Moderator
Member # 72
Member Rated:
|
posted August 11, 2002 10:39 AM
I'm 99% sure I've seen them in B&Q, the range consists of pure CO2, CO2+argon and pure argon, if B&Q don't stock one of these it's probably the pure argon. Machine Mart definitely do them. Not sure about the price though, especially in B&Q (it's a distant memory ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ).
One thing that occurs to me is, I presume that a device like this would be tested at night? If so, how can we be sure it has worked (to a degree) considering that the explosive itself will produce a bright flash?
Posts: 3259 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 11, 2002 11:03 AM
Photography light meters.
Or, you can make a simple meter from a photovoltaic cell from Rat-Shack and use that.
Then, simply explode two similar devices, one with, and one without, the gas filling. Compare the light output.
However, because of the extremely short duration, you may have to use filmstrips covered with variable density tint to determine which one is brighter.
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 12, 2002 02:19 PM
I'm planning to detonate a 2 gram HMTD B.C. in a 1.5 liter plastic bottle pressurised(I can't tell what the pressure is) with gas used in welding (argon/CO2) to see if there is any noticable effect at all. Hopefully I will get around to assemble it soon. The bottle is ready and I have the cap filled, need to assemble the ignition device.
I have tested to discharge 300 volts through a iron filament(explodes) in the bottle filled with gas to see if there was any difference in light output between that and in air. But no.
What do you think?
Edit: Here is an image of the bottle with bike-wheel valve.
http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Bottle01.jpg
[ August 12, 2002, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 12, 2002 10:34 PM
Filter out the CO2 first by passing the gas through lye water.
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 13, 2002 09:47 AM
Here's a picture I found in a LANL PDF about criticality experiments.
The xenon gas in the plexiglass chamber is going from 1 Atm (~15psi), to 140kbar (I don't know what that is in Atm, but I'm sure it's a lot) in 10 microseconds under magnetic flux collapse. This causes the xenon to do its thing (flash) as the shockwave (adibatic compression) travels through it.
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 13, 2002 12:04 PM
Sure, I could wash the gas, but I don't have the equipment at hand(could build as gas-washing bottle). Therefore I will try it without removing the CO2.
A tought, CuO/Al mixtures are know to be capable of detonation(don't know what VoD, but I belive around 2000-2500 m/s). They don't give of water vapors and they generate alot of heat as they detonate(highly exothermic).
From alt.engr.explosives.
quote:
At the company we were playing with certain thermite
charges, who were supposed to have a certain effect in
undercooked water streams. One of these charges contained
atomized Aluminium powder A 80 and copper oxide in an
equivalent mixture. If such a charge was lighted by a
generator-gas match in air, it burned quickly and if it was
lighted by No 8 detonator it detonated and you got a
beautiful copper-cloud in the air
I assume this explosive could a good choice for this application, copper particles in the detonation cloud, not blocking any light but reflecting it.
If it's no good, it could possibly be used to damage power-lines/electronics or maybe you could initiate this cloud with a secondary charge(too noble metal, otherwise it would afterburn in the air by itself?)?
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 13, 2002 01:26 PM
How hard is it to pass a gas through water? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
ANywyas, the thermite mix you mentioned ISN'T suitable since it's the compression of the gas that causes the effect. And, in order to compress to sufficient pressure for it to flash, you need a very fast and brisant explosive. ANFO wouldn't (likely) do it, so certainly not something that's not much faster than gunpowder.
Though it might be useful as an anti-electronics explosive. (?)
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
zaibatsu
Moderator
Member # 58
|
posted August 13, 2002 01:37 PM
140Kbar = ~138200ATM or over 2,000,000 PSI! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 635 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 13, 2002 04:28 PM
This is a post from one of the guys who used to frequent alt.engr.explosives in the good old days. I would like to know what happened to them.
quote:
From: [email protected] (Arno Hahma)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,alt.engr.explosives
Subject: Re: C2H2/02/Xe
Date: 29 Jan 1999 12:02:21 GMT
In article <[email protected]>, Dirk Bruere
<[email protected]> wrote:
>wrong) by displacing 10% of the vol with Xenon gas, and then filling the
>remainder with C2H2/02.
>
>Question is, does the explosion/detonation pump the Xenon sufficent to
>convert a substantial portion of the energy into a brilliant flash?
It would probably flash, but not with high efficiency. The energy
density in a gaseous, detonating mixture is not that high and the
temperature isn't high enough to excite atoms in significant amounts.
However, there is a way to produce extremely powerful flashes out of
noble gases. One only has to use solid explosives to generate the
shockwave. The so called argon flash is more or less standard
procedure, when bright, short flashes are needed, for instance, when
photographing detonations.
In a simplest form, an argon flash is a balloon filled with argon and
some detonating cord taped onto the balloon. When the shockwave from
the detonating cord hits argon, it heats up to extremely high
temperatures (in the order of 10000 K and more) and emits very strong
UV and visible radiation. The intensity can be scaled with the amount
of explosive.
Any other gas will light up as well. However, noble gases with high
ionisation potentials can heat up to much higher temperatures than,
say, air. Molecules dissociate and restrict the temperature, while
atomaric gases can only ionize to consume the energy. Ionized gas is
pretty hot and bright.
ArNO
2
From the patent I posted the number to in a recent post:
quote:
When the charge is detonated in the confined atmosphere of a monatomic gas such as argon or xenon, the propagation of the resultant shock wave through the gas causes adiabatic heating and compression of the gas. This heats the gas to very high temperatures and causes it to generate an intense flash of light containing virtually all wavelengths.
Heat is fairly usefull when it comes to ionize atoms. Pressure is usefull too.
pv=nRT, see they are related
There is no problem passsing a gas(it's high pressure) through water, but I don't have the equipment(and I don't intend to build it right now)(repeating myself).
If it is as easy as it seems one could develop flashbangs based on a small charge contained in a transparent container with a noble gas under elevated pressure that could temporarly (or permanently blind people).
Now, tests has to be performed. Anyone else dreaming of anything?
[ August 13, 2002, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Cool
Moderator
Member # 347
Member Rated:
|
posted August 13, 2002 05:22 PM
There is NO WAY that an Al/CuO mixture could raise the gas to 20,000+*K!! It would probably burn at only 1/10th of that temperature, and since it isn't a brisant explosive the shockwave won't manage it.
This is something I have wanted to do for a while, but have never done so because I was unaware of the availability of argon at B&Q! If the price is right I might pick up a cylinder next time I'm there, but I won't be able to try a big device, and I won't be able to show you anything except before and after pics
--------------------
"Nothing makes a man fear much, more than to know little." - Francis Bacon.
Posts: 1440 | From: A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 13, 2002 07:50 PM
No, it will not give gas temperatures of above 20,000 K (can't see that being stated anywhere?). And it will burn at a fraction of that temperature as said. I came to think of it when thinking of how to avoid water wapors.
What do you think would be suitable? Aluminiumized RDX or similar?
[ August 13, 2002, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 13, 2002 10:15 PM
I think you're risking failure by allowing the CO2 to remain mixed in with your argon.
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 14, 2002 05:50 AM
You think so? It's very possible, but I will give it a try, and in the next test I could use somewhat pure argon.
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Cool
Moderator
Member # 347
Member Rated:
|
posted August 14, 2002 05:53 AM
xoo1246: The first post indicates that these things work at 25,000*K with argon.
I think the best explosive would be pure, high density RDX or PETN. No Al or other additives as these lower brisance.
--------------------
"Nothing makes a man fear much, more than to know little." - Francis Bacon.
Posts: 1440 | From: A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 14, 2002 06:21 AM
Ok, my fault.
The conclusions are, use pure noble gases at high pressure, chock it with a explosive that has a high brisance to get the maximum intensity? So this has actually little to with temperature of explosion then, since it's not hight enough but the compression that the shockwave performs on the gas generates the high temperature.
Stupid me...
But the question remains, could an explosive with much lower vod be used to produce an useable(what is that?) flash?
NBK, what I meant with that CuO/Al explosive used as an anti-electronics device was that possibly the copper particles would allow current to go from say the power lines to the ground.
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Cool
Moderator
Member # 347
Member Rated:
|
posted August 14, 2002 09:40 AM
I think most HE's would produce some light output, although with ANFO etc it might be an insignificant amount. You could probably get away with ANNM, but this is all just speculation. Just use the HE with the highest VoD that you can.
Hopefully I'll be going to check the prices of argon cylinders tonight, so I might be able to do some small tests soon. Do you think a 250mL pop bottle could be pressurised by turning the argon cylinder upside down, and squirting in a small amount of liquid argon and then sealing it? It'd be purged of air first, so that it only contains argon, but do you think the cold would weaken the bottle and make it crack or anything? This is one thing I'll try.
Camera flash tubes only use about 5J of energy in the flash cap, even if the HE method was 1/100th of their efficiency you could get a similar light output with about 0.1g of HE! What do you think, is that a reasonable conservative estimate of efficiency?
Also, I may be able to video my tests by borrowing a friend's camera, do you think it would damage the electronics in anyway, assuming the flash was a few times brighter than a camera's? I'm just worried about the very short duration = very high peak power...
--------------------
"Nothing makes a man fear much, more than to know little." - Francis Bacon.
Posts: 1440 | From: A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arkangel
Researcher
Member # 1025
Member Rated:
|
posted August 14, 2002 10:36 AM
For stills, how about a camera that you can hold the aperture open, sat behind the glass from a welders mask? That way you it's not going to pick up any ambient light, and as long as it's never pointed at the sun, you'll just get the image of the flash/explosion.
(Really interesting thread though Polverone, thanks for starting it)
[ August 14, 2002, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Arkangel ]
--------------------
It's easier to get forgiveness than permission
Posts: 408 | From: Pangea | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Cool
Moderator
Member # 347
Member Rated:
|
posted August 14, 2002 12:30 PM
That should work, but I don't have a suitable camera
If I can't get any video footage I'll draw an artist's impression of it in MS Paint
--------------------
"Nothing makes a man fear much, more than to know little." - Francis Bacon.
Posts: 1440 | From: A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthony
Moderator
Member # 72
Member Rated:
|
posted August 14, 2002 12:49 PM
Maybe point the camera at some nearby trees or other screen for the first shot? So that the camera sees the lighting effect of the flash rather than the flash directly.
The critical temperature for argon is -122*C, so I doubt that it's going to be liquified in the bottle
Posts: 3259 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliteforum
Researcher
Member # 166
|
posted August 14, 2002 01:09 PM
Maybe of pointless information, but argon has is pumped in between double glazed windows.
--------------------
C:>Freedom - Bad command or file name | C:>Individuality - Bad command or file name | C:>Self - Bad command or file name | C:>Control - The system controls everything - The system controls you!
Posts: 301 | From: White America | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 14, 2002 03:07 PM
NBK:
quote:
I think you're risking failure by allowing the CO2 to remain mixed in with your argon.
Ok, but I had to try it.
I detonated 2 grams(2.2) of HMTD in a 1.5 liter bottle pressureized with 77% argon and 23% CO2. I was behind a stone looking for reflections of a possible flash. This was conducted when the sun was still up(going down and sky was cloudy). No signs of any amount of visible radiation.
Before and after pictures(I still get adrenalin from detonating small charges..).
http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Flashdevice01.jpg
http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Flashdevice02.jpg
http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Flashdevice03.jpg (gathered some debris)
http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Flashdevice04.jpg (notice the small white particles, atleast the b.c. worked as it should )
Possible reasons of failiure(please add to the list):
23% CO2
Too low vod.
Not enough explosive used.
Too low pressure of the gas beeing shocked.
My eyes not beeing fast enough or me closing the eyes at the wrong moment.
The camera is a good idea at night, have thought of it. If you want to compare to charges you could set the camera to stay open for say three seconds and then you detonate the charge within that time frame. Reflections of course.
Edit(what I should have figured): According to rikkitikkavi CO2 breaks up under the stress(heat) from the shockwave thus stealing energy that could be used to ionized the noble gas. And 23% is a rather high content and together with such a small amount of explosive with low vod it is understandable that there was no flash. I'm building a gas washing bottle while waiting for Mr Cool to purchase some liquid pure argon.
Edit(2): Just had a wicked thought, are there secondaries sensitive to thease amouts of UV/infrared/visible radiation? In that case you could dispearse a cloud of solid explosives(like a thermobaric weapon) and then fire of one of thease devices, thus detonating particles all over the clound at virtually the same time (at light speed). That's what I call multipoint initiation, but I guess there are no secondaries like that, right?
[ August 14, 2002, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pyromaniac_guy
Lab Assistant
Member # 508
Member Rated:
|
posted August 14, 2002 10:18 PM
i dont think you have to worry about the pressure of the gas being shocked, for example, flashlamps used for pumping lasers would have a pressure measued in a few torr, and small volumes.. the active volume of a 25 kj rated flashlamp is <100 ml.... a 2l pop bottle should be much more than sufficent, even at STP [if you have never seen a 25 kj strobe go off, it is awsomely bright... standing in a 2000 sq ft or so room, with my back the the flashlamp [eyes open] still gave me an afterimage akin to staring at the sun for a long period of time.]
i would say use only a noble gas, up the explosive content, and use whatever has the fastest Vdet you can get your hands on...
Also, for those who suggested to use this phenomina to pump a solid state laser, most mediums such as nd yag or yag, and ruby have a top end energy storage of a few j per ml of volume. if you use a generous 5kj per liter as energy storage density, you can extract assuming 100% efficeny 5kj of laser pulse for every liter of medium you have... since not even the best system can extract all of the sotred energy, lets say maybe 2.5kj per liter... now the fun part. a laser rod a liter in volume would probably cost on the order of a new nissan maxima if the host was the least expensive nd:glass you could find. if it was YAG or ruby, you would have your choice of buying the rod or a new lamborghini... and since you are explosivly pumping the gaim medium, it's an awfull expensive one shot laser!!! FYI it takes about 60j of energy from a burst mode laser to vaporize a cubic millimeter of steel... 2.5 kj isnt going to do a whole heck of alot of damage!
[ August 14, 2002, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: pyromaniac_guy ]
Posts: 187 | From: us | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polverone
Lab Assistant
Member # 1135
Member Rated:
|
posted August 14, 2002 11:43 PM
I am not very surprised that the mix with 23% CO2 failed. CO2 decomposition is strongly endothermic, and CO decomposition even more so; I would expect that both are going to happen in the target temperature range. The whole point of using the noble gases is that they don't dissipate energy by breaking molecular bonds; they have no molecular bonds to break. Nevertheless, I salute this first experimental attempt.
As far as the CuO/Al thermite that was mentioned upthread... After reading that message in alt.engr.explosives that was quoted, I had to try the mixture for myself. I made two charges of CuO/Al in stoichiometric proportions with very fine ceramics CuO and 300 mesh Al. The first was ignited at night; it burned in a fraction of a second with a hearty "whump!" and sent glowing slag (from the igniter charge) about 10 meters into the air. The second charge was initiated in the daytime with HMTD. It gave a respectable (not huge) explosion and a thick cloud of brown smoke, which I'm guessing was colored from copper vapor. I imagine this wouldn't be very healthy for electrical equipment, especially high-voltage electrical equipment.
--------------------
19th century digital boy
Posts: 169 | From: The Soggy Pacific Northwest | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 15, 2002 05:24 AM
Polverone: Very interesting indeed, I have wanted to try this mixture myself and I have the chemicals at hand. So you didn't have to ball mill the ceramic grade CuO fist? How many grams did you use?
Edit: Sorry, I'm off topic.
I will remove the CO2 next time.
[ August 15, 2002, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 15, 2002 08:23 AM
Told you so. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Just some ideas for next time:
Cover half of the bottle with aluminum foil, with the shiny side facing inwards, to act as a reflector to direct most of the flash towards wherever you're watching it from. This will increase the probability of your detecting a flash, and may even amplify the effect by redirecting the UV/IR back into the reaction ala' laser.
Use a stronger plastic bottle to increase the pressure before rupture. The more compressed the gas is before being shocked, the more dense it is, and the greater the compression from the shock.
Those 5 gallon water cooler jugs come to mind. Or the smaller ones if you're conserving the gas.
An HE core that runs the WHOLE length of the container, and is initiated from the center (as per the patent) and NOT from the end. This way all the explosive is consumed in half the time as end initiation and thereby doubles the shock impulse.
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 15, 2002 04:11 PM
Another method of creating stronger shockwaves is by adding inert padds in in the tube the explosive is contained in, padds that don't take up the whole diameter but allows a layer of explosive on the outside of the padds. Thus the shockwave passes on the outside and collide between the padds. But that's a little bit too advanced for me at the moment.
Still interested in the possible uses of this radiation in a properly working device(using high vod explosives and compressed argon). What types of chemical reaction could be started by the intense UV radiation? Are there other uses but blinding?
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polverone
Lab Assistant
Member # 1135
Member Rated:
|
posted August 15, 2002 04:37 PM
You could theoretically use the intense light pulse to set off other explosives with a high degree of synchronization. I have a PDF around here somewhere about explosives that can be initiated with light. Some of them are actually fairly normal primary explosives, IIRC. Now I'm not sure exactly why you would need to set off multiple charges with precision synchronization but I'm sure people can come up with some good reasons.
Oh, and even though it's off-topic, I'll answer your query: the CuO that I obtained was already a very fine powder. It may have already been through a ball mill, since that's how many ceramics materials are ground. The night time charge was about 30 g and the day time charge was about 50 g. 3 g of Al/S igniter mixture set off the first charge, 2 g of HMTD set off the second.
--------------------
19th century digital boy
Posts: 169 | From: The Soggy Pacific Northwest | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rjche
Amateur
Member # 146
Member Rated:
|
posted August 15, 2002 08:41 PM
The balloon patent stated an explosive inside a balloon filled with certain rare gasses would work.
The pressure inside a balloon is just a tad greater than atmospheric pressure at its location. Upstairs that pressure may be quite low.
Also the pressure generated by a high explosive is in the millions of psi at the explosive surface. that pressure decreases as the volume increases. Pressure drops as radius cubed. IF the explosive is 1 inch diameter, then at a distance of 1 inch from the surface, pressure is down to an eighth of what it started out to be.
Thus whatever is near it is going to be raised to high pressure, and that pressure will drop but still be quite high at a distance of 1 foot.
(a 12 gage empty shotgun shell full of 75% dynamite broke concrete building blocks a foot from it in air). It would set off other dynamite within about 6 inches (air) of it, or several feet of water or wet dirt. Ditching dynamite (90%) would propagate hole to hole about 6 ft apart in wet soil. Only has to prime the end hole. The others followed
down the ditch line to the end. See any blaster's handbook.
A gas would achieve hundreds thousands of psi in a balloon a foot in diameter, with say ten grams of AP held in its center on a stick through its neck, and that stick used to seal the neck after gas was used to blow the balloon to size.
the wires to fire the ap could come out the stick (or pvc tubing).
To tell how bright it got, fire it behind a barrier at night and see how brightly it lights up distant hills etc.
Also take a photo of distant hills, with time exposure opened just before firing and closed after. Do two, one with explosion and one without, to check for residual time exposure contrast from night lighting. Then compare the photo of distant hills with a sunlight shot.
If it makes sunlight type illumination at a hundred yards
the light was 4 suns at 50 yards, and 16 suns at 25 yards.
for a night adapted eye that will cause prolonged night blindness.
Course a million CP hand held spotlight in the eyes of a nighttime intruder will do a good job also.
Would be good for lighting up door busters who like to use bright flashlights to defeat any NV goggles in use. Don't use NV, use a much bigger light than they got.
Ordinary photographic flash powder is also great. That's all a flash bang grenade is.
The amount of eye desensitizing is related to the total power not so much its peak intensity. It's a chemical bleaching problem, depends on total energy absorbed.
Thus a million CP for a second could do more than a hundred thousand CP (non directional burst) that lasts only microseconds.
To see what even a hundred CP can do, with night adapted eyes, flick on the dark room's flourescent lights for 5 seconds then off, and see if you can see anything in the room that you could see before you did that.
Time how long it takes to regain your adaption.
Another factor screwing you up will be the eyes will retain the image of what they were looking at during the bright flash, after they are back in the dark again. That takes several seconds to dissipate. Helps speed it up by moving your eyeballs back and forth. Its a chemical problem, and movement hastens flushing out the bleached chemicals.
One can open adapted eyes in a dark room, and fire a photoflash or one of the older flash bulbs, and after its dark again see the room all lit up from the stored image, by holding the eyes from moving. Most can look at the image for about half a minute, and see details he didn't see while the flash lasted. Move the eyeballs and it goes away, but comes back several times, each time a bit dimmer.
Of all the methods, I believe flash powder would be the most practical, if you only wanted temporary incapacitation.
The power of a laser is because it can put several milliwatts into the pupil of the eye if it can hit that small target.
To do that with a non focused light source takes mucho power. You can calculate it. Total power of the light, spread over the size of its spot gives so many watts per square millimeter of area at whatever distance you measure the spot size.
The night eye pupil is 7 mm diameter. Area is about 150 sq mm.
If a spotlight at 25 yards is a meter diameter
That's about 3 million square mm area.
The power of the light is say 12 volts at 5 amps or 60 watts.
Efficiency is about 10 % so the light output is about 6 watts.
6 watts spread ovewr 3 million sq mm gives 1.2 E-5 watts per sq mm
or 12 microwatts per sq.
Bright noonday sunlight (no smog) puts 1 mw per sq mm. on the earth surface. That's 1000 microwatts per sq mm.
Looking directly at that causes permanent eye damage, and serious temporary blindness, especially if you go into a dark area right after doing that.
So, the lamp example above is about a tenth as serious as looking at the sun.
one only looks at the sun for about a tenth second before the eyes automatically shut.
So a 1 second look at the spotlight could cause the same degree of blindness as a look at the sun.
It would not however boil a spot of the retina in a quarter second or so, as the tenfold more powerful focused spot of the sun would. But it could do some damage.
Sure would make one unable to see at night for a spell.
I recall a light weapon from the 60's that used a flashbulb in a small reflector that was to be put about 3 ft or closer to one's face and fired, as a nightime get away device.
Posts: 68 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 15, 2002 10:29 PM
Not all ballons are like the rubber ones you buy at the toy store. A ballon made of suitable polymeric film can retain hundreds of PSI of pressure.
The inverse square rule applies to light sources. Being 2x as far = 1/4 the light intensity, 3x = 1/9, etc. BUT, the apparent size of the light source has a great bearing on the effectiveness in destroying night vision.
A bright light that appears as a point source in the distance isn't going to do squat. But, a bright flash that lights up the entire field of view will cause total disruption.
If the ballon was made in the shape of a disc, rather than a sphere, than you could maintain a constant explosive pressure against the gas, rather than have the decrease in pressure as the shockwave expanded in a spherical manner, since the disc is of a constant thickness across its entire area, relative to the explosive.
A disc ballon is made, with one side being covered with a sheet explosive like det-flex, the other side being clear. The explosive is detonated in the center, and as the explosion radiates outwards towards the edge, it causes an ever-increasing ring of light to be created as the noble gas is compressed into radiating.
This would also extend the length of the flash from microseconds to milliseconds. Might not make a difference, but it may...
So, instead of a spike of light, with a rapid decay (with the sphere), you'd get a rapid build up with a sudden cutoff at maximal intensity (disc).
Exploding an Iso against a dark background (like a tree line) wouldn't be nearly as effective as a light background (like white painted walls). Just using foil or mylar mirroring would greatly increase effectiveness by reflecting otherwise lost light energy back to the target.
As for now, since xoo is trying for proof of concept, it's better to brute force the flash with overkill to get SOME result, rather that to finesse it and fail. Polishing the device to optimize results can come later, after you get the "first light" to encourage further testing.
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 16, 2002 05:48 AM
It's fairly obvious that with higher pressure of the gas, more atoms get ionized and the shockwave is transmitted better. I will see if I can put my dad's old camera into some work, if things start to work at high intensity I don't feel like using my eyes to measure output.
Here is an image of a "flash bomb" used to illuminate a nuclear explosion. http://www.wsmr.army.mil/paopage/Pages/flash1.htm
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 18, 2002 10:12 AM
NBK, detonation from the center is a bit problematic, since then you have to either walk around with the detcap in place all the time, or you have to load the explosive on site, therefore I will detonate it from the end sticking out of the container holding the gas.
Will start building a gas washing bottle soon with with another bottle to catch vapors and the lye solution if the pressure forces the lye out of where it's supposed to stay due to a fast pressure drop(and do some testing). I'll see if I can find a better container to hold the gas too. Any ideas or comments on design of the gas washing bottle or the iso. device? Anyone having experience from taking pictures at night?
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 18, 2002 10:52 AM
If by center you're referring to the spherical ISO, then you could use the "straw slightly larger than my detonator" trick. Just find a soda straw slightly larger than your detonator, cast/pack your explosive around the straw (the end being in the middle of your charge), and insert you detonator when ready.
Not that hard.
Don't worry about photos. Just look for a bright flash lighting up the surroundings at night. While looking away, of course.
Once you've removed the CO2, you'll also have to remove the water vapor. That'll absorb energy by conversion to steam. Passing the purified argon gas through oven-dried silica gel should do nicely.
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 18, 2002 02:27 PM
That is a good idea if I can find the proper material(a pipe, thin walled enough, my detonators have an outer diameter of 9 mm).
I was planning to remove the water wapor, will MgSO4 do if dried properly before use?
Here is a washing bottle I assembled recently:
http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/washingbottle01.jpg
The tubing has small holes cut in it to disspearse the gas at the bottom(sealed in the end), I tried it(with water) but the bubbles were fairly large(10-5mm), I suppose I could attach something around it to reduce the bubble size and increase contact with the NaOH solution, steel wool?
How exo-/ endo-thermic are thease two reactions(below)? (my chemistry book doesn't list standard molar
enthalpies of some of the reactants)? Or simply put, will I have to cool the plastic bottle?
CO2 + NaOH => NaHCO3
NaOH + NaHCO3 => Na2CO3 + H2O
[ August 18, 2002, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rikkitikkitavi
Lab Assistant
Member # 911
Member Rated:
|
posted August 18, 2002 05:28 PM
not if is only a few litres of gas(@ NTP) bubbled through, the high heat capacity of the water prevents any large temperature rise.
There is however two good reason for using a chilled lye-solution
1) gas-liquid reaction is normally speeded with colder liquid due to most gases increase solubility in colder liquid, thus the CO2 is more easily absorbed
2) the vapour pressure (Pwater) of a colder solution is lower than a warmer. And the concentration of water in the gas is Pwater/Ptot regardless of total pressure. So at 1 atm it is about 10/760(you have to look up in a table for the exact value)
You could try to run the CO2-free gas through a PVCtube in a freezer , so most of the vapour condenses ( I assume you dont have a cold-trap and LN2 to further dry it. Unless you use a chemical absorbant of course
/rickard
[ August 18, 2002, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: rikkitikkitavi ]
--------------------
If one is stupid one should suffer.
Posts: 148 | From: sweden | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xtramad
A New Voice
Member # 1080
Rate Member
|
posted August 19, 2002 08:21 AM
There are a lot of explosive replies to your question, but it dosn't have to be that dramatic. Soniluminescence is the easiest solution and it has been shown to work in laboratory tests. Hydrogen bubbles have been hydrosonically imploded (cavitation) creating heat and light (1 million degrees centigrade if I remember correctly) for some nanoseconds. The frequency used was 25MHz I think. The shockwaves from the reaction where dissipated in the test jar so only small amounts of energy where produced. I can't help but think that if these shockwaves where used to feed more such reactions the process might be self supporting.
But anyway, if your interested try searching for:
Zero point energy
Zero point gravity
Soniluminescence
Cavitation
Implosion
Or try these links:
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic/ceticrav.txt
http://www.padrak.com/ine/db/DEVICES.html
http://www.und.ac.za/und/prg/sonochem/ultraphy.html
Posts: 17 | From: No Way | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nbk2000
Professor Emeritus
Member # 10
|
posted August 19, 2002 10:19 AM
Soniluminance ism't going to work.
The energy conversion from sound, to mechanical implosion, to luminance is pathetic. You pump in thousands of watts of power and get a barely visible microbubble of faint light.
Explosive pumping of xenon would be infinitely more efficent.
RTPB:
KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
--------------------
The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them.
Download the RTPB from here. Change .txt to .pdf to read with Adobe Acrobat.
Posts: 2800 | From: Tornado capital of the world...Kansas | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xtramad
A New Voice
Member # 1080
Rate Member
|
posted August 19, 2002 03:00 PM
Did you wonder where the first post went? I deleted it, and after this one the same will happen to you. DO NOT DISRESPECT THE MODS, ESPECIALLY ADMINS LIKE NBK!
[ August 19, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: zaibatsu ]
Posts: 17 | From: No Way | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
xoo1246
Sr. Researcher
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted August 24, 2002 05:41 PM
Ok, some progress, but moving slow.
http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Iso01.jpg
http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Iso02.jpg
A bigger container could be used, but I'm having problem finding any suitable(thick walled enough, portable, transparent, cheap, etc.), or possibly I'm not looking hard enough.
Have to find a better cork that can be fitted with a valve without leaking, and finish the washing bottle and a second bottle filled with something to absorb moisture. How would a layer of prilled and dried AN work for water absorbtion? Good enough is my guess.
--------------------
"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."
"The market knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."
Posts: 535 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polverone
Lab Assistant
Member # 1135
Member Rated:
|
posted August 24, 2002 06:39 PM
Ammonium nitrate might work. Dry calcium chloride or oxide would probably be better. One thing that just occurred to me: can you test the "goodness" of the purified gas by firing a spark through it? Okay, maybe you don't have any high voltage equipment around. But I would think that brighter sparks from electricity would be indicative of more light from shock heating, since in each case you're going to have a better peak temperature with a purer noble gas. Even disposable cameras make a pretty good flash with just a little bit of xenon and a modest capacitor. Hmm, starting to wonder what you could do with a big cap bank and a homemade giant flash tube...
--------------------
19th century digital boy
Posts: 169 | From: The Soggy Pacific Northwest | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rc
Bottle Washer
Member # 1168
Rate Member
|
posted September 13, 2002 05:26 PM
Would using many shaped charces all at the same angle and distant to both an argon gas filled plastic bag and each other pointing towards the bag work? of course detonating them all at exactly the same moment, which must be the hardest part.
That's gotta be the longest sentence i ever wrote. hope you can understand it
[ September 13, 2002, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: rc ]
--------------------
Ignorance has killed also the Wise.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spudgunner
Amateur
Member # 417
|
posted September 13, 2002 08:00 PM
A line and a half is the longest sentance you have ever written? Are you under 12? Or is it that English isn't your native language and you have never written that long of a sentance in English?
Anyway, setting them off at the same time shouldn't be THAT hard, just use the EXACT same length (and gauge) of wire to your caps, make the caps the EXACT same each time. Or, use exactly equal lengths of det cord, thus the electricity (or the shockwave) will get there at the exact same time as they have to travel the exact same distance.
Spud
Posts: 52 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rc
Bottle Washer
Member # 1168
Rate Member
|
posted September 14, 2002 11:28 AM
It's the latter. It would be very hard to make all the caps EXACT the same. Especially if using BP or any other slow burning flash because their burning rate varies a lot(in parts of millionth of a second, at least) by density. It might however work if you use HMTD or similar which detonates almost immediately from a flame if pressed to maximum density.
Back to the SC's. Remember that HE's have high VoD's so if one detonates too early its shockwave can change anothers' positions and thus the proper working of the others.
[ September 14, 2002, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: rc ]
--------------------
Ignorance has killed also the Wise.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthony
Moderator
Member # 72
Member Rated:
|
posted September 15, 2002 07:00 PM
I don't see why you'd use shaped charges as there is nothing that the liner needs to penetrate. It would be better to just use the monroe effect of the colliding shockwaves.
Posts: 3259 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
| 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
