Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!srcsip!rutgers!att!cbnews!howard@cos.com From: howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Largest Bomb dropped Summary: ethylene oxide != (ethylene + oxygen) Message-ID: <5388@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 5 Apr 89 02:19:20 GMT References: <5272@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA Lines: 96 Approved: military@att.att.com From: howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz) In article <5272@cbnews.ATT.COM>, maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) writes: > In article <5169@cbnews.ATT.COM> howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz) writes: > > I think the bombs we are discussing are fuel-air explosives, sometimes > > implemented as a single canister and more often as cluster munitions. > > They use ethylene oxide, not propane; their delivery height and such > > is relatively critical, because the gas cloud must form and have the > > proper fuel-air ratio before a separate igniter actuates -- these > > do not have a single burster charge! > > It is > a) possible and > b) easy > to make FAE's with built in oxygen. The Ethelyene O2 you refer to is a sign > of such developments. Such bombs need not get _any_ mixing w/atmos, and can > be detonated more reliably as a result. There seems to have been some misreading here. Ethylene, ethylene oxide, propane and acetylene (discussed later) are different molecules: ---O--- | | - CH2=CH2 CH2 CH2 CH3-CH2-CH3 CH=CH Ethylene Ethylene oxide Propane Acetylene I don't have all the chemical reference books I once had, but some information will help. In general, in constructing a bomb, one wants the most energetic compounds available which will not explode prematurely. Single carbon-carbon bonds ( - above) are more stable than double (=), which are more stable than the triple bond in acetylene (see typographical nightmare above). "Bridging" oxygen bonds, as seen in ethylene oxide, ethers, etc., are releatively unstable. Acetylene, for example, is highly energetic and unstable; it can detonate (while under at least 2 atmospheres pressure) without additional oxygen. I believe acetylene is far too unstable to make a practical military explosive; it's better than nitroglycerine but that's about all I can say given an acetylene tank might very well take a shock from the Bad Guys. To give a comparison, the Merck Index give the explosive concentration range of acetylene as 3-65% fuel to oxygen. By contrast, the explosive range of propane is 2.37-9.5%. Extrapolating from their molecular structure, I would assume ethylene and ethylene oxide are less stable than propane but more so than acetylene. I would not expect either ethylene or acetylene oxide to explode without forming an optimal fuel-oxygen mixture. Looking at the propane range above, one needs, at best, approximately 9 times as much oxygen as fuel. This would massively increase the bomb size if the oxygen were carried internally. Even if it were, the cloud would still have to form. Where does the cloud form? In air... > > > > In _Red October_. Tom Clancy uses fuel-air explosives to get extremely > > high explosive yield within a (no spoilers) relatively confined > > space. He called the weapons Pave Pat Blue, which may be correct; > > memory does not serve. I consider his example highly unlikely, > > since it would be quite difficult to get the necessary air-gas ratio > > in a constricted area with obstructions -- these bombs are meant > > to form an airburst! > Besides, a sub that's 32 feet in diameter and 600 feet long has (roughly) > a half-million cubic feet of air inside (A little high, but the exact math > is not critical :) and will provide lots of oxygen if you use propane. ^^^^^^^ see figures above; it is fairly critical. > > ps-this is a little off the subject, but does anyone out there have performance > info or experience with LOX-based explosives? I have problems finding any, and > a combination of administrative paranioa and some slight regard for own health > prevents me from experimenting. In _Secret Weapons of World War II_, often quoted here, I believe there is some discussion of LOX and fuel oil on harbors; it fizzled. There may also be a general reference in Stanley Lovell's book on Office of Strategic Services (OSS) R&D; I believe it is titled _Of Spies and Strategems_. As I remember, no one could get consistent explosions. -- howard@cos.com OR {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard (703) 883-2812 [W] (703) 998-5017 [H] DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Corporation for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body.