dorbie 0 #51 July 4, 2007 It was a rhetorical question, (P.S. and the casing is most definitely not a tamper since the fuel is dispersed outside the casing prior to the explosion) The MOAB is not an FAE, it uses H6, an RDX, TNT, Aluminum mix. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #52 July 4, 2007 my mistake, I never looked into it actually I made that stupid assumption in error. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #53 July 4, 2007 Quote Mining is different than say, an interstate route and grading plan. You think? Seriously, seismic what? You threw "seismic charge" our there. What do you mean? A seismic charge is a very specific thing in explosive applications. Maybe its a term you heard, but its not relevant to most commercial uses, and definatly not used in minng, trenching, road work, quarrying. And so you know, I am a mining engineer, and worked as application support manager for the world's largest explosives manufacturer. Quote TOO MUCH EXPLOSIVE. Not such thing! Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #54 July 4, 2007 I have only a civil engineering and surveying background, therefore I merely used the same terms used by the engineers that performed the contract work. that was a nightmare, 3 months in delaysThen it started raining and snowingon the next site things went way better, we layed out every hole and depth and the explosives guys did a wonderful job using minimal displacement. All that was needed afterwards was front end loaders and D8's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #55 July 4, 2007 Thanks, I stand corrected Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 July 4, 2007 Quote Quote TOO MUCH EXPLOSIVE. Not such thing! [5th Element]BIG badda boom!![/5th Element]Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #57 July 4, 2007 Bill, you are an engineer. Your arguments have no merit. APCP does not meet the technical definition of "explosive", which is based on burn rate. Can you make it explode? Yes, but you can also make a grain silo or a steam boiler or a bottle of champaign explode. A whole lot of things that aren't "explosives" can be made to explode.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #58 July 5, 2007 Quote Quote Is gasoline AN EXPLOSIVE? IS wheat flour AN EXPLOSIVE? "Most people" do not differentiate between explosions and deflagrations, but scientists do. You need to compare apples with apples. There is no need to add an oxidant to AP, it's made ready to rock & roll, you do need to add it to fuel. Is a fuel air mix an explosive? The Federation of American Scientists seem to use the term rather readily: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm Matches are explosives according to you, then. They contain their own oxidant and burn fast (just as fast as APCP). And while a FAE can be set off with a detonator, APCP cannot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #59 July 5, 2007 QuoteAPCP does not meet the technical definition of "explosive", which is based on burn rate. Can you make it explode? Yes, . Better tell this guy: Quote APCP can not be made to explode Oh wait, that was you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #60 July 5, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Is gasoline AN EXPLOSIVE? IS wheat flour AN EXPLOSIVE? "Most people" do not differentiate between explosions and deflagrations, but scientists do. You need to compare apples with apples. There is no need to add an oxidant to AP, it's made ready to rock & roll, you do need to add it to fuel. Is a fuel air mix an explosive? The Federation of American Scientists seem to use the term rather readily: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm Matches are explosives according to you, then. They contain their own oxidant and burn fast (just as fast as APCP). And while a FAE can be set off with a detonator, APCP cannot. Now you're putting words into my mouth which I very deliberately did not say. Matches never registered at 3.5 on the richter scale in a huge explosion, but I still would not advise stockpiling match heads. And of course it's not merely about confinement as an FAE clearly shows, a fuel air mix does not meet your definition of an explosive but it sure makes a big bang when it deflagrates. That massive APCP explosion was not about confinement, the stuff was stored in the open in many separte rather flimsy containers. I'll simply defer to the authority of the Federation of American Scientists and their apparently casual use of the word explosion. How does one extinguish an APCP fire? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #61 July 5, 2007 APCP does not meet the technical definition of "explosive", any more than match heads do. If you set of thousands of tons of matchheads you'd get a very big bang. It does not make match heads "explosives". ACPC cannot be set off with a detonator. A grain silo can. Grain is not an explosive. How do you put out a fire of match heads? It doesn't matter, it is totally irrelevant to whether or not match heads are "explosives". When Challenger's main tank exploded, the solid boosters, even with defective O-ring seals, kept on going. They did NOT explode despite being subjected to a huge fireball. That's because APCP is NOT an explosive and is not subject to detonation. The burn rate of unconfined APCP is around 70mm/sec, which is far far away from "explosive", and not much above that of writing papar.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #62 July 5, 2007 >When Challenger's main tank exploded, the solid boosters, even >with defective O-ring seals, kept on going. They did NOT explode despite >being subjected to a huge fireball. That's because APCP is NOT an >explosive and is not subject to detonation. -------------- MORTON THIOKOL ROCKET UNIT IS DESTROYED BY BLAST IN UTAH Published: March 26, 1986 An explosion today destroyed a Morton Thiokol building containing material used in Trident missile rocket propellent, a spokesman said. No injuries were reported. Rocky Raab, a spokesman for Morton Thiokol's Wasatch Division, which also manufactures the solid-fuel booster rockets for the space shuttle program, said the explosion caused damage estimated at $1.5 million to a ''remotely operated HMX oxidizer dryer building.'' Oxidizer is a rocket propellent component. ''Material processed in the building is used in the manufacture of solid rocket motors for the U.S. Navy's Trident fleet ballistic missile program,'' the company said. ----------------- Let me guess. This wasn't a "detonation." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #63 July 5, 2007 Quote When Challenger's main tank exploded I thought you objected to that use of the word because of the materials involved. Did it in fact deflagrate? The LH2 and LOX began separate and unmixed, for the deflagration to occur on a large scale the containment had to be badly compromised before the reagents were even able to mix, and the main fuel tank shroud which had already been breached would have been a wet paper bag to that kind of energy. Look this centers around your objection to the use of the word explosion as distinct from the techncal definition of an explosive. Everyone including scientists use the term explosion in ways you've insisted they shouldn't, right before you used it yourself. Moreover I've given the example of an FAE which is not an explosive by your definition and the explosion it yields should not be called an explosion according to you. As I said I'll defer to the Federation of American Scienists on the applicability "explosion" to describe these events. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #64 July 5, 2007 Steam explosion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A steam explosion (also called a littoral explosion, or fuel-coolant interaction, FCI) is a violent boiling or flashing of water into steam, occurring when water is either superheated, or rapidly heated by fine hot debris produced within it. Pressure vessels that operate at above atmospheric pressure can also provide the proper conditions for a steam explosion. The water changes from a liquid to a gas with extreme speed, increasing dramatically in volume. A steam explosion sprays steam and boiling-hot water and the hot medium that heated it in all directions (if not otherwise confined, e.g. by the walls of a container), creating a danger of scalding and burning. Steam explosions are not normally chemical explosions, although a number of substances will react chemically with steam (for example, zirconium reacts with steam to give off hydrogen, which burns violently in air) so that chemical explosions and fires may follow. Some steam explosions appear to be special kinds of Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion, and rely on release of stored superheat. But many large-scale events (eg 'Foundry Accidents') show evidence of an energy-release front propagating through the material (see description of FCI below), where the forces created fragment and mix the hot phase into the cold volatile one; the rapid heat transfer at the front sustains the propagation. WOW, Bill, WATER is an explosive. WASHINGTON, D.C. June 11, 1998 -- The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reported today that federal disaster teams have deployed to Kansas to assist emergency rescue operations in the wake of yesterday's grain elevator explosion in Sedgwick County. FEMA Director James Lee Witt said the action was authorized by President Clinton under an emergency declaration issued today immediately after receiving the state's expedited request for federal assistance. According to latest state reports, the explosion occurred in a grain elevator at DeBruce Grain in Haysville, causing the partial collapse of the concrete and steel structure. Two workers were killed by the blast and another 12 injured. Four other missing workers were believed to be trapped in a tunnel under the elevator where rescue operations are currently concentrated. WOW, Bill, breakfast cereal is an explosive!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #65 July 5, 2007 Quote Quote APCP does not meet the technical definition of "explosive", which is based on burn rate. Can you make it explode? Yes, . Better tell this guy: Quote APCP can not be made to explode Oh wait, that was you. I guess I win since you have to resort to selective snipping of sentence fragments to make your case.According to your reasoning, a Ford Pinto is an explosive, since it CAN be made to explode. Wheat is an explosive, since it CAN be made to explode.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #66 July 5, 2007 I've already pointed out the flaw in your misleading wheat is an explosive analogy, but AGAIN you're putting words into my mouth that I very deliberately didn't say. Understand? I DID NOT WRITE what you claim I wrote. Why are you still evading the elephant in the living room? Do you think your pedantic silly comments on the use of the word explosion and explode will be forgotten if you talk in circles long enough? Do you or do you not agree with the Federation of American Scientists' use of the word explosion? How do you extinguish an APCP fire? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #67 July 18, 2007 Update: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it will significantly revise a recent proposal for new “explosives safety” regulations that caused serious concern among gun owners. OSHA had originally set out to update workplace safety regulations, but the proposed rules included restrictions that very few gun shops, sporting goods stores, shippers, or ammunition dealers could comply with. After continued publicity and after dozens of Members of Congress expressed concern about its impact, OSHA has wisely decided to go back to the drawing board. Labor Department’s Kristine Iverson, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs, states that it “was never the intention of OSHA to block the sale, transportation, or storage of small arms ammunition, and OSHA is taking prompt action to revise” this proposed rule to clarify the purpose of the regulation.Source: NRA Sanity prevails, for now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 895 #68 July 18, 2007 note to self: DO NOT forget to renew NRA membership again this year.effin hate the amount of mail they send me though... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 July 19, 2007 Quote note to self: DO NOT forget to renew NRA membership again this year.effin hate the amount of mail they send me though... You'd honestly (imo) do better supporting JPFO or GOA, if you don't alreadyMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #70 July 19, 2007 I am a distinguished Lifetime Member (no fees for me!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 895 #71 July 19, 2007 being a gentile, I'd have issues with the former, and I don't know that the latter has anywhere near the legislative "respect" that the NRA has. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 July 19, 2007 Quotebeing a gentile, I'd have issues with the former, and I don't know that the latter has anywhere near the legislative "respect" that the NRA has. They wouldn't have issues with you. No, the GOA doesn't have the same clout that the NRA does, but they're gaining...and they're not compromising like the NRA has been lately.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #73 July 19, 2007 JPFO is not composed solely of Jews. They welcome any like minded person. They are also very pointed in making their points. "Never Again" is not just a t-shirt to them. Something about having your recent progenitors slaughtered by the millions can do that to you, I suppose. Also, they tend to point out the idiocy of the opposition as well as work towards the goal (whereas the NRA tends to focus only on the goals, and not even all of them) GOA has a similar outlook to JPFO, but hey, they offer a sweet benefit to signing up for lifetime membership. I'm not suggesting you drop your NRA membership, just that you consider another membership or two. edit: spelling witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 895 #74 July 19, 2007 you and Mike have me researching this rather in-depth based on your comments. thanks for that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
