View Full Version : 1.5kg ANFO
Mick
October 27th, 2002, 03:46 AM
well, after many many many dreams of ANFO i finally had a dream where it worked :D
ground up 3kg AN, dissolved in 2lt water, boiled the water for 2 hours then poured onto a shallow tray so the AN crystallized out of the water. took around 3 hours.
put AN in oven @ 50 degrees, 2 hours later the AN hadn't dried at all. i spread the AN over the lid off the BBQ and placed it under the heater lamps in the bathroom - 30mins later had completely dry AN.
weighed the AN and had 1.5kg left(out of 3kg!).
put the AN in a paint tin, and added 4% diesel, the booster was 120g of APAN(10%) with a detonator of around 2g of AP.
add that all together, and this is what you get..
<a href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/~hand/1.5kganfo.WMV" target="_blank">1.5kg ANFO</a>(260kb)
mid flight and after explosion captures..
<a href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/~hand/002.jpg" target="_blank">1</a>,<a href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/~hand/008.jpg" target="_blank">2</a>,<a href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/~hand/011.jpg" target="_blank">3</a>,
<a href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/~hand/014.jpg" target="_blank">4</a>,<a href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/~hand/015.jpg" target="_blank">5</a>,<a href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/~hand/016.jpg" target="_blank">6</a>,
<a href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/~hand/017.jpg" target="_blank">7</a>,<a href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/~hand/018.jpg" target="_blank">8</a>.
the paint tin wasn't buried, and the ground was a hard as all hell(thats why it wasn't buried :D )
the hole was around 40-50mm deep, 2m across. sorry bout the piss poor vidcap too, dunno why but i just can't seem to get a decent capture of it.
<small>[ October 27, 2002, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: Mick ]</small>
nbk2000
October 27th, 2002, 04:17 AM
Looks like fun! Now you just need to grind up a 25Kg sack, add some diesel fuel... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> :D
Keep up the good work, eh? The one thing I envy you aussies is all that empty scrub land for testing stuff with no worries of neighbors calling the police on you.
ShockWave
October 27th, 2002, 05:56 AM
Nice work !
I wish my video's were on my PC, they are still on a videotape.
1 hour full with my own explosions.
Phoenix
October 27th, 2002, 10:35 AM
40 - 50 mm deep???
dont think so (:
the dust looks nice flying around hehe
vulture
October 27th, 2002, 10:51 AM
I wonder, what's the second small bang a few seconds after the explosion? BTW, isn't this a rather sharp sound for ANFO, or is it just the microphone can't cope with the sound?
Al Koholic
October 27th, 2002, 11:32 AM
Nice Blast!! Now add some aluminum powder and bury a 20 kg charge about 6 feet down. That will give one HELL of a crater.
KinePak
October 27th, 2002, 11:39 AM
Its gotta be the mic because my sounds like AP going off, the mics for some reason just suck for the sound of the explosion. Anybody got a practical idea of grinding up an entire bag of AN, becasue the coffee grinder thing aint gonna cut it, that would take fucking forever.
ShockWave
October 27th, 2002, 11:43 AM
to record the sound for a big charge there is only one solution i think.
The microfone has got to be far away atleast 200mters i think.
ALENGOSVIG1
October 27th, 2002, 01:31 PM
Nice video. Heh, i always use paint cans for anfo charges too.
Whenever i videotape my charges, the sound on the tape is always the same as when it was detonated. And my camera is from 1992!
Rat Bastard
October 27th, 2002, 03:19 PM
Have any of you had your camera mic record a small AP charge (polumna)that sounded like <a href="http://www.krimzonpyro.com/rat/appolumna.wav" target="_blank">this?</a>
kingspaz
October 27th, 2002, 07:33 PM
well done mick! its a nice bang!
the bang people are refering to after the main explosion is debris landing i think.
Anthony
October 27th, 2002, 07:50 PM
Nice work Mick <img src="http://www.roguesci.org/ubb/icons/icon14.gif" alt=" - " />
How was the booster arranged in relation to the ANFO? Lump in the middle, or tubular running the length of the can? Also what was the diameter of the can?
NoltaiR
October 27th, 2002, 08:25 PM
I get my AN in 20 pound burlap bags from a farm supply store (they usually don't sell to someone who doesn't own a large amount of land, but my grandfather has an account and they know the name <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ). They are covered in a some sort of waterproof spray but you have to buy a separate bottle of a chemical that removes the waterproofing when you are ready to fertilize. Anyways I usually just use in prill form when doing large blasts, but I have found that if you are insisting on grinding it up, a large kitchen food processor (well mine works anyways) works fairly well if you are making medium-sized charges (20-25 pounds) ... definetly beats that damn coffee grinder...
NERV
October 27th, 2002, 09:16 PM
Well done mick that was a really nice blast. If There wernt so many damn people where I live, I could do blasts like that. I am curious as to what that second small explosion right after the main explosion was? Is my media player just fuckin with me?
Mick
October 28th, 2002, 12:55 AM
i know it sounds like AP going off, thats why i said sorry bout the piss poor vidcap before.
it sounds perfect on my camera, but as soon as i encode it, the sound goes to shit. i acctually think the tape in my video camera is fucked cause it took me about 40 tries to encode the blast properly - the video/audio kept breaking up and going fuzzy when the explosion went off.
i dug a small hole in the anfo, then put the booster in that.
the booster was in a large masterfoods spice jar, the detonator was just poured on top of the APAN.
the crator was around 40-50cm deep. my video camera is just under 30cm long, and i could fit the camera in the hole around 1 and a half times.(i just realised i made an error in my previous post, i meant 40-50cm not 40-50mm)
edit: there isn't a second explosion, its just a rock landing behind the camera(the camera is sitting on an old clothes drier)
<small>[ October 28, 2002, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Mick ]</small>
ShockWave
November 6th, 2002, 04:57 AM
finally I have some of my own video's online !
I have still many more at videotape and will be online within a week.
this is 4kg annm/al with the remote detonater.
<a href="http://apanshock.tripod.com/Videos.htm" target="_blank">http://apanshock.tripod.com/Videos.htm</a>
TheBear
November 6th, 2002, 05:20 AM
Very nice work! I was wondering:
How far away did you observe the blast, I mean how long does sharpnel from such a charge fly? Or weren't you looking directly at the blast since you got the camera going to record it anyway?
ShockWave
November 6th, 2002, 06:29 AM
I was behind a big hill of sand on the ground.
TheBear
November 7th, 2002, 06:58 AM
OK, I see but what distance would you consider to be safe to observe from? (I'd like to see the explosion so to say)
ShockWave
November 7th, 2002, 07:17 AM
well, I think a rock can reach a couple of hunderd meters with high speed, so if I were you, Only look at it from behind a tree or something, the change that a rock will hit you is much smaller
nbk2000
November 7th, 2002, 07:36 AM
Use a plastic mirror on a stick.
RTPB "Plan for failure". In this case, your luck is shit and you catch a high speed rock right between the eyes. OUCH!
Mr Cool
November 7th, 2002, 01:31 PM
Don't hide behind a tree if you're relatively close. Someone was talking about this a while ago, trees and anything vaguely round act as lenses for the shockwave and you can therefore get messed up. I'd never thought about it before, but it makes sense.
TheBear
November 7th, 2002, 02:45 PM
Great idea NBK!
thank you very much for the tip now i just have to go and buy myself a mirror :D .
MrCool I also read that thread and I agree that it makes sense but do you think the shockwave from let's say a 1-2kg charge would be enough. At my blastingsite I will be something like 30-40 meters away.
Is it only the lungs that can be messed up or could the brain and such as take damage as well?
bonnsgeo
November 7th, 2002, 03:13 PM
hi everybody !
i would like to have a scientific answser to my question...
what is exactly the "blast" ?..for me the "blast" is the shockwave of the explosion .. am i right ??
bye
ps: maybe you ll find my question stupid but i doubt so...
Al Koholic
November 7th, 2002, 05:12 PM
The organs which are most likely to be "messed up" by the shockwave are the lungs, ears, large intestine, and in some cases...the stomach (depending on how much you belch). Basically organs which can contain gases inside a membrane. The wave can pressureize the gases leading to damage of the organ ie: ruptured ear drums, etc. It obviously takes more energy to cause lung or large intestine damage than it does to damage the ear drums but it is the same idea. I believe the effect of the blast waves combining on the other side of a tree would only happen if you were fairly close. I wouldn't worry about it with only 1.5 kg if you are 90 feet away.
Al
Anthony
November 7th, 2002, 05:24 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong here, which I may will be, as this is from (sketchy) memory, but the effects of an explosion are something like:
First: Light pulse - the flash of light emitted by the explosion, which obviously travels at light speed and reaches you first. If the explosion is big enough then it could set things on fire :)
Second: Shockwave - travels at the speed of sound through the air, this is the bit you feel and hear.
Third: Blast/over pressure wave - like a wind and lasts for as long as the over pressure is above atmospheric pressure.
I'd imagine that the heat wave (the hot gaseous decomposition products of the explosive) would follow the shockwave.
Expecting correction on this :D
ShockWave
November 7th, 2002, 05:47 PM
So a shockwave is slowing down?
The speed of sound is around 340m/s and the shockwave from annm/al is around 6500m/s.
I don't think you have to be afraid for a charge of 1kg annm/al at a distance at 30-40meters, atleast not for the light, shockwave, and/or pressure.
In the beginning when I detonated my first annm/al my wire was only 3 meters, I was on the ground with a batterypack behind tree, I'm not proud at it since my ears really were deaf for a day. I don't do this anymore.
Well, I'm wrong about that overpressure maybe, since I was deaf, I think the pressure can do some damage.
Anthony
November 7th, 2002, 08:53 PM
That is a good point, how fast does the shockwave travel through the air? It travels through the explosive at the VoD so say 6500m/s for ANNM, but once into the air must deccelerate. Or does it immediately drop to the speed of sound in air (approx 340m/s)?
At a distance of only 3m, you probably do risk the effects of over-pressure. Ringing ears are caused by the shockwave breaking the little hairs you use to detect sound (shockwaves). Overpressure would do things like actually rupture your eardrums.
Al Koholic
November 7th, 2002, 09:41 PM
I can imagine another scenario here. When the explosive first detonates, the overpressure in the area of the explosion is HUGE...millions of psi. I believe this is what will determine the speed at which the gaseous products will eminate from the center of the detonation because I think it is like wind in that it depends on the difference in pressure of the source to the pressure of the surrounding atmosphere. So the higher VoD explosives, being converted to gas much faster, would develop a higher peak pressure because the gas has not had time to expand as much before the whole of the explosive is detonated. Now, I think the overpressure and the shockwave we are speaking of are very integrally related. At the initial moment, the shockwave IS the overpressure wave of gaseous products being expelled outward. As the pressure difference rapidly decreases, the speed of the actual moving particles falls according to some weird integral dependent on the overpressure. So at this moment, the wave of gaseous particles and the "shockwave" occupy the same border with the atmosphere. Now, once the gaseous explosion products slow to less than the speed of sound (which I am assuming is the speed the shockwave travels in air) they will lag behind the actual shock energy which will continue at the speed of sound with power decreasing with the cube of the distance from center. This would still produce an "overpressure" however because this is a transverse wave (like sound) which can pressurize gasses as it is passing over them, but once the wave has passed, normal pressure returns. So I fail to see the real differentiation between overpressure and shockwave here except for the fact that I can see a shockwave travelling much further than the actual gaseous products of the explosion. Maybe that was a bunch of intuitive horseshit but thats the way I think it could work.
I mean...when you think about it, a drop of water hitting a calm pond is a shockwave, but the actual wave travels much further than the actual water molecules that cause the disturbance. Either way, overpressure is produced and since water does not compress, it ripples up and down.
<small>[ November 07, 2002, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Al Koholic ]</small>
Fukineh
November 8th, 2002, 01:06 AM
If you want good protection against blasts so that you can view and film from a reasonable distance make a blast shield. I'm making mine out of 1'' pliwood and polycarbonate plastic. Although this could be penetrated perhaps by some fast moving metallic shrapnal, you should be quite safe if your not to close and you have not done something stupid like a giant pipe bomb containing high explosives with nails pertruding from it.
NoltaiR
November 8th, 2002, 02:02 AM
A shockwave does NOT travel through air at the speed of sound.. in fact it surpasses it in a matter of microseconds. That is why it is called a 'supersonic' shockwave.. because it travels faster than the speed of sound. And I expect you should know, the sound barrier is a very phonomenal topic in physics because of the way that objects act once they travel faster than the speed of sound. Take for example airplanes.. there had been many failed tests to break the sound barrier and many of them did, yet there plane was engineered well enough to take the sonic boom (another name for a shockwave caused by solid objects breaking the sound barrier) and therefore the planes would literally break to bits in midair.
The shockwave you feel from an explosion is the same.. the difference is that rather than gradually penetrating the sound barrier causing a long and drawn out shockwave.. you get an instantaneous shockwave.. the more instantaneous it is, the more brisant it is. Because just as a moving solid object can be torn apart by a sonic boom (the sound barrier is seen as stationary while the penetrating object is source of energy), a explosive shockwave (seen as the source of energy) can tear apart of a stationary solid for of matter.
TheBear
November 8th, 2002, 03:21 AM
Hmmm... I guess the ears are the most likely part of the body that would get messed up with an explosion like the one I described. Does earprotection protect you from these supersonic overpressure shockwaves or does it only protect against normal sounds (that travels approx. 340m/s)?
EDIT: By the way is it safe to sensitise AN with Zink and Iron powder? Or is it a possiblity that dangerous explosvies becomes present (like with copper).
<small>[ November 08, 2002, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: TheBear ]</small>
Al Koholic
November 8th, 2002, 12:58 PM
I know that jets form sonic booms and all but the actual sonic boom itself is moving at the speed of sound even though it is a shockwave produced by something moving faster than the speed of sound. I think the faster the plane is flying, the further back the shock front is behind the body of the aircraft. I realize the shockwave would travel faster than the speed of sound initially when the explosive is first detonating but wouldn't it rapidly diminish in velocity until it reached the speed of sound and became more like a sonic boom from a plane?
EDIT: I mean, I think the reason there is some confusion here is because I'm trying to imagine the shockwaves state a good distance away from the site of the detonation. Of course, right at the site the shockwave is moving much faster than the speed of sound but once you get further away it will reduce to the speed of sound no?
<small>[ November 08, 2002, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Al Koholic ]</small>
NoltaiR
November 8th, 2002, 01:27 PM
The time it takes for the shockwave to deminish to the speed of sound all determines on how much explosive was used.. that is why shockwaves from very large blasts break windows 100s of yards away while a small blast of the same explosive only goes a short distance.. they both began traveling at the same speed (the VoD) but because of the amount of overpressure supplied as a backing force you get a difference in size of the shockwave.
Once a shockwave reaches and dips under the speed of sound, the shockwave is only detected as a sound, and you no longer actually can feel it.
Anthony
November 8th, 2002, 02:30 PM
Could it be that the overpressure compresses the air, raising its density and thus raising the speed o' sound within it? The shockwave would then slow down as the overpressure dropped.
Why can't you feel a subsonic shockwave?
I can see that some people have had a lot more physics lessons than I :)
NoltaiR
November 8th, 2002, 02:56 PM
Because the shockwave reaches the speed of sound at the same moment that the pressure generated by the explosive is equal to atmospheric pressure.
Once this happens you get just the opposite effect.. negative pressure, this is when all that gas that has been blown outward leaves ground zero with less pressure than atmospheric pressure. This reverse blast is no longer the shockwave, but rather just the air going back to the original location to equalize the pressure.
Usually the only time that this reverse blast can be damaging is in extremely large explosions... such as evident in nuclear blasts.
<small>[ November 08, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: NoltaiR ]</small>
Al Koholic
November 8th, 2002, 06:30 PM
Alright, I can see that. I still think the amplitude of the shockwave is independent of the speed at which it travels though. I mean, a sonic boom and my voice both travel at the same speed but one breaks windows and the other doesn't.
EDIT: Yes Anthony that does have an effect but I think only where the gaseous products of the explosion accompany the shockwave. Once the shockwave has exceeded the distance the gaseous products travel, it is on its own so to speak and I personally believe, will diminish in speed rapidly until it gets to the speed of sound at which it will remain. I mean, some of the blasts I have read about...ie: 150,000 tons of AN going off at once or something (like the galvaston accident) break windows 20 miles away. I dont feel there is any way the shockwave is going faster than the speed of sound at that distance although I may be wrong. Noltaire?
<small>[ November 08, 2002, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Al Koholic ]</small>
NoltaiR
November 9th, 2002, 02:02 AM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> I mean, a sonic boom and my voice both travel at the same speed but one breaks windows and the other doesn't.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">They do not travel at the same speed! A sonic boom (caused by anything) is the result of matter surpassing the speed of sound.. you voice always travels exactly at the speed of sound... if it was possible to talk faster than the speed of sound than your mouth would suffer the same consequences of those first pioneering pilots who attempted to fly faster than the speed of sound (meaning your mouth would be blown apart).
If an explosion can knock out windows 20 miles away.. than the shockwave is still there and the overpressure behind it is still in place.
An interesting thought that has passed my mind is that although shockwaves exist on earth... how come they do not exist in the vaccuum of outer space? Because the cosmos travel at speeds that make the earthly sound barrier look like a walk in the park. Also the sun generates heat by way of billions of nuclear (fusion) explosions.. if a shockwave was produced as it would on earth, then just the wave caused by our sun should be enough to blow away the entire galaxy. So then could an explosion be something that doesn't exist in space.. the fact that there seems to be an infinite sound barrier would make the liberation of a shockwave impossible... and the fact that space is a vaccuum would eliminate the possibility for a perfect spherical release of gasses (or even a release period.. the gasses may just implode on the object which exploded in the first place).
So if my thoughts are true, then the whole movie idea that an asteroid headed at earth could be destroyed by earthly weapons would be theoretically impossible.
edit:
Here is an animation (by NASA) of how explosions occur in space.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9805/06/space.explosion/gamma.ray.burst.8.836.mov" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9805/06/space.explosion/gamma.ray.burst.8.836.mov</a>
For those of you who don't know, it is when a group of matter gains so much gravity (this is made by the collapsing of stars into themselves) that light no longer can escape. And when you 'break' the light barrier (unlike the sound barrier, the 'light' barrier is broken when it is contained and the photons collapse into themselves)..
when an object surpasses the speed of sound, sound waves are disrupted and a shockwave is achieved... when an object surpasses the speed of light squared (this may be hard to imagine but it happens in a black hole where light is so confined that it can actually achieve the speed of zero) all hell breaks loose because on of the most spetacular formulas take action...
E=mc2
Where all mass (m) is converted into pure energy (E). Even earthly nuclear bombs are based on the ability of uranium or plutonium to detonate with a VoD of a fraction of the speed of light. Therefore it has been figured that the highest amount of energy released by a manmade nuclear bomb is only 1/10th of 1% of its possible theoretical yeild of energy.
With a little research, I have found that infact no shockwaves can be produced in space.. if it was so, then even our orbiting moon would produce a blast that would vaporize earth. However a cosmotic (is that a word?) explosion releases only submatter (individual protons, electrons, and nuetrons--these account for the 'mass' part of the E=mc2 formula)... it is when these particles smash into surrounding matter (most commonly this is ash and dust) that both the traveling and stationary particles are transformed into energy in the form of gamma rays (unlike explosions on earth which yeild only pressure waves).
<small>[ November 09, 2002, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: NoltaiR ]</small>
green beret
November 9th, 2002, 03:02 AM
Good testing mick, also, when you said 10% APAN, is that 10% AP by weight or volume.
Also, I am planning some similar tests, but they probably wont get underway until early or middle of next year :(
But hopefully I will have a video camera, I am planning a small FAE and a few ANFO charges ranging from 1 to about 15kg sizes. I would also like to try out a few wine bottle shaped charges, so I will keep you all posted.
I am also hoping to get hold of some MS Delay dets, so I should be able to produce some intersting effects.
Mr Cool
November 9th, 2002, 08:12 AM
Noltair:
Sonic booms travel at exactly the speed of sound. Only the object producing them travels faster than the speed of sound.
Shockwaves don't exist in space because there's nothing for them to propogate in.
The sun does not produce billions of nuclear explosions. That's like saying a candle flame is billions of detonations. The sun is continuous, like a nuclear flame.
An explosion will exist in space if you have some explosives, because after detonation the gases produced will very rapidly expand, until the pressure is effectively equal to that of the space around it.
"the fact that there seems to be an infinite sound barrier" there is no sound barrier, because there can't be any sound in space. The barrier is 0, not infinite.
"and the fact that space is a vaccuum would eliminate the possibility for a perfect spherical release of gasses (or even a release period.. the gasses may just implode on the object which exploded in the first place)." A spherical release of gases in space is very possible. More possible than on Earth, because there's nothing getting in the way and causing extra turbulence. And since it's in a vaccuum, there's NO WAY that the gases would implode back to the point of explosion! That would only happen in environments higher in pressure than the pressure produced by detonation, ie above about 5 million psi, and space is at 0 psi...
That is not an animation of an explosion in space. It's an animation of a gamma ray burst.
"it is when a group of matter gains so much gravity" the gravity is the same because the mass is the same, only the field strength is greater because objects can get closer.
The light barrier cannot be broken in space, since it is a vaccuum and light travels at its maximum speed. The speed of light relative to a moving observer is always c m/s, even if the observer is travelling at c m/s (which he couldn't, but if he could then light would still travel away from him at the speed of light).
"when an object surpasses the speed of sound, sound waves are disrupted and a shockwave is achieved... when an object surpasses the speed of light squared (this may be hard to imagine but it happens in a black hole where light is so confined that it can actually achieve the speed of zero) all hell breaks loose because on of the most spetacular formulas take action..." What? You seem to be saying that the speed of light squared is zero...
"However a cosmotic (is that a word?) explosion releases only submatter (individual protons, electrons, and nuetrons--these account for the 'mass' part of the E=mc2 formula)..." That depends on the mechanism of the explosion. "Submatter" isn't a word either.
"it is when these particles smash into surrounding matter (most commonly this is ash and dust) that both the traveling and stationary particles are transformed into energy in the form of gamma rays" An elementary particle could not convert an ash or dust particle into gamma rays.
Anthony
November 9th, 2002, 02:30 PM
Ok, so I think we can all agree that flash doesn't detonate... :D
On a serious note, would anyone like to post the "correct" phases of an explosion now?
NoltaiR
November 10th, 2002, 01:10 AM
<a href="http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2002/cs4451_spring/groups/group9/videos.html" target="_blank">http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2002/cs4451_spring/groups/group9/videos.html</a>
TheBear
November 12th, 2002, 03:19 PM
I have been trying to make a stochiometric (spelling?) correct ANFO + solid fuels mix. I think it looks like the most AN mixtures (I've seen) aren't oxygenbalanced. Heres my equations:
800 grams of NH4NO3 contains 10 mole:
M(NH4NO3) = 80u
m(NH4NO3) = 800g
n(NH4NO3) = 800/80 = 10 mole
10 mole of NH4NO3 releases 5 mole O2:
2NH4NO3 ---> 2N2 + 4H2O + O2
This means that if I for example would like to sensitise the ammoniumnitrate only using sulfur I would need to add 321g of sulfur!
M(S) = 32,1u
n(S) = 10 mole
m(S) = 10*32,1 = 321g
And for Al I would need 202,5g! Thats 20% (202,5/1002,5 = 0,202)
M(Al) = 27u
n(Al) = 7,5
m(Al) = 27*7,5 = 202,5
I will use a whole bunch of fuels/sensitivers. If you wonder why there are so many fuels used it's because of two reasons, the first being that I don't want to use that much metalpowders due to their price and work to prepare (I actually haven't done any yet but I'm experimenting), the second being that if one or a couple of my fuels has got bad quality (too large particles for example) I hope the other ones will insure detonation. Here's what I think I will use (thats if you don't see anything being dangerous/unneccessary):
80,0% AN
2,0% Methanol
2,0% Glycol
(6,5% Zinkdust)
(5,5% Irondust)
2,0% Sulfur
2,0% Carbon
I have never seen any discritption that says to use 20% of Al! For this I see a couple of possible reasons:
1. I've done something wrong in my equations (most likely :D )?
2. The performance doesn't improve enough to be noticable?
3. It's more economical to use a little fuel because they only want to sensitise it?
4. The AN becomes more insensitive due to high percent of fuels?
I would like to add a quote originally posted by rjche:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">In any case do not try to make a race horse out of a plow horse. You can get some improvement, but nothing like starting with a race horse to begin with.
AN is a plow horse. It is good for moving dirt and breaks rocks in large blocks due to its less violent smack than nitro based high percentage dynamites do.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">But if I would wan't to maximize AN's performance since it's pretty much the only secondary HE I've got access to since I don't have equipment nor chemicals to synth. any HE like PETN, RDX and such (not yet).
I guess that the heat of explosion would increase significativly but also the VOD would decrease. But how does this affect it's deformation capability on metal, trees and such things. Will there be a more noticeable shockwave when using much fuel? How is the sound affected? Is there perhaps an impressive fireball due to more fuels?
When using standard ANFO you add 4,5-5% of diesel because more will wet it's surface cooling it under detonation. BUT activated AN prills can obtain 3 times the oilretention and still only ~5% of fuel is used! I guess it's because of some of the already mentioned possible reasons.
Anthony
November 12th, 2002, 03:52 PM
One of the factors may be that ANFO with greater quantities of FO are less sensitive. They're also more expensive.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.