Chemically Ignited FAE

[ALENGOSVIG1]

A chemical added to the fuel and have it contact some other chemical and start a reaction that cuases heat and fire. I need some suggestions on what to use to cause this reaction. No exotic chemicals becuase this is supposed to be more simple then using nitroglycerine/aluminum powder or other high heat explosives to ignite the fuel in an FAE.


------------------
How much power will you lose if you do not know what they already know?


Explosives Archive (http://surf.to/alexplo)

[CodeMason]

Many common fuels, eg. turpentine, are ignited in contact with HNO₃.

------------------
Visit my website (in development): http://codemason.cjb.net

[CodeMason]

Thus a 1:1 turpentine/gasoline mixture could be utilized as the fuel, then a vial of nitric could be shattered (or opened by some other physical mechanism) when it's to be initiated.

------------------
Visit my website (in development): http://codemason.cjb.net

[BoB-]

Napalm and brake fluid (or glycerine) 1:1 A crushed ampoule of HTH starts the delay, the pressure builds up, until the bottle breaks throwing around the fuel then igniting it.

Gasoline, styrofoam, brake fluid, and HTH, pretty simple ingredients, of course you'll have to do a few tests to make sure HTH doesnt have any reactions with gas, you wouldnt want it to burst into flames instantly.

You could even have Hydrogen peroxide in the fuel mix, then have Manganese in the HTH glass ampoule, then a fair amount of O2 would be liberated when the fuel ignited, making for a hotter flame and maybe even a fireball.

------------------
Teamwork is essential.
It lets you blame someone else.

[CodeMason]

BoB: Firstly, I don't mean to be rude, but by any measure that's some pretty damn basic stuff. Even the cookbooks cover that shit fairly well.

Secondly, FAE stands for fuel air explosion, not just an incendiary. It's when a cloud of finely dispersed flammable gas, vapour or small particles with large surface area, in the air is ignited. This, if done in the right proportions of fuel:air, creates a violent explosion. Thus, just spraying burning napalm substitute across the ground does not really cut it.

Finally, manganese dioxide is the catalyst, not the metal.

------------------
Live free or die! | http://codemason.cjb.net

[vulture]

dripping glycerine/glycerol onto potassium permanganate is used to start a thermite reaction. I'm not sure if this would work for FAE though.

However, it has one advantage, the reaction takes approx. 1.5 minutes to begin, that delay could be used to disperse the fuel.

If you have KClO4, make some HClO4 with it by mixing it with 50% (certainly NOT higher conc.) of an inorganic acid.
It's incompatible with a lot of organic fuels and metals.
So you could make a starter mix with an ampoule of HClO4 which breaks and reacts with a mixture of Al or Mg powder and diethylether or acetone.

be very careful with that stuff though and clean up immediatly any spills.

[This message has been edited by vulture (edited 11-27-2001).]

[MacCleod]

Uh,when using fresh chem's,the reaction time between potassium permanganate and glycerin is closer to 5 to 15 seconds.Is your idea to rupture the fuel container/disperse the fuel,then have the chem. reaction ignite the vapor cloud?.

[This message has been edited by MacCleod (edited 11-27-2001).]

[vulture]

You're right madscientist:
acid constant HClO4 : 4x10^8
acid constant HCl: 10^6

(according to my data sheet, HI is the strongest acid with 10^10! Funny how such a simple molecule beats all 3+ atom acids...)

If you spill some of it clean it very thoroughly, cause i read stories about HClO4 traces in fume hoods exploding violently 1 year after the actual spillage...

I think it's the best you can get for chemical ignition, since it is a powerful oxidizer and a strong acid which reacts violently with metals, organic compounds and inorganic acids. (i think it explodes in contact with concentrated H2SO4 but i'm not sure about that)

MacCleod, have you tried the glycerol/permanganate? cause the info i found said 1-1.5min. I haven't tried it myself so you could be right.

[This message has been edited by vulture (edited 11-28-2001).]

[BoB-]

What the hell? I never once said in my post that it would be a true FAE that use high explosive alcohols. I even added this at the end so there would be no confusion;

"hotter flame and maybe even a fireball."

I doubt ALENGOSVIG1 was looking for a high explosive.

HTH and brake fluid is one the simplest, most cost effective chemical rections used to start a fire.

"Many common fuels, eg. turpentine, are ignited in contact with HNO3."

"FAE stands for fuel air explosion, not just an incendiary"

Were you backtracking simply to insult me, by calling me KeWl?


------------------
Teamwork is essential.
It lets you blame someone else.

[This message has been edited by BoB- (edited 11-28-2001).]

[MacCleod]

Yes,I tried it a few days before I read this post-recently acquired some for the 1st. time at Sears.It makes ultra-fast burning flash when finely ground.

------------------
"That which does not kill us,makes us stronger"

[Anthony]

The reaction speed of KMnO4/glycerine varies greatly with ambient temperature.

[nbk2000]

Some things there's just no getting around. If you want a self-igniting FAE, you're going to need air reactive chemicals.

This would be things like diethyl zinc and triethyl aluminium.

They'd be dissolved in the FAE fuel at just the right percentage that, when the fuel has dispersed to the proper air/fuel ratio, the DEZ or TEA would have become concentrated enough to ignite, thus exploding the cloud.

------------------
"I have begun evil, I shall end evil. That is the end that awaits me."

Go here (http://briefcase.yahoo.com/nbk2ooo) to download the NBK2000 files and videos.

[CodeMason]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">What the hell? I never once said in my post that it would be a true FAE that use high explosive alcohols. I even added this at the end so there would be no confusion;</font>So why were you then explaining a device that had very little relevance to the thread? An incendiary is not a FAE, just like black powder is not RDX.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I doubt ALENGOSVIG1 was looking for a high explosive.</font>ALEN specifically asked for a strong burning self-igniting fuel oxidizer mixture to ignite a <u>FAE</u>, for which there is no alternate definitions. I also talked to him about it before he posted this thread.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">HTH and brake fluid is one the simplest, most cost effective chemical rections used to start a fire.</font>I did not dispute this.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Many common fuels, eg. turpentine, are ignited in contact with HNO3."

"FAE stands for fuel air explosion, not just an incendiary"</font>I did not contradict myself. In the post directly below the former, I explain how it could be used in a FAE.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Were you backtracking simply to insult me, by calling me KeWl?</font>
You're obviously not k3wl, sorry if I implied that. Just ill informed.

------------------
Live free or die! | http://codemason.cjb.net

[Mr Cool]

Ethanol is a polar solvent, therefore ionic compounds should be at least partially soluble in it. Ionic compounds like ZnCl2 or AlCl3 (actually these are quite covalent IIRC, but it's worth a try). If yo get a zinc or aluminium compound to dissolve in ethanol, electrolyse the solution in a cell in two halves, with a porous bridge between them to stop the product at the anode mixing with the product at the cathode. You only want the product at the cathode. When the metal ions gain electrons at the cathode, they form single, reactive atoms which should react with the ethanol to form the DEZ or TEA. If you want these bad enough it could be worth trying.
When I've done it, glycerol/KMnO4 takes about 40 seconds to ignite, but I recently saw a chemistry lecture on chemical energy in which it started smoking after about 1 second, and was in flames after about 3.
Why is there a particular need for a chemically ignited FAE? Just sounds like added risk to me. Better IMHO to have a small HE charge to disperse the fuel, and an ignitor attatched (another word I can never spell for some reason...) to a delay fuse which was ignited at the same time as the HE. So the HE detonates, the fuel mixes with the air, after a certain amount of time the ignitor is set off and the cloud explodes. I think this will get better results than having the HE ignite the cloud, as it will have time to mix with the air. Or use an HE to smash open an N2O or O2 cylinder inside a container of fuel, maybe a 12g N2O cylinder in a 1L bottle of diethyl ether.

------------------
"Nothing makes a man fear much, more than to know little." - Francis Bacon.

[Agent Blak]

KMnO4 and Glycerine reacts to fast for my liking(3-20sec in my experence).

a Mix of;
1 1/2 hth
1/2 KClO3
1/2 Sucrose
1/2 Pyredex
(by volume; in fractions of TSP)

in a film canister about half full then fill almost to the top with glycerine lid on, shake. In 45-90 sec you have a roaring flame.
I use it to light camp fires.

------------------
A wise man once said:
"...There Will Be No
Stand Off At High Noon
... Shoot'em In The Back
And, Shoot'em In The Dark"

Agent Blak-------OUT!!

Go &lt;a href="http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/agent_blak"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; to download my files.

[CodeMason]

Sounds good, although HTH has been known to known to <u>explode</u> on contact with sucrose. Pyrodex = brand name for BP right? Sulfur + HTH is not very good either. But that doesn't really matter, since it's going to flare up in 40 seconds anyway, not enough time for it to take out any limbs, I just wouldn't go camping with the stuff premixed. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

------------------
Live free or die! | http://codemason.cjb.net

[nbk2000]

A lab synth for diethyl zinc can be found at the Organic Synthesis website:

http://www.orgsyn.org/orgsyn/orgsyn/fullTextSearch.asp

It looks doable for someone with sufficent lab skills.

Mix it in with the fuel, disperse, fuel evaporates, DiEZ ignites, BOOM!

Even on it's own, DiEZ would be useful as a smoke bomb/incendiary. Seal it in a glass bulb, and when thrown, it'll break, burning with an intense flame and releasing dense white smoke.

What would be really awesome would be the TEA/n-Hexane couple.

TEA (TriEthylAluminum) burns at insanely hot temperature. When dispersed as a 2% solution in hexane, when it is vaporized and self-ignites, the fireball burns with such intense heat that the radiant heat given off can cause 3rd degree burns with no direct contact needed.

Only nuclear weapons are capable of such similar injury.

Naturally http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/images/smilies/frown.gif TEA is insanely dangerous to handle, and expensive as hell to make in a lab.

But it only costs a few dollars per pound in bulk since it's used in plastic manufacturing as a catalyst to make styrene.

More details are in SIPRIs "Incendiary Weapons".

Perhaps it might work using DiEZ if you mixed in fine aluminum as a fuel?

------------------
"I have begun evil, I shall end evil. That is the end that awaits me."

Go here (http://briefcase.yahoo.com/nbk2k) to download the NBK2000 files and videos.

[BoB-]

The IRA uses 50/50 of HTH and Kclo3, a few drops of glycerine starts the delay.

[Agent Blak]

It work very well.
you can make little packets that all you do is mash them ansd toss them in a trash can. 45-90 sec you have a interesting distraction.

------------------
A wise man once said:
"...There Will Be No
Stand Off At High Noon
... Shoot'em In The Back
And, Shoot'em In The Dark"

Agent Blak-------OUT!!

Go &lt;a href="http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/agent_blak"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; to download my files.

[Mr Cool]

I find it hard to believe that the IRA would use anything that primative and unpredictable, where did you hear that?

That pyrophoric lead (heat lead tartrate without oxygen to make it) could probably be used as an ignitor as long as it burns hot enough - I wouldn't be surprised if it just smoulders, which might make it unreliable.

Or what about phosphine or silethane? (Not sure of the name for the second one, it's Si2H6) I believe both of those will ignite in air. The silethane stuff can be made by treating magnesium silicide with HCl, along with lots of silane (SiH4).

------------------
"Nothing makes a man fear much, more than to know little." - Francis Bacon.

[BoB-]

"Terrorist Explsives Handbook" Volume1- The Irish Republican Army, by Jack Macpherson.

I cant vouch for its validity (I dont know too many IRA members), and I'm sure you as a Euro know more than me about the subject.

[This message has been edited by BoB- (edited 12-09-2001).]

[MrSamosa]

First and foremost, I apologize for bringing up so archaic a thread, but this isn't worth starting a new one either...

I came across a website,<a href="http://www.cheresources.com/ironfires.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cheresources.com/ironfires.shtml</a> , about Iron Sulfide.

Here is an excerpt:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">At one time or another, most refineries experience spontaneous ignition of iron sulfide either on the ground or inside equipment. When this occurs inside equipment like columns, vessels, and tanks and exchangers containing residual hydrocarbons and air, the results can be devastating. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">See where this is leading? Because of this exothermic reaction with air, it can be useful in single-stage Fuel Air Blasts.

Iron Sulfide is made by the reaction between Iron (III) Oxide and Hydrogen Sulfide in an Oxygen free atmosphere, or at least an atmosphere where the amount of H2S is significantly higher than that of O2. The reaction is as follows:

Fe2O3 + 3 H2S --> 2 FeS + 3 H2O + S

When exposed to air, it spontaneously combusts according to one of the following equations:

4 FeS + 3 O2 --> 2 Fe2O3 + 4 S + (heat)
4 FeS + 7 O2 --> 2 Fe2O3 + 4 SO2 + (heat)

What Iron Sulfide offers is a highly reactive chemical that is much cheaper to produce than Tetraethyl Aluminum or Diethyl Zinc, thus making it accessable to amateurs like us.

<small>[ January 19, 2003, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: MrSamosa ]</small>

[nbk2000]

Most FAE fuels are oxygen rich oxides or nitrates. I wonder how'd they'd react with the sulfide?

[MrSamosa]

Regarding incompatible chemicals with Ferrous Sulfide, all I can find is that it is, "Incompatible with strong acids, strong bases, metal oxides," and to, "Avoid moisture."

But, as for the fuel in wich the Ferrous Sulfide would be mixed, I was thinking that Ethylene Oxide or Propylene Oxide would be good choices. They could be made from Anti-Freeze by first turning it to the Chlorohydrin and then reacting it with Sodium Hydroxide to form the Epoxide.

The Chlorohydrin would be made using your (NBK2000) method of making it from Anti-Freeze. However, as a final product, Propylene Oxide would probably be more desirable than Ethylene Oxide. This is because Ethylene Oxide is highly toxic and therefore, more difficult to handle.

[nbk2000]

RTPB "Plan for Failure"

The toxicity of the fuel is important. The more toxic, the better, because if the FAE doesn't explode, then the bomb reverts to a CW. If the fuel is a lethal CW in itself then, explosion or not, the device is lethal. :)

Remember, any device you build isn't going to have to sit in storage for a decade with barely literate soldiers man-handling it. You know what it is, how it's built, and how to handle it. And you can fuel it up immediately before deployment, so storage leaks are a minute possibility.

[THe_rEaL_dEaL]

Sorry to be so blindly stupid and dense but what the hell does HTH stand for?
I've looked all over this topic but cant find anything?
Its late and I'm tired so I need retard help. :(
Thanks (along with your insults at my slowness :p )

(High Test Hypochlorite, retard. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> :p NBK)

*(Thanks NBK)*

<small>[ January 21, 2003, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: THe_rEaL_dEaL ]</small>

[Maniak]

Hi everybody,
I want to try small special FAE: 50g of dynamite with 10%Al under 200g of mixture 80% aceton + 10-20% methylnitrate (MYROL). I think, that dispersed/evaporated methylnitrate will easy detonate powerfull from flame of dynamite. It can iniciate dispersed/evaporated acetone and it will detonate too with very good power...
what do you think about it?
sorry, my English is bad...

[zeocrash]

how about using a fire extinguisher type arangment, where the FAE is pushed out by a gas, but instead od air or CO₂ how about using something like phosphine, the phosphine is fine, until all the fuel is sprayed, then the phosphine comes in contact with the air and ignites
you could probably rig up a system to pressureise phosphine in to a fire extinguisher, see topic battlefield chemistry - pressurisation of gas.
just a thought

[1337bomber]

Through an unfortunate mishap at my friend's farm, I found out that KMnO4 ignites when ethylene glycol (antifreeze) is added to it, quite similar to when glycerin is added to KMnO4.
When I found this out I began to play, and the average time for the reaction to start is about 25 seconds (this stayed constant in many different temps.)

[MrSamosa]

Does Phosphine reaction spontaneously with Air?? I know that it is a flammable, as well as poisonous gas, but I also know that it is used as a fumigant insecticde...

What I am interested in, though, are the ideas of "Enhanced Blast Munitions," and the "slurry explosives." What slurry explosives are are High Explosives combined with some flammable and volatile substance. Unlike normal FAE's, which don't usually kill by the shockwave (unless I'm mistaken...), Slurry Explosives DO kill largely through shockwave. I really like the idea of a powerful blast wave, and then the subsequent vacuum which it creates. I can't see a cloud of Kerosene doing that. Similarly, I have my doubts about Pyrophoric Ignition as well... indeed it will ignite the entire cloud at the same and proper time, but will it produce the shockwave + vacuum which I so want to see? :confused:

What I want to know about such Slurry Explosives is how to spread the material without detonating the explosive itself? I realize that the fire-extinguisher setup could work, but that seems a bit more difficult :( .

[Sparky]

On page 149 of The 13th Element, it says this:
"As the gas escaped from his apparatus it immediately caught fire and, while the gas is predominantly phosphane,* which is not of itself spontaneously flammable, it also contains a little of a second gas, diphosphane, which is. It was the diphosphane which caused the gas emerging from Gengembre's reaction vessel to burst into flames."

BTW the "apparatus" was phosphorous and potassium hydroxide being heated, and leading the fumes out through a tube.

[MrSamosa]

Being relatively new to the Explosives field, I am having trouble understanding something about Fuel/Air Explosions.

People frequently refer to clouds "detonating" or "deflagrating." I thought that only true Explosives could "detonate," or have their bonds broken by a powerful shock; while so-called "Low Explosives" and Flammables, such as Ethylene Oxide, which is commonly used in FAE's, simply deflagrate or Oxidize...

But here it is, people are referring to detonating Ethylene Oxide? Is the fuel having its bonds broken by the powerful initiating charge? Or is it deflagrating very quickly? :confused:

[Anthony]

A dispersed fuel cloud can either deflagerate, as you say, but can also detonate in the true sense of the word.

Obviously, the fuel must be capable detonation and a detonator/booster is required rather just an ignition.

Imagine a cloud of atomised nitromethane, in the right mixture with air, it could deflagerate, or given a powerful detonator, it could detonate just like it would in a container.

Another way to imagine it is to take a finely powdered secondary HE like PETN, in a dispersed cloud it would be a detonating FAE.

[0EZ0]

Well shit. I almost finished a reply that took me 2 and a half hours to write, and the bloody computer froze!

The reply was for MrSamosa, explaining the mechanics of an FAE. Since this comp is pissing me off I'll only write a shortish' part on what I was trying to explain.

In an FAE a finely divided fuel (combustable solid/liquid) is dispersed in air. Air being predominately O2, has oxidising potential. FAE's take advantage of that and use the O2 in air to oxidise the fuel. O2 is used similarly to an oxidiser in a fuel oxidiser mix, eg. KClO4+Al. In the same way, the oxidiser needs to be in right proportion with the fuel for maximum efficiancy. For maximum efficiancy in an FAE, the Fuel to Air ratio has to be as close as possible to perfect oxygen balance. The closer to 0%, the higher the perfomance of combustion.

Since an FAE is basically a Fuel-Oxidiser cloud, it has a potential to combust at a higher rate than solid F/O mixes. Similarly, a fluffing agent is used in some fireworks powders to reduce density and increase burn rate. The density of gases/clouds is much lower than solids, thus the front of combustion disperses more quickly in a cloud than in a pile of powder.
In an extreme case if a fuel was dispersed in gaseous O2 instead of a solid oxidiser, the increase of combustion from deflagration may be enough to bump it up to detonation.

A personal theory in which a Fuel dispersed in O2 would have a higher potential cumbustion rate (note: not said as either detonation or deflagration), is that the O2 is already available. Instead of in a solid oxidiser, eg. KNO3, in which the O2 is only released from it when it's bonds break down.
So the time lapse in between the oxidiser freeing it's oxygen and donating it to combustion is higher than in free O2 where it is already available with no release required.

But that is getting onto something else. I'm also someone could easily disprove my theory, as i'm not that experienced in the fields of Pyrotechny/Explosive Science.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> People frequently refer to clouds "detonating" or "deflagrating." I thought that only true Explosives could "detonate," or have their bonds broken by a powerful shock; while so-called "Low Explosives" and Flammables, such as Ethylene Oxide, which is commonly used in FAE's, simply deflagrate or Oxidize...

But here it is, people are referring to detonating Ethylene Oxide? Is the fuel having its bonds broken by the powerful initiating charge? Or is it deflagrating very quickly? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">To try and answer the question of whether an FAE 'Detonates' or 'Deflagrates', I can only say that it varies from case to case as the disired effect/use of an FAE is not necessarily the same all through. Same with the components used in them. They vary so much that no set answer is available for the collection of cases, only individually can they be assessed.

If an FAE was classified only to detonate, not deflagrate, maybe the discoverers should have included D for detonation instead of E for explosion in the abbreviation. I have found no information on whether an FAE only Detonates, or it only Deflagrates. That is an answer in itself. FAE being a term for a collection/group of different 'Explosions'. Not just a single case.

One could easily call some types of gasoline fireballs to be an FAE's. In the same context so could a blasting cap initiated cloud containing Ethylene Oxide. It is hard to determine the appropriate answer. More specific information is needed. Eg. does this Cloud containing Ethylene Oxide have anything else used with it? Is it used as the fuel? Or is it used in conjunction with the Fuel?

So if one were to seek knowledge on specific type of FAE, eg. one that uses propylene oxide, using specifics such as listing the components, then an appropriate answer could be given.

Here is a site that explains in some detail about FAE's:

<a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm</a>

I think that is enough of my rambling in that area. I hope it was relevant to the topic :( .

As for combining the use of auto ignition into FAE's, it seems quite an idea. The appropriate precursors need to be sifted through to determine the best combination of fuels.
Assuming when the fuels combine they ignite, causing enough of a reaction to get an FAE going.

My knowledge is quite limited in the areas of auto ignition. I would have no idea what two components you would use to ignite the FAE. But consider in an FAE, all the components must be balanced to near perfect oxygen balance for maximum performance. What I worry is that the ratios in which the two igniting fuels are used for OB, may not combine to cause sufficient reliable ignition.

I hope some other members can offer information as to how a chemically ignited FAE could be constructed, as some have already.

Good luck to you :) .

(Edit: I understand that other members have also posted some of the things that I have just written. I was just trying to go into greater depth to explain for some of the others.)

<small>[ January 27, 2003, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: 0EZ0 ]</small>

[ALENGOSVIG1]

US patent 4,463,680 looks interesting. A synth for ferrocene can be found on orgsyn.

[Observer]

.

<small>[ March 18, 2003, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Observer ]</small>

[Observer]

.

<small>[ March 18, 2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Observer ]</small>

[MrSamosa]

Continuing on the idea of points of initiation in an FAE...

<img src="http://www.geocities.com/hammsterr/media/OutIgFAE.jpg" alt=" - " />

I was playing with a pot of water the other day, tapping the sides and watching the waves progress to the center, reach a point, and then move back out to the sides. Then I thought about how this "model" could be applied to an FAE. I'm not sure if this is a good model for FAE's, but here we go anyway.

I have divided an FAE explosion, ignited pyrophorically from the outside (as would be the case if the pyrophoric material were closest to the edge of the container when the burster charge went off) of the cloud, into 4 stages as you see from the picture. Now, if the fuel is in the proper mixture with air, the fireball should proceed quite quickly inward, possibly even detonating. As the waves intersect at the center, they then spread out again, perhaps more powerfully because of the resulting vacuum created by the burnt fuel. Does this sound logical, or am I not taking some odd detail into account?

EDIT: Finally got the pictures to show :D

<small>[ February 25, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: MrSamosa ]</small>

[Observer]

.

<small>[ March 18, 2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Observer ]</small>

[MrSamosa]

If I could show you the picture (Damn 50Megs.com - they used to be wonderful, but now they've slowly been going down the toilet...can't fix the links now, because of various issues :( ), I could illustrate better what I mean.

I do not mean simply to create (in my model, of course <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) simply an implosion; rather it would be a "Two Stage" event, the first half being the burning of the reactants, with the flame front moving towards the center. As the flame fronts/detonation waves (should the fuel be detonating...) reach the center, ideally at the same time, they will interact and then move outward; this would be the second half- the explosion. I was theorizing that the explosion would be more powerful because the burnt fuel would create a vacuum outside of the new flame front.

Getting the fuel to make the transition from deflagration to detonation does not seem to be too difficult, provided that the fuel is in its proper ratio with air and that the ignition is rapid enough. A sufficient amount of Pyrophoric Material should provide a rapid ignition. Highly reactive fuels (Acetylene, Ethylene, Hydrogen, etc.) would be necessary so that the fuel makes the jump to a Detonation over a shorter area.

I still may not be understanding quite what you are saying, Observer, so please correct me where I am wrong :) .

[Sparky]

The picture works fine for me in both Mozilla and IE. But I don't understand how you figure that the cloud will detonate/deflagrate in that fashion. What makes you think there will be four shockwaves around the circle in the last stage? Why four? Why would they change to become a circle in the middle? What do the dotted lines in the last stage mean? If there was a computer similation or if you could get some reason to believe that the cloud would behave in the described fashion, then I would be more likely to believe it.

Or maybe I just don't understand the diagram <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .

<small>[ February 24, 2003, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Sparky ]</small>

[Mr Cool]

He does not literally mean that there would be four, it is an arbitrary number chosen to illustrate the point.
At the centre, the flame/wave fronts from many ignition points around the circumference would effectively combine into one circular (rather, spherical) front moving inwards.

I would speculate that DDT would be more likely in this configuration, with a converging reaction zone. Could be wrong though.

<small>[ February 24, 2003, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Mr Cool ]</small>

[MrSamosa]

Today, in my High School General Chemistry Class, we did an interesting lab... We burnt Hydrogen and Oxygen together to create water. Nothing spectacular, but let me explain:

The procedure was as follows:

-H2O2 + KI were reacted in a syringe to form Oxygen
-HCl + Mg were reacted in a syringe to form Hydrogen
-The two syringes were attatched to each other and the Oxygen was moved to the Hydrogen Syringe (in the stoichiometric ratios)
-The syringe was emptied into a Petri dish of soap, and the bubble ignited.

One group seemed to get a perfect mixture, and if I didn't know better, I'd say their Hydrogen/Oxygen mixture actually detonated: Loud pop, extremely fast burn, and the Petri dish was hurled some distance away! My partner and I didn't get any spectacular results :( .

Nevertheless, this goes to show the practicality of the suggestion of an Oxy/Acetylene mixture in Polyvinyl Alcohol brought up in another thread which I cannot remember(Bubble Mix!), especially considering that Acetylene makes DDT (not thinking- is this the right Acronym? Or am I just talking about pesticides =P) much more readily than Hydrogen. Also, Acetylene's Explosive Limits are much more wide than those of Hydrogen (somewhere in the area of 15-80%). Has anyone gotten a chance to try this yet?