How powerful are explosives?

[gribbon]

Hi there....

 

I'm interested to know....how powerful are conventional explosives? I tried looking this up, but I can't really find the names of the explosives, and my level of understanding is very basic....

 

 

what's the most powerful conventional explosive? How manytimes more powerful is it than gunpowder? What diameter would its explosion be if you were to use 1 gram?

[CraigD]

....how powerful are conventional explosives?

By conventional standard, a gram of TNT releases 4184 joules of energy when it explodes. As a rule of thumb, most safe-to-handle conventional explosives have about this same energy/mass “energy density”.

 

“Power” is defined as energy / time, so for an explosive to be powerful, it must not only release energy, but do it quickly.

 

Explosives usually have a lower energy density than other fuels – gas or kerosene has about 10 times the energy density of TNT, while even ordinary wood has about 4 times as much. What sets explosives apart from fuel is that they can release their energy quickly without the help of much of a devices, and typically contain their own oxygen – if you’re willing to make a suitable oxygen-filled container, you can actually make a huge explosions using coal dust, or even dried wheat flour.

what's the most powerful conventional explosive?

I don’t know what’s most powerful. I think that the H-6 explosive used in the US’s GBU-43 “mother of all bombs”, is one of the most powerful. H-6, which requires oxygen, is about 1.35 times as powerful as TNT

What diameter would its explosion be if you were to use 1 gram?

It depends a lot on what you mean by “diameter of explosion”. A small explosive charge that propels many small projectiles can be dangerous when detonated a long distance away, while a very large explosion may actually be not very dangerous at its center. The question depends on how the complete explosive device is built, and what you want it to do.

[Jay-qu]

You seem to know a little to much about explosives craig :(

[HydrogenBond]

Googling for explosives can raise red flags in the eyes of Homeland security.

 

Explosives produce extremely fast chain reactions, often with a wide range of radicals leading to many paths that produce the same products. For example TNT or tri-nitro-tolulene has three nitrate groups (NO3) that supply oxygen to the central tolulene, as this backbone of TNT breaks apart and combines with oxygen radicals. The oxygen is nice and close, as well as in good proportion, making the chain reaction occur quickly and efficienctly as the explosion propagates. The result is a fast bang.

[gribbon]

Googling for explosives can raise red flags in the eyes of Homeland security.

 

 

Probably not a good idea....but, I'm a 14 year old kid. Don't forget that. I'm sure you'll find it quite unlikely that I'm a terrorist....Somehow, it seems just abit unrealistic...:) ...I think you must all be getting paranoid....

[Turtle]

Googling for explosives can raise red flags in the eyes of Homeland security.

 

 

Probably not a good idea....but, I'm a 14 year old kid. Don't forget that. I'm sure you'll find it quite unlikely that I'm a terrorist....Somehow, it seems just abit unrealistic...:esheriff: ...I think you must all be getting paranoid....

 

The Feds could care less who you are, or how old, but if you get on their list they'll make a point of finding out. Many "children" your age are frequently prosecuted as adults for serious crimes.

If you have some legitimate question here for a school project, then be specific; otherwise, stay away from explosives. :phones:

[Boerseun]

Like Craig said, the oomph in explosives are solely contributable to their burning speed. This also explains the noise they make - they're actually burning so fast that the rapid expansion from the chemical reaction breaks the sound barrier. Average run-of-the-mill explosives (for instance those used in mines) aren't anything special when it comes to explosives, but they burn at a rate of a few thousand meters per second. Also, they have to contain their own oxydizer, because without it, the only oxydizer available would be atmospheric oxygen which only contacts the outside of the explosive - the inside won't burn at all. Killer explosives could be made by anybody using off-the-shelf products, and because of that, I will say no more lest I cost you a finger or three.

 

But then, educating kids about sex because they're gonna have it anyway, prompts me to say that regardless of the legality of it, or what Homeland Security might have to say about it, whatever you do - STAY AWAY FROM GLASS BOTTLES!!! That's just plain dumb. Matter of fact, if you want to make anything that goes boom, you probably will. But don't contain your mix, unless you've got a Blaster's Certificate or you want to be known as 'lefty' for the rest of your life.

[Turtle]

Like Craig said, the oomph in explosives are solely contributable to their burning speed.

 

 

That is not quite the case, but if I told you why I'd have to blow you up. :esheriff: :phones:

[ronthepon]

There's also the factor of large amounts of gas suddenly being produced in the explosion, leading to very high pressures and enormous amounts of force applied on nearby objects.

 

That's what makes nitro so dangerous as an explosive. Enormous amounts of nitrogen are produced, and the instantaneous pressures are phenomenal.

 

Also note that terrorist or not, it is suspicious to monkey with explosives. Ask me, I've visited the police station for trying to make fizz bombs.

[gribbon]

Okay sorry about that...there's no need to get aggressive...you do have a point...I shouldn't be asking about such sensitive topics....Let's just drop it...

 

...and can someone please lock this topic, please...

[Jay-qu]

Its ok, no one was been aggressive, maybe slightly firm, there is no need to close the topic.

[alexander]

here is one of my posts on the subject with an interesting link to bibliography. when i have time, i will post more on conventional explosives and their power, but for now, there are more powerful explosives then H-6, as demonstrated HMX is 1.55 times more powerful then TNT

anyways read: http://hypography.com/forums/137072-post44.html

[EWright]

I've heard NASA has concerns about the explosive affects of soy and sweet potatoes - two foods that astronauts could more easily cultivate on mars if they ever establish a human presense there. Apparently the affects are pretty explosive though, if you know what I mean. That's gotta be pretty bad though. I mean, when you have a whole planet to yourselves you'd think you could break off a little wind without affecting the atomosphere too excessively! :naughty:

[quadrapod]

sorry im not a metric kind of guy

 

the diameter of the explosion is a very hard thing to pin point. if you are talking about moderate air disturbances. because as far as blast radius goes you have reached the limit of the blast when you cant hear it. as far a the radius of visible light (this fireball so to speak) is concerned you most likely wont find any at all on higher grade explosives. only low velocity explosives have a fire ball and for one gram of a substance is concerned i hear if one gram of vaporized gasoline is compressed to 250 psi you may get a visible ball of light as big as 6 meters in diameter.

 

FACT: 1 bucket of water can coat 105 miles of land with 50 feet of fog..

[IDMclean]

Slight correction:

is not Power = energy per distance?

[math]F = \frac{W} {d}[/math]

[math]W = \int_C F \cdot d s[/math]

[quadrapod]

thanks clown i see now. instead of work and time its energy and distance thanks i now see how i was wrong

[CraigD]

Slight correction:

is not Power = energy per distance?

[math]F = \frac{W} {d}[/math]

[math]W = \int_C F \cdot d s[/math]

No. In physics, power = work/time. As you correctly note, Work = force * distance.

instead of work and time its energy and distance thanks i now see how i was wrong

Energy and work are related concepts, sharing the same units. The usual description of the relationship of energy, power, and work is that energy is a measurement of a system’s potential to perform work, while power is the rate the work is done.

 

A handy ‘3x5” card” summary of the quantities and a few basic equations of mechanics looks like:

 

Fundamental quantities:

 

[math]D[/math] (distance)

 

[math]T[/math] (time)

 

[math]M[/math] (mass)

 

Basic equations (derived quantities):

 

[math]V[/math] (velocity) [math] = \frac{\Delta D}{\Delta T}[/math]

 

[math]A[/math] (acceleration) [math] = \frac{\Delta V}{\Delta T}[/math]

 

[math]F[/math] (force) [math] = M \cdot A[/math]

 

[math]W[/math] (work, or energy) [math] = F \cdot \Delta D[/math]

 

[math]P[/math] (power) [math] = \frac{W}{\Delta T}[/math]

 

Where [math]\Delta[/math] means “change in”.

 

An beautiful and elegant feature of “classical” mechanics is that its fundamentals can be written so compactly. Attempting to write all the physics you know in as compact a manner is a good learning exercise.