DarkMatter wrote:
First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I
think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable.

If one arranged the TNT into a fuse, how fast would it burn?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Klipstein
wrote (in ) about 'CB Radios,
Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Tue, 23 Mar 2004:
That one is up there, but let's check heat of formation...

HF gas: 63.991 KCal/mole, 3.19955 KCal/gram

MgO: 145.76 KCal/mole, 3.644 KCal/gram, but with no gaseous output.

Do you have the figures for CsF?

DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME.(;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

I read in sci.electronics.design that Cecil Moore
EDOT.org wrote (in ) about 'CB Radios,
Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Tue, 23 Mar 2004:
John Michael Williams wrote:
I share this skepticism. Burning TNT probably would produce 10x more
free energy than detonating it.

When you detonate it, what happens to the 90% lost energy?
Fails to actually detonate?

Sort of. Bill S more or less explained it further up the thread. When it
detonates, it all happens so quickly that only it's on-board oxygen (in
the nitrate groups) is available. So the oxidation is imperfect, and not
all the available energy is released. You get free carbon, carbon
monoxide, oxidized organic residues and nitrogen. When it burns, using
atmospheric oxygen as well, you get carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen -
all the available energy is released.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

In article ,
DarkMatter wrote:

First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I
think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable.

That guy's empty skull cavity has a lot of free space in it.

TNT burns just like Sterno. In WWII and Vietnam TNT was used to cook on
just like the Sterno can's were. It is very stable in this decomasition
mode. One can shot it with rifles while burning and it just continues
to burn. Been there, done that, many times.....

Bruce in alaska who also has decomposed TNT the FAST way as well.....
--
add a 2 before @

On 23-Mar-2004, Bruce in Alaska wrote:

In article ,
DarkMatter wrote:

First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I
think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable.

That guy's empty skull cavity has a lot of free space in it.

TNT burns just like Sterno. In WWII and Vietnam TNT was used to cook on
just like the Sterno can's were. It is very stable in this decomasition
mode. One can shot it with rifles while burning and it just continues
to burn. Been there, done that, many times.....

Bruce in alaska who also has decomposed TNT the FAST way as well.....
--
add a 2 before @

While the thread might be interesting to some readers, and granted that the original topic had
something to do with arcing associated with antennas, the discussion of explosives is very off-topic
for rec.radio.amateur.antenna. It might be appreciated if the cross-posting came to an end.
Thank you.

Cecil Moore wrote:


When you detonate it, what happens to the 90% lost energy?
Fails to actually detonate?

Cecil, we can have fun with this! Isn't the missing energy is exciting
a 1/2 wavelength impedance repeater :-)

DarkMatter says...

First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I
think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable.

You are thinking of low explosives (gunpowder is a good example).
Low explosives burn rapidly - fast enough to explode if confined.
High explosives are detonated as a shock wave propagates through
them, as opposed to low explosives which are detonated as a flame
front propagates through them, There is no reason why one couldn't
burn a high explosive and get a low burning rate.


--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

Ken Fowler says...

While the thread might be interesting to some readers, and granted that the original topic had
something to do with arcing associated with antennas, the discussion of explosives is very off-topic
for rec.radio.amateur.antenna. It might be appreciated if the cross-posting came to an end.
Thank you.

Point well taken. It's off-topic in sci.electronics.basics as well.
I apologize for participating.


--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

(Bill Sloman) wrote in message . com...
(John Michael Williams) wrote in message . com...
...

I share this skepticism. Burning TNT probably would produce 10x more
free energy than detonating it.

Trinitrotoluene is C7H5N3O6 and would burn to 7 CO2 molecules, 2.5 H2O
molecules and 1.5 N2 molecules - for which you'd need 10.5 extra
oxygen atoms, over and above the six oxygen atoms available in the
original TNT molecule.

Being simple-minded about it, 16.5/6 is 2.75, not ten, and that
exaggerates the advantage, because burning carbon to carbon monoxide
release quite a lot more energy than burning carbon monoxide to carbon
dioxide, which is where you use up seven of your extra 10.5 oxygen
atoms.

Right, letting the N_3O_6 drop out as nitrogen dioxide,
7*CO_2 + 2.5*H_2O is just 16.5. However, detonation
might not even produce the nitrogen dioxide, and it
might lose energy by producing NO instead of dioxide.
So I'm not sure where the 6 comes from.

Also, the energy from C+O_2 would be much lower than that
from the H_2+O, per O, I think, but I'm not sure how
well defined the combustion process is, that is being
assumed. I think, if detonation in air also entailed
complete combustion, then detonation would
produce the same energy as would direct combustion.

You mentioned something earlier about atomic hydrogen: I
am not sure about this, because combination to H_2 would
just be creation of one covalent bond. Can you explain
further?


The exact amounts of energy involved are all available in the open
literature - that is where I found them, some thirty years ago, and
I'm sure that they are still available now.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John

John Michael Williams

"DarkMatter" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:50:00 -0600, Cecil Moore
Gave us:

John Michael Williams wrote:
First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I
think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable.

I've heard more than one ex-Grunt talk about burning C3 to
warm his army chow. Apparently it burns slow without a detonator.
Don't know if trinitrotoluene (hope I spelled it right) can be used
that way.

HWB