"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in message ...
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , John Woodgate wrote:
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?

No I don't. I expect it to be more per mole and less per gram than HF.

I do have a figure for RbF, 133.31 KCal/mole, 1.276 KCal/gram.

But another one that ranks high per gram is Al2O3.
That one gets 389..49 KCal per mole, 3.818 KCal per gram, and 2.45% more
if you get it to be corundum crystal rather than amorphous powder.

B2O3 gets 279.81 KCal per mole, 3.886 KCal per gram.

I think BeO is also up there, probably even more per gram, but I do not
have that figure. I suspect it is the champ in energy per gram of
reactants, and misremembered by one element in the same column since
MgO is not the champ after all.

I suspect the champ is something like a mix of liquid ozone with liquid
acetylene.
Try it and report back.

Not an experiment I'd recommend. Acetylene is thermally unstable, and
cylinders of compressed acetylene contain kieselguhr

http://www.nobel.se/nobel/alfred-nob...ieselguhr.html

for exactly the same reason that nitroglycerine is only commercially
available adsorbed onto kieselguhr.

Ozone is is also thermally unstable, and I don't think that it is
commercially available at all (with or without kieselguhr).

Mixing liquid acetylene and liquid ozone could produce a very loud
report - a mixture of charcoal and liquid oxygen used to be used as a
commercial explosive.

Pure hydrogen peroxide is another nasty liquid - the British, and more
recently, the Russians have had cause to regret using it as a torpedo
fuel.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman
wrote (in ) about 'CB
Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Wed, 24 Mar 2004:

Not an experiment I'd recommend. Acetylene is thermally unstable, and
cylinders of compressed acetylene contain kieselguhr

http://www.nobel.se/nobel/alfred-nob...kieselguhr.htm
l

for exactly the same reason that nitroglycerine is only commercially
available adsorbed onto kieselguhr.

Ozone is is also thermally unstable, and I don't think that it is
commercially available at all (with or without kieselguhr).

There have always been macho physicists and chemists who wanted to push
the envelope of risky experiments; Moissan, for example, who made
diamonds (not very good ones) by quenching white-hot hollow iron ingots
with carbon inside. Who was it who first produced titanium metal from
the oxide with the aid of potassium vapour?

Ozone has certainly been liquefied: it is a very deep blue, almost
black. Acetylene can't be liquefied at atmospheric pressu the solid
sublimes (turns to gas) at -84 C.

Mixing liquid acetylene and liquid ozone could produce a very loud
report -

Particularly as it would have to be done in a pressure vessel!

a mixture of charcoal and liquid oxygen used to be used as a
commercial explosive.

Pure hydrogen peroxide is another nasty liquid - the British, and more
recently, the Russians have had cause to regret using it as a torpedo
fuel.

Was the British torpedo fuel *pure* H2O2? It would seem at first sight
unnecessary.
--
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

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
m...

Mixing liquid acetylene and liquid ozone could produce a very loud
report - a mixture of charcoal and liquid oxygen used to be used as a
commercial explosive.

I remember the lox-barbecue page (which unfortunately seems to have been
taken down) warned against soaking the charcoal briquets in the liquid
oxygen.

"The people in charge have requested this web site be removed"

In article ,
(John Michael Williams) wrote:

but what would happen is that the uncombusted atoms
of the TNT would be just accelerated away by the shock
of detonation.

Eventually, they might be combusted, but not as part of
the detonation. So, their combustion energy contribution
isn't counted as part of the explosion.

The above is just plain NONSENSE. When TNT Detonates, it is the
detonation wave front that causes the cyclic ring of tolulene to
break and release the bonding energy of the molecule. The detonation
wave front is traveling faster than the the molecules can move on their
own, so they don't move, they just get slammed by the detonation wave.
There is a GIANT difference between combustion and detonation. TNT
does NOT combust when it decomposes in a detonation.

Bruce in alaska
--
add a 2 before @

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:18:55 -0800, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Unil the terrorists get nukes, then there will be no Jerusalem.
It is as predictable as a TTL timer, only one outcome possible.
It is probably far to late for Israel to change that outcome.

Jerusalem is probably the only city in the region that _isn't_ a potential
nuke target. Too many sites sacred to both sides.

Terry Given wrote:
Why do you feel it necessary to abuse everyone with whom you disagree?

For exactly the same reason the posts are anonymous?
--
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! =-----

NOTICE: After reading an "off-topic" complaint from one of the antenna
guys, I started replying with rec.radio.amateur.antenna deleted
from the Send To list.

This doesn't work if you bookmark this thread: Google
recovers the bookmark by FIRST group in a list; thus,
you don't see posts with the first group missing unless
you search in one of the other groups.

Worse, even if you search and read under one of the other
groups, if you bookmark there, you get the thread under antenna,
with other postings in the thread missing.

Sorry, antenna guy, I tried, but
I want to be sure this one gets seen.

Bruce in Alaska wrote in message ...

In article ,
(John Michael Williams) wrote:


but what would happen is that the uncombusted atoms
of the TNT would be just accelerated away by the shock
of detonation.

Eventually, they might be combusted, but not as part of
the detonation. So, their combustion energy contribution
isn't counted as part of the explosion.


The above is just plain NONSENSE.

You are exaggerating.

When TNT Detonates, it is the
detonation wave front that causes the cyclic ring of tolulene to
break and release the bonding energy of the molecule. The detonation
wave front is traveling faster than the the molecules can move on their
own, so they don't move, they just get slammed by the detonation wave.

OK. Maybe here you are not exaggerating.

Detonation creates a SHOCK, not a "wave"; a wave is
a cyclic vibration at or below the speed of sound
(disregarding electromagnetic waves).
A detonation is an aerodynamic (or, if you prefer,
hydrodynamic) process, not a "wave", and it
exceeds the speed of sound. Typical shock speeds for a
solid high explosive are over 9 km/s, whereas the speed
of sound in the fastest solid (e. g., carbonate rock)
is below 7 km/s. In a typical solid high explosive, sound
speed would be under 3 km/s. In nitroglycerine, it would
be under 2 km/s.

Your criticism doesn't make sense to me: If there is a
SHOCK (I assume you are referring to bonding electrons?)
it will transfer momentum to atoms in its path, and each
in just one direction, depending on the location of the
first energy-yielding bond. Each atom will be accelerated
in one direction (ignoring subsequent collisions).

I agree the shock will progress
faster than the atoms, but the atoms will be accelerated.

What are these atoms? They are the atoms, or if you prefer,
small molecules, NOT combusted as well as others not detonated,
and some previously detonated. They will move in all directions
away from their original locations. The heat liberated by the
detonation reaction, if nothing else, will have accelerated
them to high speeds.

If you think about it, that's what I wrote above.


There is a GIANT difference between combustion and detonation. TNT
does NOT combust when it decomposes in a detonation.

Bruce in alaska


I didn't say anything inconsistent with that, did I?

John

John Michael Williams

I read in sci.electronics.design that maxfoo maxfooHeadFromButt@punkass
..com wrote (in ) about
'Cellphones and Bombs', on Wed, 24 Mar 2004:
a dirty nuke wouldn't physically damage any sacred sites. just
contaminate the area for thousands of years so no one could live there.

Sounds like a possible solution, maybe extended to all the disputed
territories. As long as they were evacuated before the event. If no-one
can live there, no-one can encroach on others' areas.

Not meant seriously.
--
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

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:Fnh8c.1267$Q45.417@fed1read02...

I remember the lox-barbecue page (which unfortunately seems to have
been
taken down) warned against soaking the charcoal briquets in the
liquid
oxygen.

"The people in charge have requested this web site be removed"

That's a shame - I thought it was a good example of there still being
a sense of adventure out there.

regards
Ian

;-)

Bruce in Alaska wrote in message ...
In article ,
(John Michael Williams) wrote:

but what would happen is that the uncombusted atoms
of the TNT would be just accelerated away by the shock
of detonation.

Eventually, they might be combusted, but not as part of
the detonation. So, their combustion energy contribution
isn't counted as part of the explosion.

The above is just plain NONSENSE.

Not true.

When TNT Detonates, it is the
detonation wave front that causes the cyclic ring of tolulene to
break and release the bonding energy of the molecule.

It isn't the "detonation wave front" that disrupts the
tri-nitrotoluene molecule, but the local heating. The detonation wave
front is just another consequence of the local heating.

The detonation
wave front is traveling faster than the the molecules can move on their
own, so they don't move, they just get slammed by the detonation wave.

They actually get heated by the heat radiated from the ignition point
(which travels at the speed of light), as well as by the impact of the
molecules heated up at the initial ignition point.

The detonation wave front is a "supersonic shock wave" which is to say
it is moving exactly as fast as molecules can move on their own,
because it consists of the energetic molecules produced by the
rearrangement of tri-nitrotoluene into water, carbon monoxide, carbon
and nitrogen.

There is a GIANT difference between combustion and detonation. TNT
does NOT combust when it decomposes in a detonation.

There certainly is a giant difference between combustion and
detonation. The carbon monoxide and the carbon particles produced by a
detonation may well react with atmospheric oxygen after the
detonation, but this is a much slower process and doesn't add much to
the damage produced by the initial blast.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen