Log in

View Full Version : Fuel Air Explosive Test *and ongoing tests*


Pages : [1] 2

NameWithheld
April 14th, 2009, 11:00 AM
Fluoroantimonic and NameWithheld Present...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xquGETNoRms

2 liters fuel in a standard soda bottle, 23% Isopropyl Nitrite, 23% Diethyl Ether, 54% Heptane

Approx 1.2 meter standoff at 1 meter elevation over hard packed snow.

0.080 second delay between burster and initiator.

Captured at normal speed with sound, and 600fps.

Future tests eventually, scaled up. I'll not promise any time for certain, as things always take longer than expected.

Future blasts will test various delays and initiation setups, including multiple initiating charges.

Loveofchaos
April 14th, 2009, 07:29 PM
Future tests eventually, scaled up. I'll not promise any time for certain, as things always take longer than expected.

Future blasts will test various delays and initiation setups, including multiple initiating charges.

Is it possible that in the future tests some sort of dummy can be set up a couple of meters away? That way we can get some sort of idea of the power.

I thoroughly enjoyed the video.

Keep it up!:D

00mick00
April 14th, 2009, 09:31 PM
I have just been reading about F.A.E (http://www.scribd.com/doc/14233072/Anarchy-and-Terrorism-Bible-). and it seems to be cheap and effective though I am not sure if it is safe so I am eagerly awaiting test results and searching out more information before I put my life on the line experimenting with F.A.E. myself.

Test of 5 tons of propane. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1T19yHcTas) carryed out in Berlin 1999. :D(Enjoy).....

-=HeX=-
April 16th, 2009, 05:13 PM
NameWitheld and FlouroAntimonic: EPIC. ABSOLUTELY EPIC. Mind explaining how you got the timing perfect? What was the burster and initiator? What were the blasting caps like?

00mick00
April 16th, 2009, 05:14 PM
I just dug up this information on fuels.

Hears some tested fuel mixes suitable for F.A.E.
I would suggest acetone 20L
I am interested in the test photos and I am shore everyone else here is.

Fuel explosive limit background

Gasoline 1.3-7.6 tested for special purposes
Methane (natural gas) 5-15% usual accident
Propane 2-10% tested for military purposes
Ethylene oxide 3-80% used in blu-73
Propylene oxide 3.1-27.5% used in military bomb
Butylene oxide 1.5-18.3% tested for military purposes
Ethyl Alcohol 3-19% a good candidate for I.E.D
Acetone 3-13% a good candidate for I.E.D
Methanol 6-36% a good candidate for I.E.D
Hydrogen sulfide 4.5-45% a good candidate for I.E.D
Acetylene 3-82% a good candidate for I.E.D

Keep up the good work and please let us know of the results.

(I am double posting as it is to late to use the edit feature.)

NameWithheld
April 16th, 2009, 06:49 PM
Mind explaining how you got the timing perfect? What was the burster and initiator? What were the blasting caps like?

Radio transmitter with multiple channels, receivers programmed to specific channels (1 and 2). Transmitter set to send out signal on channel 1 at time X, channel 2 at time Y.

Dispersal charge pure recrystallized Erythritol Tetranitrate (ETN) powder in 11mm OD vinyl tubing, inside 12.7mm ID PVC pipe, inserted in the center of the fuel. Initiating charge was a small plastic bag of cast ETN.

Blasting caps were HMTD, connected to detcord.

SafetyLast
April 16th, 2009, 06:50 PM
That is a very impressive test. Would it be possible in the next series of testing to include various targets like some sort of human analog for example? I would really like to see what effects the FAE shockwave has upon organic targets at different ranges. A few structural effects tests would be nice too.

NameWithheld
April 16th, 2009, 07:36 PM
Would it be possible in the next series of testing to include various targets like some sort of human analog for example? A few structural effects tests would be nice too.

I checked with the local stores for prices on the Styrofoam models they use in the clothing sections... $120 bucks for a full body. Turns out they're so expensive up here since they pay for shipping all the way to Alaska...

So I could make a human cutout on plywood and then give it walls somehow, and line it with plastic and fill that with expanding foam, not sure what kind of foam to use... I'll figure something out, and how much it would cost.

A structural test would be nice, yes. Have a house up here I can blow up?

SafetyLast
April 17th, 2009, 12:55 AM
maybe Hilti expanding foam? Or make a sort of mold for ballistics gel.
Or skip that part and just use shockwatch stickers on plywood cutouts.

http://www.shockwatch.com/shipping_handling_monitors/impact_indicator/selection_guide.php#SWLabel

http://www.randmh.com/damage-control-system-shockwatch-red-20500/shipping-mailing-labels/?cid=F81100

I love these kinds of tests.

fluoroantimonic
April 19th, 2009, 07:40 PM
Due to the limited time available, we're tentatively planning on keeping it simple and using sheets of plywood and/or drywall at different distances for targets. I'm thinking it would be best to cut them into 2'x8' pieces and stand them vertically. That should give a good visual demonstration of the shock wave.. Maybe stand them at 20', 30', 50', and 100'?

Any other suggestions for targets? As long as its not too expensive or tons of work, we can probably do it.

mike-hunt
April 19th, 2009, 08:47 PM
Hears my suggestion for human analogs .
Go to your closest pig farm and ask for any pig corpses ,not fit for sale for human consumption."to feed your dogs"
The shock watch sticklers can be attached.
Personally I would love to see them in a video dressed in police uniforms .

00mick00
April 19th, 2009, 11:47 PM
I Found this on electronic timers for pyro displays (https://blastzone.com/pml/components.asp?groupid=18) and thought and it may be useful.

FUTI
April 22nd, 2009, 03:59 PM
nice info 00mick00. Based on your previous post I started wondering why didn't anyone tried to use acetylene dissolved in acetone for FAE (basically same thing that is inside the acetylene bottle minus diatomaceous earth or whatever filling is inside that bottle). I know that acetylene itself can't be pressurised safely as it is prone to selfdetonation through catastrofic polymerisation at certain point and that is why they add acetone as sovent that reduce that danger, but I never asked myself what is the purpose of that filling inside the bottle. Hm... it is time to g00gle around...

00mick00
April 23rd, 2009, 12:20 PM
I have asked a friend for more information on fae and the following link is to her reply.
FUEL AIR EXPLOSIVES PDF (http://www.scribd.com/doc/14565981/Answer-Forum?secret_password=ucsma0fsefjz8m9fmwh)
This friend has designed and built many FAE and I consider her a reliable and accurate source of information.

fluoroantimonic
April 23rd, 2009, 07:39 PM
If it took 50ms to burn your triethyl aluminum + gasoline cloud, it surely did not detonate. 50ms is like 10 times too slow for any powerful detonation.. Judging by the pictures, it was indeed a deflagration. I'm pretty sure if it was that easy (TEA is "easy" compared to liquid Fluorine usually used in single event FAE) to make a single event FAE, they wouldn't have been experimenting with the various crazy toxic catalysts for the past 30 years. As far as I know, they have yet to implement a successful single event FAE. And when/if they do, the catalysts and fuels will almost certainly be out of reach of the civilian.

There's nothing particularly unstable or dangerous about diethyl ether or isopropyl nitrite when mixed with other fuels. Though it is true that they become less economical on a large scale. Still, compared to the materials required to make an equivalent amount of ETN or similar, the price is good.

There should be no DDT involved with a two event FAE. The fuel cloud begins detonation instantly after being shocked by the initiator. The IPN and ether increase the sensitivity, vapor pressure, and upper/lower explosive ranges.

I still doubt methanol would make an effective fuel, show me proof.. and acetylene is good for sensitivity, but is, as far as I can tell, very impractical for most things.

So you're the fucker that spammed sciencemadness with your stupid little Kewl terrorist guide book. Most of your "terrorist designs" are worthless, barely better than Anarchist's Cookbook shit. I am not a terrorist, nor have any sympathy for anyone with terrorist or harmful intentions. I hope you are banned here promptly.

00mick00
April 23rd, 2009, 10:51 PM
As I was only responsible for writing some of the sections in the guide manly the parts on religion politics and smuggling and have little understanding of complex chemistry, can you point out any incorrect information and provide evidence of any mistakes instead of knocking the concept altogether.

I have never calmed to be a 'terrorist", or suggested any one here is though I will support any one who gets the job done.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

As for spamming science madness I was not personally responsible for that.

If anyone wants to ban me for speaking my mind then Then go ahead as Any forum that censors its members posts is not worth being a member of.

fluoroantimonic
April 24th, 2009, 12:55 AM
I'll leave that up to the mods. If they think you have something useful to contribute, I'll respect that.

So you're a friend of terrorists? Great. That's a lot better...

Why don't you go over to TOTSE or similar? There's a forum that doesn't "censor its members posts" and I'm sure you can see what great quality they have going there.

00mick00
April 24th, 2009, 01:46 PM
Here is some information for Any one interested in learning about FAE (http://www.scribd.com/doc/14587630/FAXFAE2)
also see here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/14565981/PORNO-FOR-PYROS?secret_password=ucsma0fsefjz8m9fmwh).This doc has been updated by an :mad:angry woman.

Telkor
April 24th, 2009, 04:42 PM
Fuel explosive limit background

Gasoline 1.3-7.6 tested for special purposes
Methane (natural gas) 5-15% usual accident
Propane 2-10% tested for military purposes
Ethylene oxide 3-80% used in blu-73
Propylene oxide 3.1-27.5% used in military bomb
Butylene oxide 1.5-18.3% tested for military purposes
Ethyl Alcohol 3-19% a good candidate for I.E.D
Acetone 3-13% a good candidate for I.E.D
Methanol 6-36% a good candidate for I.E.D
Hydrogen sulfide 4.5-45% a good candidate for I.E.D
Acetylene 3-82% a good candidate for I.E.D



Tert-Butyl hydroperoxide is another interesting substance, it is commonly used as additive to increase the cetane number of diesel fuel.
In fact, it's a strong oxidizer, but also works as fuel (both liquid and fume are explosive).
Hydroperoxides tend to decompose, but that's a minor problem, as the tert-Butanol forms explosive aerosol, too.

It is synthesised in aqueous solution, but can purified with Zeolite A (silica gel might work as well).

Nonetheless, TBHP has some severe drawbacks:

1. Corrosive, potentially blistering.
2. Sensitive to heat incompatible with many chemicals, including amines and many solvents.

fluoroantimonic
April 24th, 2009, 08:31 PM
This doc has been updated

Your response is only partially intelligible, but I'll try to respond.

1. Yes I have in fact read the DICE-FAE project. I guess your "50ms" number is kind of ambiguous. I initially though you meant the time from when the cloud began to ignite, to when it was fully ignited. In the DICE-FAE, that stage only took about 5ms. But then again, the way you worded it, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If all you want to do is knock down a building from the inside, gasoline would work fine.. I'm really only interested in getting a good detonation that will loft a shockwave a long way. What kind of shockwave did your gasoline test give? If there was a substantial shockwave produced, it should have raised a large amount of dust around the test area, and according the the picture, it did not.

2. Exactly. And I didn't mean exclusively F2, but highly reactive catalysts in general. And I know for a fact that F2, ClF3, Cl2, etc have been tested for single event FAEs, often with an inhibitor compound added to create a longer delay. Single event FAEs in general have not be used in the field at any time (to my knowledge). By my logic, why would they still be using 2 event ones if they found a way to get single event FAEs to work? So that leads me to believe that something like TEA will likely never result in more than a fast deflagration.

3. Not sure what you're saying here... If you mean ether and IPN are not practical, I disagree. IPN is especially useful. It's true you can't go to the store and buy it, but it is extremely easy and cheap to synthesize. I synthesized over 500ml in about 30 minutes with about $6 worth of materials.. And it makes a great sensitizer, nearly as good as n-propyl nitrate, while being far easier to make. Of course ethylene oxide would have worked well... You know how hard that shit is to get or make?

4. When contained in a building almost any fuel will work to knock it down.. Not interesting at all to me though. Take methane for example. It has a decent explosive range, so you might think it could be detonated right? Wrong. Even several kilos of RDX will not detonate it.. Explosive ranges and volitality aren't everything. I think the same goes for methanol. There is no carbon-carbon bond to break in methane or methanol, which makes them extremely hard to detonate.

5. You can't make "big bangs" but you're testing 20-10000 liter FAEs? Huh.. The scale has nothing to do with how well it works. Scaling up tests very far seems to be a waste of materials and money.

If you expect me to grovel to your grand superior FAE skillz, you are mistaken. But I will certainly consider what you have to say. It is nice to have other knowledgeable people to discuss this with.

And I wonder, if you're not an "amature" what are you? A professional? Somehow I doubt that. So what?